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！
of the Empire can actually help itself？〃
There is an answer： it is an answer to say that the energy
is truly from outside the world； that it is psychic； or at least
one of the results of a real psychical disturbance。 The highest
gratitude and respect are due to the great human civilizations such
as the old Egyptian or the existing Chinese。 Nevertheless it is
no injustice for them to say that only modern Europe has exhibited
incessantly a power of self…renewal recurring often at the shortest
intervals and descending to the smallest facts of building or costume。
All other societies die finally and with dignity。 We die daily。
We are always being born again with almost indecent obstetrics。
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is in historic
Christendom a sort of unnatural life： it could be explained as a
supernatural life。 It could be explained as an awful galvanic life
working in what would have been a corpse。 For our civilization OUGHT
to have died； by all parallels； by all sociological probability；
in the Ragnorak of the end of Rome。 That is the weird inspiration
of our estate： you and I have no business to be here at all。 We are
all REVENANTS； all living Christians are dead pagans walking about。
Just as Europe was about to be gathered in silence to Assyria
and Babylon； something entered into its body。 And Europe has had
a strange lifeit is not too much to say that it has had the JUMPS
ever since。
I have dealt at length with such typical triads of doubt
in order to convey the main contentionthat my own case for
Christianity is rational； but it is not simple。 It is an accumulation
of varied facts； like the attitude of the ordinary agnostic。
But the ordinary agnostic has got his facts all wrong。
He is a non…believer for a multitude of reasons； but they are
untrue reasons。 He doubts because the Middle Ages were barbaric；
but they weren't； because Darwinism is demonstrated； but it isn't；
because miracles do not happen； but they do； because monks were lazy；
but they were very industrious； because nuns are unhappy； but they
are particularly cheerful； because Christian art was sad and pale；
but it was picked out in peculiarly bright colours and gay with gold；
because modern science is moving away from the supernatural；
but it isn't； it is moving towards the supernatural with the rapidity
of a railway train。
But among these million facts all flowing one way there is；
of course； one question sufficiently solid and separate to be
treated briefly； but by itself； I mean the objective occurrence
of the supernatural。 In another chapter I have indicated the fallacy
of the ordinary supposition that the world must be impersonal because it
is orderly。 A person is just as likely to desire an orderly thing
as a disorderly thing。 But my own positive conviction that personal
creation is more conceivable than material fate； is； I admit；
in a sense； undiscussable。 I will not call it a faith or an intuition；
for those words are mixed up with mere emotion； it is strictly
an intellectual conviction； but it is a PRIMARY intellectual
conviction like the certainty of self of the good of living。
Any one who likes； therefore； may call my belief in God merely mystical；
the phrase is not worth fighting about。 But my belief that miracles
have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all； I believe
in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America。
Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires
to be stated and cleared up。 Somehow or other an extraordinary
idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them
coldly and fairly； while believers in miracles accept them only
in connection with some dogma。 The fact is quite the other way。
The believers in miracles accept them （rightly or wrongly） because they
have evidence for them。 The disbelievers in miracles deny them
（rightly or wrongly） because they have a doctrine against them。
The open； obvious； democratic thing is to believe an old apple…woman
when she bears testimony to a miracle； just as you believe an old
apple…woman when she bears testimony to a murder。 The plain；
popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost
exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord。
Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy
agnosticism about both。 Still you could fill the British Museum with
evidence uttered by the peasant； and given in favour of the ghost。
If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human
testimony in favour of the supernatural。 If you reject it； you can
only mean one of two things。 You reject the peasant's story about
the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story
is a ghost story。 That is； you either deny the main principle
of democracy； or you affirm the main principle of materialism
the abstract impossibility of miracle。 You have a perfect right
to do so； but in that case you are the dogmatist。 It is we
Christians who accept all actual evidenceit is you rationalists
who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed。
But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter； and looking
impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times；
I have come to the conclusion that they occurred。 All argument
against these plain facts is always argument in a circle。 If I say；
〃Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest
certain battles；〃 they answer； 〃But mediaevals were superstitious〃；
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；