You are on page 1of 106

Digitized by Harry Plantinga, whp@wheaton.edu, 1993. This text is in the public do ain. !"TH!D!#$ %$ &'(%)"T *. +H),T)"T!

P")./+) TH', boo0 is eant to be a co panion to 1Heretics,1 and to put the positi2e side in addition to the negati2e. 3any critics co plained o4 the boo0 called 1Heretics1 because it erely criticised current philosophies without o44ering any alternati2e philosophy. This boo0 is an atte pt to answer the challenge. 't is una2oidably a44ir ati2e and there4ore una2oidably autobiographical. The writer has been dri2en bac0 upon so ewhat the sa e di44iculty as that which beset -ew an in writing his /pologia5 he has been 4orced to be egotistical only in order to be sincere. 6hile e2erything else ay be di44erent the oti2e in both cases is the sa e. 't is the purpose o4 the writer to atte pt an explanation, not o4 whether the +hristian .aith can be belie2ed, but o4 how he personally has co e to belie2e it. The boo0 is there4ore arranged upon the positi2e principle o4 a riddle and its answer. 't deals 4irst with all the writer7s own solitary and sincere speculations and then with all the startling style in which they were all suddenly satis4ied by the +hristian Theology. The writer regards it as a ounting to a con2incing creed. %ut i4 it is not that it is at least a repeated and surprising coincidence. &ilbert *. +hesterton.

+!-T)-T, '. 'ntroduction in De4ence o4 )2erything )lse ''. The 3aniac '''. The ,uicide o4 Thought '8. The )thics o4 )l4land 8. The .lag o4 the 6orld 8'. The Paradoxes o4 +hristianity 8''. The )ternal "e2olution 8'''. The "o ance o4 !rthodoxy '#. /uthority and the /d2enturer

!"TH!D!#$

'9'-T"!D:+T'!- '- D).)-+) !. )8)"$TH'-& )(,) TH) only possible excuse 4or this boo0 is that it is an answer to a challenge. )2en a bad shot is digni4ied when he accepts a duel. 6hen so e ti e ago ' published a series o4 hasty but sincere papers, under the na e o4 1Heretics,1 se2eral critics 4or whose intellect ' ha2e a war respect ;' ay ention specially 3r. &. ,. ,treet< said that it was all 2ery well 4or e to tell e2erybody to a44ir his cos ic theory, but that ' had care4ully a2oided supporting y precepts with exa ple. 1' will begin to worry about y philosophy,1 said 3r. ,treet, 1when 3r. +hesterton has gi2en us his.1 't was perhaps an incautious suggestion to a0e to a person only too ready to write boo0s upon the 4eeblest pro2ocation. %ut a4ter all, though 3r. ,treet has inspired and created this boo0, he need not read it. '4 he does read it, he will 4ind that in its pages ' ha2e atte pted in a 2ague and personal way, in a set o4 ental pictures rather than in a series o4 deductions, to state the philosophy in which ' ha2e co e to belie2e. ' will not call it y philosophy5 4or ' did not a0e it. &od and hu anity ade it5 and it ade e. ' ha2e o4ten had a 4ancy 4or writing a ro ance about an )nglish yachts an who slightly iscalculated his course and disco2ered )ngland under the i pression that it was a new island in the ,outh ,eas. ' always 4ind, howe2er, that ' a either too busy or too lazy to write this 4ine wor0, so ' ay as well gi2e it away 4or the purposes o4 philosophical illustration. There will probably be a general i pression that the an who landed ;ar ed to the teeth and tal0ing by signs< to plant the %ritish 4lag on that barbaric te ple which turned out to be the Pa2ilion at %righton, 4elt rather a 4ool. ' a not here concerned to deny that he loo0ed a 4ool. %ut i4 you i agine that he 4elt a 4ool, or at any rate that the sense o4 4olly was his sole or his do inant e otion, then you ha2e not studied with su44icient delicacy the rich ro antic nature o4 the hero o4 this tale. His ista0e was really a ost en2iable ista0e5 and he 0new it, i4 he was the an ' ta0e hi 4or. 6hat could be ore delight4ul than to ha2e in the sa e 4ew inutes all the 4ascinating terrors o4 going abroad co bined with all the hu ane security o4 co ing ho e again= 6hat could be better than to ha2e all the 4un o4 disco2ering ,outh /4rica without the disgusting necessity o4 landing there= 6hat could be ore glorious than to brace one7s sel4 up to disco2er -ew ,outh 6ales and then realize, with a gush o4 happy tears, that it was really old ,outh 6ales. This at least see s to e the ain proble 4or philosophers, and is in a anner the ain proble o4 this boo0. How can we contri2e to be at once astonished at the world and yet at ho e in it= How can this >ueer cos ic town, with its any? legged citizens, with its onstrous and ancient la ps, how can this world gi2e us at once the 4ascination o4 a strange town and the co 4ort and honour o4 being our own town= To show that a 4aith or a philosophy is true 4ro e2ery standpoint would be too big an underta0ing e2en 4or a uch bigger boo0 than this5 it is necessary to 4ollow one path o4 argu ent5 and this is the path that ' here propose to 4ollow. ' wish to set

