orthodoxy-第34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　I　want　to　know　in　what　they　were　superstitious；　the　only



ultimate　answer　is　that　they　believed　in　the　miracles。　　If　I　say　〃a



peasant　saw　a　ghost；〃　I　am　told；　〃But　peasants　are　so　credulous。〃　



If　I　ask；　〃Why　credulous？〃　the　only　answer　isthat　they　see　ghosts。　



Iceland　is　impossible　because　only　stupid　sailors　have　seen　it；



and　the　sailors　are　only　stupid　because　they　say　they　have　seen　Iceland。　



It　is　only　fair　to　add　that　there　is　another　argument　that　the



unbeliever　may　rationally　use　against　miracles；　though　he　himself



generally　forgets　to　use　it。







　　　　　He　may　say　that　there　has　been　in　many　miraculous　stories



a　notion　of　spiritual　preparation　and　acceptance：　　in　short；



that　the　miracle　could　only　come　to　him　who　believed　in　it。　



It　may　be　so；　and　if　it　is　so　how　are　we　to　test　it？　　If　we　are



inquiring　whether　certain　results　follow　faith；　it　is　useless



to　repeat　wearily　that　（if　they　happen）　they　do　follow　faith。　



If　faith　is　one　of　the　conditions；　those　without　faith　have　a



most　healthy　right　to　laugh。　　But　they　have　no　right　to　judge。　



Being　a　believer　may　be；　if　you　like；　as　bad　as　being　drunk；



still　if　we　were　extracting　psychological　facts　from　drunkards；



it　would　be　absurd　to　be　always　taunting　them　with　having　been　drunk。　



Suppose　we　were　investigating　whether　angry　men　really　saw　a　red



mist　before　their　eyes。　　Suppose　sixty　excellent　householders　swore



that　when　angry　they　had　seen　this　crimson　cloud：　　surely　it　would



be　absurd　to　answer　〃Oh；　but　you　admit　you　were　angry　at　the　time。〃　



They　might　reasonably　rejoin　（in　a　stentorian　chorus）；　〃How　the　blazes



could　we　discover；　without　being　angry；　whether　angry　people　see　red？〃　



So　the　saints　and　ascetics　might　rationally　reply；　〃Suppose　that　the



question　is　whether　believers　can　see　visionseven　then；　if　you



are　interested　in　visions　it　is　no　point　to　object　to　believers。〃　



You　are　still　arguing　in　a　circlein　that　old　mad　circle　with　which　this



book　began。







　　　　　The　question　of　whether　miracles　ever　occur　is　a　question　of



common　sense　and　of　ordinary　historical　imagination：　　not　of　any　final



physical　experiment。　　One　may　here　surely　dismiss　that　quite　brainless



piece　of　pedantry　which　talks　about　the　need　for　〃scientific　conditions〃



in　connection　with　alleged　spiritual　phenomena。　　If　we　are　asking



whether　a　dead　soul　can　communicate　with　a　living　it　is　ludicrous



to　insist　that　it　shall　be　under　conditions　in　which　no　two　living



souls　in　their　senses　would　seriously　communicate　with　each　other。　



The　fact　that　ghosts　prefer　darkness　no　more　disproves　the　existence



of　ghosts　than　the　fact　that　lovers　prefer　darkness　disproves　the



existence　of　love。　　If　you　choose　to　say；　〃I　will　believe　that　Miss



Brown　called　her　fiance　a　periwinkle　or；　any　other　endearing　term；



if　she　will　repeat　the　word　before　seventeen　psychologists；〃



then　I　shall　reply；　〃Very　well；　if　those　are　your　conditions；



you　will　never　get　the　truth；　for　she　certainly　will　not　say　it。〃　



It　is　just　as　unscientific　as　it　is　unphilosophical　to　be　surprised



that　in　an　unsympathetic　atmosphere　certain　extraordinary　sympathies



do　not　arise。　　It　is　as　if　I　said　that　I　could　not　tell　if　there



was　a　fog　because　the　air　was　not　clear　enough；　or　as　if　I　insisted



on　perfect　sunlight　in　order　to　see　a　solar　eclipse。







　　　　　As　a　common…sense　conclusion；　such　as　those　to　which　we　come



