第19章

ThisviewofthecaseisbynomeanssoextravagantasMr。Rogerswouldhaveussuppose。ThereisnoreasonforbelievingthatPaul’scharacterwasessentiallydifferentafterwardsfromwhatithadbeenbefore。Theveryfervourwhichcausedhim，asaPharisee，toexcludeallbutorthodoxJewsfromthehopeofsalvation，wouldleadhim，asaChristian，tocarrytheChristianideatoitsextremedevelopment，andadmitallpersonswhatevertotheprivilegesoftheChurch。ThesamezealforthetruthwhichhadurgedhimtopersecutetheChristiansuntothedeathafterwardsledhimtosparenotoilandshunnodangerwhichmightbringaboutthetriumphoftheircause。Itmustnotbeforgottenthatthepersecutorandthemartyrarebutoneandthesamemanunderdifferentcircumstances。Hewhoisreadytodieforhisownfaithwillsometimesthinkitfairtomakeothermendiefortheirs。Menofavehementandfierytemperament，moreover，——suchasPaulalwayswas，——neverchangetheiropinionsslowly，neverrestinphilosophicdoubt，nevertakeamiddlecourse。Iftheyleaveoneextremeforaninstant，theyaredrawnirresistiblytotheother；andusuallyverylittleisneededtoworkthechange。TheconversionofOmarisastrikinginstanceinpoint，andhasbeencitedbyM。Renanhimself。ThecharacterofOmarbearsastronglikenesstothatofPaul。Previoustohisconversion，hewasaconscientiousandvirulentpersecutorofMohammedanism。[25]Afterhisconversion，hewasMohammed’smostefficientdisciple，anditmaybesafelyassertedthatfordisinterestednessandself-abnegationhewasnotinferiortotheApostleoftheGentiles。Thechangeinhiscasewas，moreover，quiteassuddenandunexpectedasitwaswithPaul；itwasneithermorenorlessincomprehensible；andifPaul’sconversionneedsamiracletoexplainit，Omar’smustneedonelikewise。Butintruth，thereisnodifficultyinthecase，savethatwhichstupiddogmatismhascreated。TheconversionsofPaulandOmarareparalleledbyinnumerableeventswhichoccurineveryperiodofreligiousorpoliticalexcitement。Farfrombeingextraordinary，orinexplicableonnaturalgrounds，suchphenomenaarejustwhatmightoccasionallybelookedfor。 Saint-Hilaire:MahometetleCoran，p。109。 But，saysMr。Rogers，“isitpossibleforamomenttoimaginethedotinganddreamingvictimofhallucinations(whichM。Renan’stheoryrepresentsPaul)tobethemanwhosemasculinesense，stronglogic，practicalprudence，andhighadministrativetalentappearintheachievementsofhislife，andintheEpistleshehasleftbehindhim？“M。Renan’stheorydoesnot，however，representPaulasthe“victimofhallucinations“toagreaterdegreethanMohammed。Thelatter，aseveryoneknows，labouredduringmuchofhislifeunderalmostconstant“hallucination“； yet“masculinesense，stronglogic，“etc。，werequalitiesquiteasconspicuousinhimasinSt。Paul。 Here，asthroughouthisessay，Mr。Rogersshowshimselftotallyunabletocomprehendthementalconditionofmeninpastages。IfanApostlehasadreamorseesavision，andinterpretsitaccordingtotheideasofhistimeandcountry，insteadofaccordingtotheideasofscientificEnglandinthenineteenthcenturyMr。Rogersthinkshemustneedsbemad:andwhenaccordingtothewell-knownlawthatmentalexcitementiscontagious，[26]severalpersonsaresaidtohaveconcurredininterpretingsomephenomenonsupernaturally，Mr。Rogerscannotseewhysomanypeopleshouldallgomadatonce！“Togomad，“infactishisfavouritedesignationforamentalact，whichnearlyallthehumanracehavehabituallyperformedinallages；theactofmistakingsubjectiveimpressionsforoutwardrealities。ThedispositiontoregardallstrangephenomenaasmanifestationsofsupernaturalpowerwasuniversallyprevalentinthefirstcenturyofChristianity，andlongafter。Neithergreatnessofintellectnorthoroughnessofscepticismgaveexemption。EvenJuliusCaesar，thegreatestpracticalgeniusthateverlived，wassomewhatsuperstitious，despitehisatheismandhisVigorouscommon-sense。ItistoooftenarguedthattheprevalenceofscepticismintheRomanEmpiremusthavemademenscrupulousaboutacceptingmiracles。Bynomeans。