4orth y 4aith as particularly answering this double spiritual need, the need 4or that ixture o4 the 4a iliar and the un4a iliar which +hristendo has rightly na ed ro ance. .or the 2ery word 1ro ance1 has in it the ystery and ancient eaning o4 "o e. /ny one setting out to dispute anything ought always to begin by saying what he does not dispute. %eyond stating what he proposes to pro2e he should always state what he does not propose to pro2e. The thing ' do not propose to pro2e, the thing ' propose to ta0e as co on ground between ysel4 and any a2erage reader, is this desirability o4 an acti2e and i aginati2e li4e, pictures>ue and 4ull o4 a poetical curiosity, a li4e such as western an at any rate always see s to ha2e desired. '4 a an says that extinction is better than existence or blan0 existence better than 2ariety and ad2enture, then he is not one o4 the ordinary people to who ' a tal0ing. '4 a an pre4ers nothing ' can gi2e hi nothing. %ut nearly all people ' ha2e e2er et in this western society in which ' li2e would agree to the general proposition that we need this li4e o4 practical ro ance5 the co bination o4 so ething that is strange with so ething that is secure. 6e need so to 2iew the world as to co bine an idea o4 wonder and an idea o4 welco e. 6e need to be happy in this wonderland without once being erely co 4ortable. 't is TH', achie2e ent o4 y creed that ' shall chie4ly pursue in these pages. %ut ' ha2e a peculiar reason 4or entioning the an in a yacht, who disco2ered )ngland. .or ' a that an in a yacht. ' disco2ered )ngland. ' do not see how this boo0 can a2oid being egotistical5 and ' do not >uite see ;to tell the truth< how it can a2oid being dull. Dulness will, howe2er, 4ree e 4ro the charge which ' ost la ent5 the charge o4 being 4lippant. 3ere light sophistry is the thing that ' happen to despise ost o4 all things, and it is perhaps a wholeso e 4act that this is the thing o4 which ' a generally accused. ' 0now nothing so conte ptible as a ere paradox5 a ere ingenious de4ence o4 the inde4ensible. '4 it were true ;as has been said< that 3r. %ernard ,haw li2ed upon paradox, then he ought to be a ere co on illionaire5 4or a an o4 his ental acti2ity could in2ent a sophistry e2ery six inutes. 't is as easy as lying5 because it is lying. The truth is, o4 course, that 3r. ,haw is cruelly ha pered by the 4act that he cannot tell any lie unless he thin0s it is the truth. ' 4ind ysel4 under the sa e intolerable bondage. ' ne2er in y li4e said anything erely because ' thought it 4unny5 though o4 course, ' ha2e had ordinary hu an 2ainglory, and ay ha2e thought it 4unny because ' had said it. 't is one thing to describe an inter2iew with a gorgon or a gri44in, a creature who does not exist. 't is another thing to disco2er that the rhinoceros does exist and then ta0e pleasure in the 4act that he loo0s as i4 he didn7t. !ne searches 4or truth, but it ay be that one pursues instincti2ely the ore extraordinary truths. /nd ' o44er this boo0 with the heartiest senti ents to all the @olly people who hate what ' write, and regard it ;2ery @ustly, 4or all ' 0now<, as a piece o4 poor clowning or a single tireso e @o0e. .or i4 this boo0 is a @o0e it is a @o0e against e. ' a the an who with the ut ost daring disco2ered what had been disco2ered be4ore. '4 there is an ele ent o4 4arce in what 4ollows, the 4arce

