the unseen world and other essays-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！


　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；　or　with　a　writer　like　M。　Fontanes；　whose　whole　book　is　a　noble　specimen　of　lofty　Christian　eloquence。　His　attribute　was　light；　not　warmth。　He　scrutinized；　but　did　not　attack　or　defend。　He　recognized　the　transcendent　merits　of　the　Christian　faith；　but　made　no　attempt　to　reinstate　it　where　it　had　seemed　to　suffer　shock。　It　was　therefore　with　the　surest　of　instincts；　with　that　same　instinct　of　self…preservation　which　had　once　led　the　Church　to　anathematize　Galileo；　that　Goetze。　proclaimed　Lessing　a　more　dangerous　foe　to　orthodoxy　than　the　deists　who　had　preceded　him。　Controversy；　he　doubtless　thought；　may　be　kept　up　indefinitely；　and　blows　given　and　returned　forever；　but　before　the　steady　gaze　of　that　scrutinizing　eye　which　one　of　us　shall　find　himself　able　to　stand　erect？　It　has　become　fashionable　to　heap　blame　and　ridicule　upon　those　who　violently　defend　an　antiquated　order　of　things；　and　Goetze　has　received　at　the　hands　of　posterity　his　full　share　of　abuse。　His　wrath　contrasted　unfavourably　with　Lessing's　calmness；　and　it　was　his　misfortune　to　have　taken　up　arms　against　an　opponent　who　always　knew　how　to　keep　the　laugh　upon　his　own　side。　For　my　own　part　I　am　constrained　to　admire　the　militant　pastor；　as　Lessing　himself　admired　him。　From　an　artistic　point　of　view　he　is　not　an　uninteresting　figure　to　contemplate。　And　although　his　attempts　to　awaken　persecution　were　reprehensible；　yet　his　ardour　in　defending　what　he　believed　to　be　vital　truth　is　none　the　less　to　be　respected。　He　had　the　acuteness　to　see　that　Lessing's　refutation　of　deism　did　not　make　him　a　Christian；　while　the　new　views　proposed　as　a　substitute　for　those　of　Reimarus　were　such　as　Goetze　and　his　age　could　in　no　wise　comprehend。

Lessing's　own　views　of　dogmatic　religion　are　to　be　found　in　his　work　entitled；　〃The　Education　of　the　Human　Race。〃　These　views　have　since　so　far　become　the　veriest　commonplaces　of　criticism；　that　one　can　hardly　realize　that；　only　ninety　years　ago；　they　should　have　been　regarded　as　dangerous　paradoxes。　They　may　be　summed　up　in