orthodoxy-第38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！





to　think。　　The　long　words　are　not　the　hard　words；　it　is　the　short



words　that　are　hard。　　There　is　much　more　metaphysical　subtlety　in　the



word　〃damn〃　than　in　the　word　〃degeneration。〃







　　　　　But　these　long　comfortable　words　that　save　modern　people　the　toil



of　reasoning　have　one　particular　aspect　in　which　they　are　especially



ruinous　and　confusing。　　This　difficulty　occurs　when　the　same　long　word



is　used　in　different　connections　to　mean　quite　different　things。　



Thus；　to　take　a　well…known　instance；　the　word　〃idealist〃　has



one　meaning　as　a　piece　of　philosophy　and　quite　another　as　a　piece



of　moral　rhetoric。　　In　the　same　way　the　scientific　materialists



have　had　just　reason　to　complain　of　people　mixing　up　〃materialist〃



as　a　term　of　cosmology　with　〃materialist〃　as　a　moral　taunt。　



So；　to　take　a　cheaper　instance；　the　man　who　hates　〃progressives〃



in　London　always　calls　himself　a　〃progressive〃　in　South　Africa。







　　　　　A　confusion　quite　as　unmeaning　as　this　has　arisen　in　connection



with　the　word　〃liberal〃　as　applied　to　religion　and　as　applied



to　politics　and　society。　　It　is　often　suggested　that　all　Liberals



ought　to　be　freethinkers；　because　they　ought　to　love　everything　that



is　free。　　You　might　just　as　well　say　that　all　idealists　ought　to　be



High　Churchmen；　because　they　ought　to　love　everything　that　is　high。　



You　might　as　well　say　that　Low　Churchmen　ought　to　like　Low　Mass；



or　that　Broad　Churchmen　ought　to　like　broad　jokes。　　The　thing　is



a　mere　accident　of　words。　　In　actual　modern　Europe　a　freethinker



does　not　mean　a　man　who　thinks　for　himself。　　It　means　a　man　who；



having　thought　for　himself；　has　come　to　one　particular　class



of　conclusions；　the　material　origin　of　phenomena；　the　impossibility



of　miracles；　the　improbability　of　personal　immortality　and　so　on。　



And　none　of　these　ideas　are　particularly　liberal。　　Nay；　indeed　almost



all　these　ideas　are　definitely　illiberal；　as　it　is　the　purpose



of　this　chapter　to　show。







　　　　　In　the　few　following　pages　I　propose　to　point　out　as　rapidly



as　possible　that　on　every　single　one　of　the　matters　most　strongly



insisted　on　by　liberalisers　of　theology　their　effect　upon　social



practice　would　be　definitely　illiberal。　　Almost　every　contemporary



proposal　to　bring　freedom　into　the　church　is　simply　a　proposal



to　bring　tyranny　into　the　world。　　For　freeing　the　church　now



does　not　even　mean　freeing　it　in　all　directions。　　It　means



freeing　that　peculiar　set　of　dogmas　loosely　called　scientific；



dogmas　of　monism；　of　pantheism；　or　of　Arianism；　or　of　necessity。　



And　every　one　of　these　（and　we　will　take　them　one　by　one）



can　be　shown　to　be　the　natural　ally　of　oppression。　　In　fact；　it　is



a　remarkable　circumstance　（indeed　not　so　very　remarkable　when　one



comes　to　think　of　it）　that　most　things　are　the　allies　of　oppression。　



There　is　only　one　thing　that　can　never　go　past　a　certain　point



in　its　alliance　with　oppressionand　that　is　orthodoxy。　　I　may；



it　is　true；　twist　orthodoxy　so　as　partly　to　justify　a　tyrant。　



But　I　can　easily　make　up　a　German　philosophy　to　justify　him　entirely。







　　　　　Now　let　us　take　in　order　the　innovations　that　are　the　notes



of　the　new　theology　or　the　modernist　church。　　We　concluded　the　last



chapter　with　the　discovery　of　one　of　them。　　The　very　doctrine　which



is　called　the　most　old…fashioned　was　found　to　be　the　only　safeguard



of　the　new　democracies　of　the　earth。　　The　doctrine　seemingly



most　unpopular　was　found　to　be　the　only　strength　of　the　people。　



In　short；　we　found　that　the　only　logical　negation　of　oligarchy



was　in　the　affirmation　of　original　sin。　　So　it　is；　I　maintain；



in　all　the　other　cases。







　　　　　I　take　the　most　obvious　instance　first；　the　case　of　miracles。　



For　some　extraordinary　reason；　there　is　a　fixed　notion　that　it