is at y own expense5 4or this boo0 explains how ' 4ancied ' was the 4irst to set 4oot in %righton and then 4ound ' was the last. 't recounts y elephantine ad2entures in pursuit o4 the ob2ious. -o one can thin0 y case ore ludicrous than ' thin0 it ysel45 no reader can accuse e here o4 trying to a0e a 4ool o4 hi A ' a the 4ool o4 this story, and no rebel shall hurl e 4ro y throne. ' 4reely con4ess all the idiotic a bitions o4 the end o4 the nineteenth century. ' did, li0e all other sole n little boys, try to be in ad2ance o4 the age. (i0e the ' tried to be so e ten inutes in ad2ance o4 the truth. /nd ' 4ound that ' was eighteen hundred years behind it. ' did strain y 2oice with a pain4ully @u2enile exaggeration in uttering y truths. /nd ' was punished in the 4ittest and 4unniest way, 4or ' ha2e 0ept y truthsA but ' ha2e disco2ered, not that they were not truths, but si ply that they were not ine. 6hen ' 4ancied that ' stood alone ' was really in the ridiculous position o4 being bac0ed up by all +hristendo . 't ay be, Hea2en 4orgi2e e, that ' did try to be original5 but ' only succeeded in in2enting all by ysel4 an in4erior copy o4 the existing traditions o4 ci2ilized religion. The an 4ro the yacht thought he was the 4irst to 4ind )ngland5 ' thought ' was the 4irst to 4ind )urope. ' did try to 4ound a heresy o4 y own5 and when ' had put the last touches to it, ' disco2ered that it was orthodoxy. 't ay be that so ebody will be entertained by the account o4 this happy 4iasco. 't ight a use a 4riend or an ene y to read how ' gradually learnt 4ro the truth o4 so e stray legend or 4ro the 4alsehood o4 so e do inant philosophy, things that ' ight ha2e learnt 4ro y catechis ?? i4 ' had e2er learnt it. There ay or ay not be so e entertain ent in reading how ' 4ound at last in an anarchist club or a %abylonian te ple what ' ight ha2e 4ound in the nearest parish church. '4 any one is entertained by learning how the 4lowers o4 the 4ield or the phrases in an o nibus, the accidents o4 politics or the pains o4 youth ca e together in a certain order to produce a certain con2iction o4 +hristian orthodoxy, he ay possibly read this boo0. %ut there is in e2erything a reasonable di2ision o4 labour. ' ha2e written the boo0, and nothing on earth would induce e to read it. ' add one purely pedantic note which co es, as a note naturally should, at the beginning o4 the boo0. These essays are concerned only to discuss the actual 4act that the central +hristian theology ;su44iciently su arized in the /postles7 +reed< is the best root o4 energy and sound ethics. They are not intended to discuss the 2ery 4ascinating but >uite di44erent >uestion o4 what is the present seat o4 authority 4or the procla ation o4 that creed. 6hen the word 1orthodoxy1 is used here it eans the /postles7 +reed, as understood by e2erybody calling hi sel4 +hristian until a 2ery short ti e ago and the general historic conduct o4 those who held such a creed. ' ha2e been 4orced by ere space to con4ine ysel4 to what ' ha2e got 4ro this creed5 ' do not touch the atter uch disputed a ong odern +hristians, o4 where we oursel2es got it. This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort o4 slo2enly autobiography. %ut i4 any one wants y opinions about the actual nature o4 the authority, 3r. &. ,. ,treet has only to throw e another

challenge, and ' will write hi

another boo0.

