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！
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。〃
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。