is　more　liberal　to　disbelieve　in　miracles　than　to　believe



in　them。　　Why；　I　cannot　imagine；　nor　can　anybody　tell　me。　



For　some　inconceivable　cause　a　〃broad〃　or　〃liberal〃　clergyman　always



means　a　man　who　wishes　at　least　to　diminish　the　number　of　miracles；



it　never　means　a　man　who　wishes　to　increase　that　number。　　It　always



means　a　man　who　is　free　to　disbelieve　that　Christ　came　out　of　His　grave；



it　never　means　a　man　who　is　free　to　believe　that　his　own　aunt　came



out　of　her　grave。　　It　is　common　to　find　trouble　in　a　parish　because



the　parish　priest　cannot　admit　that　St。　Peter　walked　on　water；



yet　how　rarely　do　we　find　trouble　in　a　parish　because　the　clergyman



says　that　his　father　walked　on　the　Serpentine？　　And　this　is　not



because　（as　the　swift　secularist　debater　would　immediately　retort）



miracles　cannot　be　believed　in　our　experience。　　It　is　not　because



〃miracles　do　not　happen；〃　as　in　the　dogma　which　Matthew　Arnold　recited



with　simple　faith。　　More　supernatural　things　are　ALLEGED　to　have



happened　in　our　time　than　would　have　been　possible　eighty　years　ago。　



Men　of　science　believe　in　such　marvels　much　more　than　they　did：　



the　most　perplexing；　and　even　horrible；　prodigies　of　mind　and　spirit



are　always　being　unveiled　in　modern　psychology。　　Things　that　the　old



science　at　least　would　frankly　have　rejected　as　miracles　are　hourly



being　asserted　by　the　new　science。　　The　only　thing　which　is　still



old…fashioned　enough　to　reject　miracles　is　the　New　Theology。　



But　in　truth　this　notion　that　it　is　〃free〃　to　deny　miracles　has



nothing　to　do　with　the　evidence　for　or　against　them。　　It　is　a　lifeless



verbal　prejudice　of　which　the　original　life　and　beginning　was　not



in　the　freedom　of　thought；　but　simply　in　the　dogma　of　materialism。　



The　man　of　the　nineteenth　century　did　not　disbelieve　in　the



Resurrection　because　his　liberal　Christianity　allowed　him　to　doubt　it。　



He　disbelieved　in　it　because　his　very　strict　materialism　did　not　allow



him　to　believe　it。　　Tennyson；　a　very　typical　nineteenth　century　man；



uttered　one　of　the　instinctive　truisms　of　his　contemporaries　when　he



said　that　there　was　faith　in　their　honest　doubt。　　There　was　indeed。　



Those　words　have　a　profound　and　even　a　horrible　truth。　　In　their



doubt　of　miracles　there　was　a　faith　in　a　fixed　and　godless　fate；



a　deep　and　sincere　faith　in　the　incurable　routine　of　the　cosmos。　



The　doubts　of　the　agnostic　were　only　the　dogmas　of　the　monist。







　　　　　Of　the　fact　and　evidence　of　the　supernatural　I　will



speak　afterwards。　　Here　we　are　only　concerned　with　this　clear　point；



that　in　so　far　as　the　liberal　idea　of　freedom　can　be　said　to　be



on　either　side　in　the　discussion　about　miracles；　it　is　obviously



on　the　side　of　miracles。　　Reform　or　（in　the　only　tolerable　sense）



progress　means　simply　the　gradual　control　of　matter　by　mind。　



A　miracle　simply　means　the　swift　control　of　matter　by　mind。　　If　you



wish　to　feed　the　people；　you　may　think　that　feeding　them　miraculously



in　the　wilderness　is　impossiblebut　you　cannot　think　it　illiberal。　



If　you　really　want　poor　children　to　go　to　the　seaside；　you　cannot



think　it　illiberal　that　they　should　go　there　on　flying　dragons；



you　can　only　think　it　unlikely。　　A　holiday；　like　Liberalism；　only　means



the　liberty　of　man。　　A　miracle　only　means　the　liberty　of　God。　



You　may　conscientiously　deny　either　of　them；　but　you　cannot　call



your　denial　a　triumph　of　the　liberal　idea。　　The　Catholic　Church



believed　that　man　and　God　both　had　a　sort　of　spiritual　freedom。　



Calvinism　took　away　the　freedom　from　man；　but　left　it　to　God。　



Scientific　materialism　binds　the　Creator　Himself；　it　chains　up



God　as　the　Apocalypse　chained　the　devil。　　It　leaves　nothing　free



in　the　universe。　　And　those　who　assist　this　process　are　called　the



〃liberal　theologians。〃