''9TH) 3/-'/+ TH!"!:&H($ worldly people ne2er understand e2en the world5 they rely altogether on a 4ew cynical axi s which are not true. !nce ' re e ber wal0ing with a prosperous publisher, who ade a re ar0 which ' had o4ten heard be4ore5 it is, indeed, al ost a otto o4 the odern world. $et ' had heard it once too o4ten, and ' saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said o4 so ebody, 1That an will get on5 he belie2es in hi sel4.1 /nd ' re e ber that as ' li4ted y head to listen, y eye caught an o nibus on which was written 1Hanwell.1 ' said to hi , 1,hall ' tell you where the en are who belie2e ost in the sel2es= .or ' can tell you. ' 0now o4 en who belie2e in the sel2es ore colossally than -apoleon or +aesar. ' 0now where 4la es the 4ixed star o4 certainty and success. ' can guide you to the thrones o4 the ,uper? en. The en who really belie2e in the sel2es are all in lunatic asylu s.1 He said ildly that there were a good any en a4ter all who belie2ed in the sel2es and who were not in lunatic asylu s. 1$es, there are,1 ' retorted, 1and you o4 all en ought to 0now the . That drun0en poet 4ro who you would not ta0e a dreary tragedy, he belie2ed in hi sel4. That elderly inister with an epic 4ro who you were hiding in a bac0 roo , he belie2ed in hi sel4. '4 you consulted your business experience instead o4 your ugly indi2idualistic philosophy, you would 0now that belie2ing in hi sel4 is one o4 the co onest signs o4 a rotter. /ctors who can7t act belie2e in the sel2es5 and debtors who won7t pay. 't would be uch truer to say that a an will certainly 4ail, because he belie2es in hi sel4. +o plete sel4?con4idence is not erely a sin5 co plete sel4?con4idence is a wea0ness. %elie2ing utterly in one7s sel4 is a hysterical and superstitious belie4 li0e belie2ing in Boanna ,outhcoteA the an who has it has 7Hanwell7 written on his 4ace as plain as it is written on that o nibus.1 /nd to all this y 4riend the publisher ade this 2ery deep and e44ecti2e reply, 16ell, i4 a an is not to belie2e in hi sel4, in what is he to belie2e=1 /4ter a long pause ' replied, 1' will go ho e and write a boo0 in answer to that >uestion.1 This is the boo0 that ' ha2e written in answer to it. %ut ' thin0 this boo0 ay well start where our argu ent started ?? in the neighbourhood o4 the ad?house. 3odern asters o4 science are uch i pressed with the need o4 beginning all in>uiry with a 4act. The ancient asters o4 religion were >uite e>ually i pressed with that necessity. They began with the 4act o4 sin ?? a 4act as practical as potatoes. 6hether or no an could be washed in iraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. %ut certain religious leaders in (ondon, not ere aterialists, ha2e begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. +ertain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part o4 +hristian theology which can really be pro2ed. ,o e 4ollowers o4 the "e2erend ". B. +a pbell, in their al ost too 4astidious spirituality, ad it di2ine sinlessness, which they cannot see e2en