Nothingbutphysicalscienceeverdrivesoutmiracles:meredoctrinalscepticismispowerlesstodoit。IntheageoftheApostles，littleifanyradicaldistinctionwasdrawnbetweenamiracleandanordinaryoccurrence。Noonesupposedamiracletobeaninfractionofthelawsofnature，fornoonehadaclearideathatthereweresuchthingsaslawsofnature。Amiraclewassimplyanextraordinaryact，exhibitingthepowerofthepersonwhoperformedit。Blank，indeed，wouldtheevangelistshavelooked，hadanyonetoldthemwhatanenormoustheoryofsystematicmeddlingwithnaturewasdestinedtogrowoutoftheirbeautifulandartlessnarratives。 Hecker’sEpidemicsoftheMiddleAges，pp。 Theincapacitytoappreciatethisframeofmindrendersthecurrentargumentsinbehalfofmiraclesutterlyworthless。FromthefactthatCelsusandothersneverdeniedtherealityoftheChristianmiracles，itiscommonlyinferredthatthosemiraclesmusthaveactuallyhappened。Thesameargumentwould，however，equallyapplytothemiraclesofApolloniusandSimonMagus，fortheChristiansneverdeniedtherealityofthese。WhatthesefactsreallyproveisthatthestateofhumanintelligencewasasIhavejustdescribedit:andtheinferencetobedrawnfromthemisthatnomiraculousaccountemanatingfromanauthorofsuchaperiodisworthyofseriousattention。WhenMr。Rogerssupposesthatifthemiracleshadnotreallyhappenedtheywouldhavebeenchallenged，heisassumingthatastateofmindexistedinwhichitwaspossibleformiraclestobechallenged；andthuscommitsananachronismasmonstrousasifhehadattributedtheknowledgeofsomemoderninvention，suchassteamboats，tothoseearlyages。 Mr。RogersseemstocomplainofM。Renanfor“quietlyassuming“ thatmiraclesareinvariablytoberejected。Certainlyahistorianofthepresentdaywhoshouldnotmakesuchanassumptionwouldbetrayhislackoftheproperqualificationsforhisprofession。Itisnotconsiderednecessaryforeverywritertobeginhisworkbysettingouttoprovethefirstprinciplesofhistoricalcriticism。Theyaretakenforgranted。And，asM。 Renanjustlysays，amiracleisoneofthosethingswhichmustbedisbelieveduntilitisproved。Theonusprobandiliesontheassertorofafactwhichconflictswithuniversalexperience。 Nevertheless，thegreatnumberofintelligentpersonswho，evennow，fromdogmaticreasons，accepttheNewTestamentmiracles，forbidsthattheyshouldbepassedoverinsilencelikesimilarphenomenaelsewherenarrated。But，inthepresentstateofhistoricalscience，thearguingagainstmiraclesis，asColetremarkedofhisfriendErasmus’swarfareagainsttheThomistsandScotistsofCambridge，“acontestmorenecessarythangloriousordifficult。“Tobesatisfactorilyestablished，amiracleneedsatleasttoberecordedbyaneyewitness；andthementalattainmentsofthewitnessneedtobethoroughlyknownbesides。Unlesshehasaclearconceptionofthedifferencebetweenthenaturalandtheunnaturalorderofevents，histestimony，howeverunimpeachableonthescoreofhonesty，isstillworthless。TosaythatthisconditionwasfulfilledbythosewhodescribedtheNewTestamentmiracles，wouldbeabsurd。AndinthefaceofwhatGermancriticismhasdonefortheearlyChristiandocuments，itwouldbeanexcessoftemeritytoassertthatanyoneofthesupernaturalaccountscontainedinthemrestsoncontemporaryauthority。Ofallhistory，themiraculouspartshouldbeattestedbythestrongesttestimony，whereasitisinvariablyattestedbytheweakest。Andthepaucityofmiracleswhereverwehavecontemporaryrecords，asinthecaseofprimitiveIslamism，isamostsignificantfact。 Inattemptingtodefendhisprincipleofneveracceptingamiracle，M。Renanhasindeedgotintoasorryplight，andMr。 Rogers，incontrovertinghim，hasnotgreatlyhelpedthematter。 BystirringM。Renan’sbemuddledpool，Mr。Rogershasonlybemuddleditthemore。Neitheroftheseexcellentwritersseemstosuspectthattransmutationofspecies，thegeologicdevelopmentoftheearth，andotherlikephenomenadonotpresentfeaturesconflictingwithordinaryexperience。SirCharlesLyellandMr。Darwinwouldbegreatlyastonishedtobetoldthattheirtheoriesofinorganicandorganicevolutioninvolvedanyagenciesnotknowntoexistinthepresentcourseofnature。