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！
〃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。〃
This； as I say； is the lightest and most evident case。
The assumption that there is something in the doubt of miracles akin
to liberality or reform is literally the opposite of the truth。
If a man cannot believe in miracles there is an end of the matter；
he is not particularly liberal； but he is perfectly honourable
and logical； which are much better things。 But if he can believe
in miracles； he is certainly the more liberal for doing so；
because they mean first； the freedom of the soul； and secondly；
its control over the tyranny of circumstance。 Sometimes this truth
is ignored in a singularly naive way； even by the ablest men。
For instance； Mr。 Bernard Shaw speaks with hearty old…fashioned
contempt for the idea of miracles； as if they were a sort of breach
of faith on the part of nature： he seems strangely unconscious
that miracles are only the final flowers of his own favourite tree；
the doctrine of the omnipotence of will。 Just in the same way he calls
the desire for immortality a paltry selfishness； forgetting that he
has just called the desire for life a healthy and heroic selfishness。
How can it be noble to wish to make one's life infinite and yet
mean to wish to make it immortal？ No； if it is desirable that man
should triumph over the cruelty of nature or custom； then miracles
are certainly desirable； we will discuss afterwards whether they
are possible。
But I must pass on to the larger cases of this curious error；
the notion that the 〃liberalising〃 of religion in some way helps
the liberation of the world。 The second example of it can be found
in the question of pantheismor rather of a certain modern attitude
which is often called immanentism； and which often is Buddhism。
But this is so much more difficult a matter that I must approach it
with rather more preparation。
The things said most confidently by advanced persons to
crowded audiences are generally those quite opposite to the fact；
it is actually our truisms that are untrue。 Here is a case。
There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again
at ethical societies and parliaments of religion： 〃the religions
of the earth differ in rites and forms； but they are the same in
what they teach。〃 It is false； it is the opposite of the fact。
The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms；
they do greatly differ in what they teach。 It is as if a man
were to say； 〃Do not be misled by the fact that the CHURCH TIMES
and the FREETHINKER look utterly different； that one is painted
on vellum and the other carved on marble； that one is triangular
and the other hectagonal； read them and you will see that they say
the same thing。〃 The truth is； of course； that they are alike in
everything except in the fact that they don't say the same thing。
An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian
stockbroker in Wimbledon。 You may walk round and round them
and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without
seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly
godless in the umbrella。 It is exactly in their souls that they
are divided。 So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds
of the earth is not as alleged in this cheap maxim： that they agree
in meaning； but differ in machinery。 It is exactly the opposite。
They agree in machinery； almost every great religion on earth works
with the same external methods； with priests； scriptures； altars；
sworn brotherhoods； special feasts。 They agree in the mode
of teaching； what they differ about is the thing to be taught。
Pagan optimists and Eastern pessimists would both have temples；