about　sex　or　about　midnight　（well　knowing　that　many　details　must



in　their　own　nature　be　concealed）　I　conclude　that　miracles　do　happen。　



I　am　forced　to　it　by　a　conspiracy　of　facts：　　the　fact　that　the　men　who



encounter　elves　or　angels　are　not　the　mystics　and　the　morbid　dreamers；



but　fishermen；　farmers；　and　all　men　at　once　coarse　and　cautious；



the　fact　that　we　all　know　men　who　testify　to　spiritualistic　incidents



but　are　not　spiritualists；　the　fact　that　science　itself　admits



such　things　more　and　more　every　day。　　Science　will　even　admit



the　Ascension　if　you　call　it　Levitation；　and　will　very　likely　admit



the　Resurrection　when　it　has　thought　of　another　word　for　it。　



I　suggest　the　Regalvanisation。　　But　the　strongest　of　all　is



the　dilemma　above　mentioned；　that　these　supernatural　things　are



never　denied　except　on　the　basis　either　of　anti…democracy　or　of



materialist　dogmatismI　may　say　materialist　mysticism。　　The　sceptic



always　takes　one　of　the　two　positions；　either　an　ordinary　man　need



not　be　believed；　or　an　extraordinary　event　must　not　be　believed。　



For　I　hope　we　may　dismiss　the　argument　against　wonders　attempted



in　the　mere　recapitulation　of　frauds；　of　swindling　mediums　or



trick　miracles。　　That　is　not　an　argument　at　all；　good　or　bad。　



A　false　ghost　disproves　the　reality　of　ghosts　exactly　as　much　as



a　forged　banknote　disproves　the　existence　of　the　Bank　of　England



if　anything；　it　proves　its　existence。







　　　　　Given　this　conviction　that　the　spiritual　phenomena　do　occur



（my　evidence　for　which　is　complex　but　rational）；　we　then　collide



with　one　of　the　worst　mental　evils　of　the　age。　　The　greatest



disaster　of　the　nineteenth　century　was　this：　　that　men　began



to　use　the　word　〃spiritual〃　as　the　same　as　the　word　〃good。〃　



They　thought　that　to　grow　in　refinement　and　uncorporeality　was



to　grow　in　virtue。　　When　scientific　evolution　was　announced；



some　feared　that　it　would　encourage　mere　animality。　　It　did　worse：　



it　encouraged　mere　spirituality。　　It　taught　men　to　think　that　so　long



as　they　were　passing　from　the　ape　they　were　going　to　the　angel。　



But　you　can　pass　from　the　ape　and　go　to　the　devil。　　A　man　of　genius；



very　typical　of　that　time　of　bewilderment；　expressed　it　perfectly。　



Benjamin　Disraeli　was　right　when　he　said　he　was　on　the　side　of



the　angels。　　He　was　indeed；　he　was　on　the　side　of　the　fallen　angels。　



He　was　not　on　the　side　of　any　mere　appetite　or　animal　brutality；



but　he　was　on　the　side　of　all　the　imperialism　of　the　princes



of　the　abyss；　he　was　on　the　side　of　arrogance　and　mystery；



and　contempt　of　all　obvious　good。　　Between　this　sunken　pride



and　the　towering　humilities　of　heaven　there　are；　one　must　suppose；



spirits　of　shapes　and　sizes。　　Man；　in　encountering　them；



must　make　much　the　same　mistakes　that　he　makes　in　encountering



any　other　varied　types　in　any　other　distant　continent。　　It　must



be　hard　at　first　to　know　who　is　supreme　and　who　is　subordinate。　



If　a　shade　arose　from　the　under　world；　and　stared　at　Piccadilly；



that　shade　would　not　quite　understand　the　idea　of　an　ordinary



closed　carriage。　　He　would　suppose　that　the　coachman　on　the　box



was　a　triumphant　conqueror；　dragging　behind　him　a　kicking　and



imprisoned　captive。　　So；　if　we　see　spiritual　facts　for　the　first　time；



we　may　mistake　who　is　uppermost。　　It　is　not　enough　to　find　the　gods；



they　are　obvious；　we　must　find　God；　the　real　chief　of　the　gods。　



We　must　have　a　long　historic　experience　in　supernatural　phenomena



