orthodoxy-第43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！
they do not tear the book of the Recording Angel； they only make
it a little harder to keep the books of Marshall & Snelgrove。
Not only is the faith the mother of all worldly energies； but its foes
are the fathers of all worldly confusion。 The secularists have not
wrecked divine things； but the secularists have wrecked secular things；
if that is any comfort to them。 The Titans did not scale heaven；
but they laid waste the world。
IX AUTHORITY AND THE ADVENTURER
The last chapter has been concerned with the contention that
orthodoxy is not only （as is often urged） the only safe guardian of
morality or order； but is also the only logical guardian of liberty；
innovation and advance。 If we wish to pull down the prosperous
oppressor we cannot do it with the new doctrine of human perfectibility；
we can do it with the old doctrine of Original Sin。 If we want
to uproot inherent cruelties or lift up lost populations we cannot
do it with the scientific theory that matter precedes mind； we can
do it with the supernatural theory that mind precedes matter。
If we wish specially to awaken people to social vigilance and
tireless pursuit of practise； we cannot help it much by insisting
on the Immanent God and the Inner Light： for these are at best
reasons for contentment； we can help it much by insisting on the
transcendent God and the flying and escaping gleam； for that means
divine discontent。 If we wish particularly to assert the idea
of a generous balance against that of a dreadful autocracy we
shall instinctively be Trinitarian rather than Unitarian。 If we
desire European civilization to be a raid and a rescue； we shall
insist rather that souls are in real peril than that their peril is
ultimately unreal。 And if we wish to exalt the outcast and the crucified；
we shall rather wish to think that a veritable God was crucified；
rather than a mere sage or hero。 Above all； if we wish to protect
the poor we shall be in favour of fixed rules and clear dogmas。
The RULES of a club are occasionally in favour of the poor member。
The drift of a club is always in favour of the rich one。
And now we come to the crucial question which truly concludes
the whole matter。 A reasonable agnostic； if he has happened to agree
with me so far； may justly turn round and say； 〃You have found
a practical philosophy in the doctrine of the Fall； very well。
You have found a side of democracy now dangerously neglected wisely
asserted in Original Sin； all right。 You have found a truth in
the doctrine of hell； I congratulate you。 You are convinced that
worshippers of a personal God look outwards and are progressive；
I congratulate them。 But even supposing that those doctrines
do include those truths； why cannot you take the truths and leave
the doctrines？ Granted that all modern society is trusting
the rich too much because it does not allow for human weakness；
granted that orthodox ages have had a great advantage because
（believing in the Fall） they did allow for human weakness； why cannot
you simply allow for human weakness without believing in the Fall？
If you have discovered that the idea of damnation represents
a healthy idea of danger； why can you not simply take the idea
of danger and leave the idea of damnation？ If you see clearly
the kernel of common…sense in the nut of Christian orthodoxy；
why cannot you simply take the kernel and leave the nut？
Why cannot you （to use that cant phrase of the newspapers which I；
as a highly scholarly agnostic； am a little ashamed of using）
why cannot you simply take what is good in Christianity； what you can
define as valuable； what you can comprehend； and leave all the rest；
all the absolute dogmas that are in their nature incomprehensible？〃
This is the real question； this is the last question； and it is a
pleasure to try to answer it。
The first answer is simply to say that I am a rationalist。
I like to have some intellectual justification for my intuitions。
If I am treating man as a fallen being it is an intellectual
convenience to me to believe that he fell； and I find； for some odd
psychological reason； that I can deal better with a man's exercise
of freewill if I believe that he has got it。 But I am in this matter
yet more definitely a rationalist。 I do not propose to turn this
book into one of ordinary Christian apologetics； I should be glad
to meet at any other time the enemies of Christianity in that more
obvious arena。 Here I am only giving an account of my own growth
in spiritual certainty。 But I may pause to remark that the more I
saw of the merely abstract arguments against the Christian cosmology
the less I thought of them。 I mean that having found the moral
atmosphere of the Incarnation to be common sense； I then looked
at the established intellectual arguments against the Incarnation
and found them to be common nonsense。 In case the argument should
be thought to suffer from the absence of the ordinary apologetic I
will here very briefly summarise my own arguments and conclusions
on the purely objective or scientific truth of the matter。
If I am asked； as a purely intellectual question； why I believe
in Christianity； I can only answer； 〃For the same reason that an
intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity。〃 I believe in it
quite rationally upon the evidence。 But the evidence in my case；
as in that of the intelligent agnostic； is not really in this or that
alleged demonstration； it is in an enormous accumulation of small
but unanimous facts。 The secularist is not to be blamed because
his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy；
it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind。
I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy
from four books； than from one book； one battle； one landscape；
and one old friend。 The very fact that the things are of different
kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point
to one conclusion。 Now； the non…Christianity of the average
educated man to…day is almost always； to do him justice； made up
of these loose but living experiences。 I can only say that my
evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind
as his evidences against it。 For when I look at these various
anti…Christian truths； I simply discover that none of them are true。
I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows
the other way。 Let us take cases。 Many a sensible modern man
must have abandoned Christianity under the pressure of three such
converging convictions as these： first； that men； with their shape；
structure； and sexuality； are； after all； very much like beasts；
a mere variety of the animal kingdom； second； that primeval religion
arose in ignorance and fear； third； that priests have blighted societies
with bitterness and gloom。 Those three anti…Christian arguments
are very different； but they are all quite logical and legitimate；
and they all converge。 The only objection to them （I discover）
is that they are all untrue。 If you leave off looking at books
about beasts and men； if you begin to look at beasts and men then
（if you have any humour or imagination； any sense of the frantic
or the farcical） you will observe that the startling thing is not
how like man is to the brutes； but how unlike he is。 It is the
monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation。
That man and brute are like is； in a s