in their drea s. %ut they essentially deny hu an sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics ali0e too0 positi2e e2il as the starting?point o4 their argu ent. '4 it be true ;as it certainly is< that a an can 4eel ex>uisite happiness in s0inning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one o4 two deductions. He ust either deny the existence o4 &od, as all atheists do5 or he ust deny the present union between &od and an, as all +hristians do. The new theologians see to thin0 it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat. 'n this re ar0able situation it is plainly not now possible ;with any hope o4 a uni2ersal appeal< to start, as our 4athers did, with the 4act o4 sin. This 2ery 4act which was to the ;and is to e< as plain as a pi0esta44, is the 2ery 4act that has been specially diluted or denied. %ut though oderns deny the existence o4 sin, ' do not thin0 that they ha2e yet denied the existence o4 a lunatic asylu . 6e all agree still that there is a collapse o4 the intellect as un ista0able as a 4alling house. 3en deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell. .or the purpose o4 our pri ary argu ent the one ay 2ery well stand where the other stood. ' ean that as all thoughts and theories were once @udged by whether they tended to a0e a an lose his soul, so 4or our present purpose all odern thoughts and theories ay be @udged by whether they tend to a0e a an lose his wits. 't is true that so e spea0 lightly and loosely o4 insanity as in itsel4 attracti2e. %ut a o ent7s thought will show that i4 disease is beauti4ul, it is generally so e one else7s disease. / blind an ay be pictures>ue5 but it re>uires two eyes to see the picture. /nd si ilarly e2en the wildest poetry o4 insanity can only be en@oyed by the sane. To the insane an his insanity is >uite prosaic, because it is >uite true. / an who thin0s hi sel4 a chic0en is to hi sel4 as ordinary as a chic0en. / an who thin0s he is a bit o4 glass is to hi sel4 as dull as a bit o4 glass. 't is the ho ogeneity o4 his ind which a0es hi dull, and which a0es hi ad. 't is only because we see the irony o4 his idea that we thin0 hi e2en a using5 it is only because he does not see the irony o4 his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all. 'n short, oddities only stri0e ordinary people. !ddities do not stri0e odd people. This is why ordinary people ha2e a uch ore exciting ti e5 while odd people are always co plaining o4 the dulness o4 li4e. This is also why the new no2els die so >uic0ly, and why the old 4airy tales endure 4or e2er. The old 4airy tale a0es the hero a nor al hu an boy5 it is his ad2entures that are startling5 they startle hi because he is nor al. %ut in the odern psychological no2el the hero is abnor al5 the centre is not central. Hence the 4iercest ad2entures 4ail to a44ect hi ade>uately, and the boo0 is onotonous. $ou can a0e a story out o4 a hero a ong dragons5 but not out o4 a dragon a ong dragons. The 4airy tale discusses what a sane an will do in a ad world. The sober realistic no2el o4 to? day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world. (et us begin, then, with the ad?house5 4ro this e2il and 4antastic inn let us set 4orth on our intellectual @ourney. -ow, i4 we are to glance at the philosophy o4 sanity, the 4irst thing to do in the atter is to blot out one big and co on ista0e.

There is a notion adri4t e2erywhere that i agination, especially ystical i agination, is dangerous to an7s ental balance. Poets are co only spo0en o4 as psychologically unreliable5 and generally there is a 2ague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and stic0ing straws in it. .acts and history utterly contradict this 2iew. 3ost o4 the 2ery great poets ha2e been not only sane, but extre ely business?li0e5 and i4 ,ha0espeare e2er really held horses, it was because he was uch the sa4est an to hold the . ' agination does not breed insanity. )xactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go ad5 but chess?players do. 3athe aticians go ad, and cashiers5 but creati2e artists 2ery seldo . ' a not, as will be seen, in any sense attac0ing logicA ' only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in i agination. /rtistic paternity is as wholeso e as physical paternity. 3oreo2er, it is worthy o4 re ar0 that when a poet really was orbid it was co only because he had so e wea0 spot o4 rationality on his brain. Poe, 4or instance, really was orbid5 not because he was poetical, but because he was specially analytical. )2en chess was too poetical 4or hi 5 he disli0ed chess because it was 4ull o4 0nights and castles, li0e a poe . He a2owedly pre4erred the blac0 discs o4 draughts, because they were ore li0e the ere blac0 dots on a diagra . Perhaps the strongest case o4 all is thisA that only one great )nglish poet went ad, +owper. /nd he was de4initely dri2en ad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic o4 predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the edicine5 poetry partly 0ept hi in health. He could so eti es 4orget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianis dragged hi a ong the wide waters and the white 4lat lilies o4 the !use. He was da ned by Bohn +al2in5 he was al ost sa2ed by Bohn &ilpin. )2erywhere we see that en do not go ad by drea ing. +ritics are uch adder than poets. Ho er is co plete and cal enough5 it is his critics who tear hi into extra2agant tatters. ,ha0espeare is >uite hi sel45 it is only so e o4 his critics who ha2e disco2ered that he was so ebody else. /nd though ,t. Bohn the )2angelist saw any strange onsters in his 2ision, he saw no creature so wild as one o4 his own co entators. The general 4act is si ple. Poetry is sane because it 4loats easily in an in4inite sea5 reason see0s to cross the in4inite sea, and so a0e it 4inite. The result is ental exhaustion, li0e the physical exhaustion o4 3r. Holbein. To accept e2erything is an exercise, to understand e2erything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch hi sel4 in. The poet only as0s to get his head into the hea2ens. 't is the logician who see0s to get the hea2ens into his head. /nd it is his head that splits. 't is a s all atter, but not irrele2ant, that this stri0ing ista0e is co only supported by a stri0ing is>uotation. 6e ha2e all heard people cite the celebrated line o4 Dryden as 1&reat genius is to adness near allied.1 %ut Dryden did not say that great genius was to adness near allied. Dryden was a great genius hi sel4, and 0new better. 't would ha2e been hard to 4ind a an ore ro antic than he, or ore sensible. 6hat Dryden said was this, 1&reat wits are o4t to adness near allied15 and that is true. 't is the pure pro ptitude o4 the intellect that is in peril