Thegreatachievementofthesewritershasbeentoshowthatallpastchangesoftheearthanditsinhabitantsaretobeexplainedasresultingfromthecontinuousactionofcauseslikethosenowinoperation，andthatthroughouttherehasbeennothingevenfaintlyresemblingamiracle。M。Renanmayfeelperfectlysafeinextendinghisprinciplebacktothebeginningofthings；andMr。 Rogers’sargument，evenifvalidagainstM。Renan，doesnothelphisowncaseintheleast。 Onsomepoints，indeed，M。Renanhaslaidhimselfopentoseverecriticism，andonotherpointshehasfurnishedgoodhandlesforhisorthodoxopponents。HisviewsinregardtotheauthorshipoftheFourthGospelandtheActsarenotlikelytobeendorsedbymanyscholars；andhisrevivaloftherationalisticabsurditiesofPaulusmeritsinmostinstancesallthatMr。Rogershassaidaboutit。Aswassaidattheoutset，orthodoxcriticismsuponheterodoxbooksarealwayswelcome。Theydoexcellentservice。 AndwiththefeelingwhichimpelstheirauthorstodefendtheirfavouritedogmaswitheveryavailableweaponofcontroversyIforonecanheartilysympathize。Theirzealinupholdingwhattheyconsiderthetruthisgreatlytoberespectedandadmired。Butsomuchcannotalwaysbesaidforthemodeofargumentationtheyadopt，whichtoooftenjustifiesM。Renan’sdescription，whenhesays，“Raisonnementstriomphantssurdeschosesquel’adversairen’apasdites，crisdevictoiresurdeserreursqu’iln’apascommises，rienneparaitdeloyalaceluiquicrofttenirenmainlesinteretsdelaveriteabsolue。“ HistoryoftheConflictbetweenReligionandScience。byJohnWilliamDraper，M。D。，LL。D。Fourthedition。NewYork:D。 Appleton&Co。1875。12mo，pp。xxii。，373。(InternationalScientificSeries，XII。) Sometwelveyearsago，Dr。Draperpublishedabulkyvolumeentitled“AHistoryoftheIntellectualDevelopmentofEurope，“ inwhichhisprofessedpurposewastoshowthatnationsorracespassthroughcertaindefinableepochsofdevelopment，analogoustotheperiodsofinfancy，childhood，youth，manhood，andoldageinindividuals。Butwhileannouncedwithdueformality，thecarryingoutoftheargumentwasleftforthemostparttotheheadingsandrunning-titlesoftheseveralchapters，whileinthetexttheauthorpeacefullymeanderedalongdownthestreamoftime，givingusasuccessionofpleasantthoughsomewhatthreadbareanecdotes，aswellasasuperabundanceofdetachedandfragmentaryopinionsondivershistoricalevents，havingapparentlyquiteforgottenthathehadstartedwithathesistoprove。Inthearrangementofhis“runningheads，“somepointsweresufficientlycurioustorequireawordofexplanation，as，forexample，whentheearlyagesofChristianitywereatonetimelabelledasanepochofprogressandatanothertimeasanepochofdecrepitude。Buttheargumentandthecontentsnevergotsofarenrapportwitheachotherastoclearupsuchpointsasthis。Onthecontrary，eachkeptontheeventenourofitswaywithoutmuchregardtotheother。FromthetitlesofthechaptersonewasledtoexpectsomecomprehensivetheoryofEuropeancivilizationcontinuouslyexpounded。Butthetextmerelyshowedagreatquantityofsuperficialandsecond-handinformation，servingtoillustratethementalidiosyncrasiesoftheauthor。 AmongtheseidiosyncrasiesmightbenotedaveryinadequateunderstandingofthepartplayedbyRomeintheworkofcivilization，asingularlackofappreciationofthepoliticalandphilosophicalachievementsofGreeceunderAthenianleadership，astronghostilitytotheCatholicChurch，acuriousdispositiontooverratesemi-barbarous。orabortivecivilizations，suchasthoseoftheoldAsiaticandnativeAmericancommunities，attheexpenseofEurope，and，aboveall，anundiscriminatingadmirationforeverything，greatorsmall，thathaseverwornthegarbofIslamorbeenassociatedwiththecareeroftheSaracens。ThediscoverythatinsomerespectstheMussulmansoftheMiddleAgesweremorehighlycultivatedthantheirChristiancontemporaries，hasmadesuchanimpressiononDr。Draper’smindthatitseemstobeashardforhimtogetridofitasitwasforMr。DicktokeeptheexecutionofCharlesI。