in　order　to　discover　which　are　really　natural。　　In　this　light　I



find　the　history　of　Christianity；　and　even　of　its　Hebrew　origins；



quite　practical　and　clear。　　It　does　not　trouble　me　to　be　told



that　the　Hebrew　god　was　one　among　many。　　I　know　he　was；　without　any



research　to　tell　me　so。　　Jehovah　and　Baal　looked　equally　important；



just　as　the　sun　and　the　moon　looked　the　same　size。　　It　is　only



slowly　that　we　learn　that　the　sun　is　immeasurably　our　master；



and　the　small　moon　only　our　satellite。　　Believing　that　there



is　a　world　of　spirits；　I　shall　walk　in　it　as　I　do　in　the　world



of　men；　looking　for　the　thing　that　I　like　and　think　good。　



Just　as　I　should　seek　in　a　desert　for　clean　water；　or　toil　at



the　North　Pole　to　make　a　comfortable　fire；　so　I　shall　search　the



land　of　void　and　vision　until　I　find　something　fresh　like　water；



and　comforting　like　fire；　until　I　find　some　place　in　eternity；



where　I　am　literally　at　home。　　And　there　is　only　one　such　place　to



be　found。







　　　　　I　have　now　said　enough　to　show　（to　any　one　to　whom　such



an　explanation　is　essential）　that　I　have　in　the　ordinary　arena



of　apologetics；　a　ground　of　belief。　　In　pure　records　of　experiment　（if



these　be　taken　democratically　without　contempt　or　favour）　there　is



evidence　first；　that　miracles　happen；　and　second　that　the　nobler



miracles　belong　to　our　tradition。　　But　I　will　not　pretend　that　this　curt



discussion　is　my　real　reason　for　accepting　Christianity　instead　of　taking



the　moral　good　of　Christianity　as　I　should　take　it　out　of　Confucianism。







　　　　　I　have　another　far　more　solid　and　central　ground　for　submitting



to　it　as　a　faith；　instead　of　merely　picking　up　hints　from　it



as　a　scheme。　　And　that　is　this：　　that　the　Christian　Church　in　its



practical　relation　to　my　soul　is　a　living　teacher；　not　a　dead　one。　



It　not　only　certainly　taught　me　yesterday；　but　will　almost　certainly



teach　me　to…morrow。　Once　I　saw　suddenly　the　meaning　of　the　shape



of　the　cross；　some　day　I　may　see　suddenly　the　meaning　of　the　shape



of　the　mitre。　　One　fine　morning　I　saw　why　windows　were　pointed；



some　fine　morning　I　may　see　why　priests　were　shaven。　　Plato　has



told　you　a　truth；　but　Plato　is　dead。　　Shakespeare　has　startled　you



with　an　image；　but　Shakespeare　will　not　startle　you　with　any　more。　



But　imagine　what　it　would　be　to　live　with　such　men　still　living；



to　know　that　Plato　might　break　out　with　an　original　lecture　to…morrow；



or　that　at　any　moment　Shakespeare　might　shatter　everything　with　a



single　song。　　The　man　who　lives　in　contact　with　what　he　believes



to　be　a　living　Church　is　a　man　always　expecting　to　meet　Plato



and　Shakespeare　to…morrow　at　breakfast。　　He　is　always　expecting



to　see　some　truth　that　he　has　never　seen　before。　　There　is　one



only　other　parallel　to　this　position；　and　that　is　the　parallel



of　the　life　in　which　we　all　began。　　When　your　father　told　you；



walking　about　the　garden；　that　bees　stung　or　that　roses　smelt　sweet；



you　did　not　talk　of　taking　the　best　out　of　his　philosophy。　　When　the



bees　stung　you；　you　did　not　call　it　an　entertaining　coincidence。　



When　the　rose　smelt　sweet　you　did　not　say　〃My　father　is　a　rude；



barbaric　symbol；　enshrining　（perhaps　unconsciously）　the　deep



delicate　truths　that　flowers　smell。〃　　No：　you　believed　your　father；



because　you　had　found　him　to　be　a　living　fountain　of　facts；　a　thing



that　really　knew　more　than　you；　a　thing　that　would　tell　you　truth



to…morrow；　as　well　as　to…day。　And　if　this　was　true　of　your　father；



it　was　even　truer　of　your