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！
use any weapon against it； the swords that cut their own fingers；
and the firebrands that burn their own homes。 Men who begin to fight
the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging
away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church。
This is no exaggeration； I could fill a book with the instances of it。
Mr。 Blatchford set out； as an ordinary Bible…smasher； to prove
that Adam was guiltless of sin against God； in manoeuvring so as to
maintain this he admitted； as a mere side issue； that all the tyrants；
from Nero to King Leopold； were guiltless of any sin against humanity。
I know a man who has such a passion for proving that he will have no
personal existence after death that he falls back on the position
that he has no personal existence now。 He invokes Buddhism and says
that all souls fade into each other； in order to prove that he
cannot go to heaven he proves that he cannot go to Hartlepool。
I have known people who protested against religious education with
arguments against any education； saying that the child's mind must
grow freely or that the old must not teach the young。 I have known
people who showed that there could be no divine judgment by showing
that there can be no human judgment； even for practical purposes。
They burned their own corn to set fire to the church； they smashed
their own tools to smash it； any stick was good enough to beat it with；
though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture。
We do not admire； we hardly excuse； the fanatic who wrecks this
world for love of the other。 But what are we to say of the fanatic
who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other？ He sacrifices
the very existence of humanity to the non…existence of God。
He offers his victims not to the altar； but merely to assert
the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne。
He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live；
for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived
at all。
And yet the thing hangs in the heavens unhurt。 Its opponents
only succeed in destroying all that they themselves justly hold dear。
They do not destroy orthodoxy； they only destroy political
and common courage sense。 They do not prove that Adam was not
responsible to God； how could they prove it？ They only prove
（from their premises） that the Czar is not responsible to Russia。
They do not prove that Adam should not have been punished by God；
they only prove that the nearest sweater should not be punished by men。
With their oriental doubts about personality they do not make certain
that we shall have no personal life hereafter； they only make
certain that we shall not have a very jolly or complete one here。
With their paralysing hints of all conclusions coming out wrong
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 blame