o4 a brea0down. /lso people ight re e ber o4 what sort o4 an Dryden was tal0ing. He was not tal0ing o4 any unworldly 2isionary li0e 8aughan or &eorge Herbert. He was tal0ing o4 a cynical an o4 the world, a sceptic, a diplo atist, a great practical politician. ,uch en are indeed to adness near allied. Their incessant calculation o4 their own brains and other people7s brains is a dangerous trade. 't is always perilous to the ind to rec0on up the ind. / 4lippant person has as0ed why we say, 1/s ad as a hatter.1 / ore 4lippant person ight answer that a hatter is ad because he has to easure the hu an head. /nd i4 great reasoners are o4ten aniacal, it is e>ually true that aniacs are co only great reasoners. 6hen ' was engaged in a contro2ersy with the +(/"'!- on the atter o4 4ree will, that able writer 3r. ". %. ,uthers said that 4ree will was lunacy, because it eant causeless actions, and the actions o4 a lunatic would be causeless. ' do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse in deter inist logic. !b2iously i4 any actions, e2en a lunatic7s, can be causeless, deter inis is done 4or. '4 the chain o4 causation can be bro0en 4or a ad an, it can be bro0en 4or a an. %ut y purpose is to point out so ething ore practical. 't was natural, perhaps, that a odern 3arxian ,ocialist should not 0now anything about 4ree will. %ut it was certainly re ar0able that a odern 3arxian ,ocialist should not 0now anything about lunatics. 3r. ,uthers e2idently did not 0now anything about lunatics. The last thing that can be said o4 a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. '4 any hu an acts ay loosely be called causeless, they are the inor acts o4 a healthy an5 whistling as he wal0s5 slashing the grass with a stic05 0ic0ing his heels or rubbing his hands. 't is the happy an who does the useless things5 the sic0 an is not strong enough to be idle. 't is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the ad an could ne2er understand5 4or the ad an ;li0e the deter inist< generally sees too uch cause in e2erything. The ad an would read a conspiratorial signi4icance into those e pty acti2ities. He would thin0 that the lopping o4 the grass was an attac0 on pri2ate property. He would thin0 that the 0ic0ing o4 the heels was a signal to an acco plice. '4 the ad an could 4or an instant beco e careless, he would beco e sane. )2ery one who has had the is4ortune to tal0 with people in the heart or on the edge o4 ental disorder, 0nows that their ost sinister >uality is a horrible clarity o4 detail5 a connecting o4 one thing with another in a ap ore elaborate than a aze. '4 you argue with a ad an, it is extre ely probable that you will get the worst o4 it5 4or in any ways his ind o2es all the >uic0er 4or not being delayed by the things that go with good @udg ent. He is not ha pered by a sense o4 hu our or by charity, or by the du b certainties o4 experience. He is the ore logical 4or losing certain sane a44ections. 'ndeed, the co on phrase 4or insanity is in this respect a isleading one. The ad an is not the an who has lost his reason. The ad an is the an who has lost e2erything except his reason. The ad an7s explanation o4 a thing is always co plete, and o4ten in a purely rational sense satis4actory. !r, to spea0 ore strictly, the insane explanation, i4 not conclusi2e, is at least unanswerable5 this ay be obser2ed specially in the two or three

co onest 0inds o4 adness. '4 a an says ;4or instance< that en ha2e a conspiracy against hi , you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the en deny that they are conspirators5 which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation co2ers the 4acts as uch as yours. !r i4 a an says that he is the right4ul *ing o4 )ngland, it is no co plete answer to say that the existing authorities call hi ad5 4or i4 he were *ing o4 )ngland that ight be the wisest thing 4or the existing authorities to do. !r i4 a an says that he is Besus +hrist, it is no answer to tell hi that the world denies his di2inity5 4or the world denied +hrist7s. -e2ertheless he is wrong. %ut i4 we atte pt to trace his error in exact ter s, we shall not 4ind it >uite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say thisA that his ind o2es in a per4ect but narrow circle. / s all circle is >uite as in4inite as a large circle5 but, though it is >uite as in4inite, it is not so large. 'n the sa e way the insane explanation is >uite as co plete as the sane one, but it is not so large. / bullet is >uite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow uni2ersality5 there is such a thing as a s all and cra ped eternity5 you ay see it in any odern religions. -ow, spea0ing >uite externally and e pirically, we ay say that the strongest and ost un ista0able 3/"* o4 adness is this co bination between a logical co pleteness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic7s theory explains a large nu ber o4 things, but it does not explain the in a large way. ' ean that i4 you or ' were dealing with a ind that was growing orbid, we should be chie4ly concerned not so uch to gi2e it argu ents as to gi2e it air, to con2ince it that there was so ething cleaner and cooler outside the su44ocation o4 a single argu ent. ,uppose, 4or instance, it were the 4irst case that ' too0 as typical5 suppose it were the case o4 a an who accused e2erybody o4 conspiring against hi . '4 we could express our deepest 4eelings o4 protest and appeal against this obsession, ' suppose we should say so ething li0e thisA 1!h, ' ad it that you ha2e your case and ha2e it by heart, and that any things do 4it into other things as you say. ' ad it that your explanation explains a great deal5 but what a great deal it lea2es outC /re there no other stories in the world except yours5 and are all en busy with your business= ,uppose we grant the details5 perhaps when the an in the street did not see to see you it was only his cunning5 perhaps when the police an as0ed you your na e it was only because he 0new it already. %ut how uch happier you would be i4 you only 0new that these people cared nothing about youC How uch larger your li4e would be i4 your sel4 could beco e s aller in it5 i4 you could really loo0 at other en with co on curiosity and pleasure5 i4 you could see the wal0ing as they are in their sunny sel4ishness and their 2irile indi44erenceC $ou would begin to be interested in the , because they were not interested in you. $ou would brea0 out o4 this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played, and you would 4ind yoursel4 under a 4reer s0y, in a street 4ull o4 splendid strangers.1 !r suppose it were the second case o4 adness, that o4 a an who clai s the crown, your i pulse would be to answer, 1/ll rightC Perhaps you 0now that you are the *ing o4 )ngland5 but why

do you care= 3a0e one agni4icent e44ort and you will be a hu an being and loo0 down on all the 0ings o4 the earth.1 !r it ight be the third case, o4 the ad an who called hi sel4 +hrist. '4 we said what we 4elt, we should say, 1,o you are the +reator and "edee er o4 the worldA but what a s all world it ust beC 6hat a little hea2en you ust inhabit, with angels no bigger than butter4liesC How sad it ust be to be &od5 and an inade>uate &odC 's there really no li4e 4uller and no lo2e ore ar2ellous than yours5 and is it really in your s all and pain4ul pity that all 4lesh ust put its 4aith= How uch happier you would be, how uch ore o4 you there would be, i4 the ha er o4 a higher &od could s ash your s all cos os, scattering the stars li0e spangles, and lea2e you in the open, 4ree li0e other en to loo0 up as well as downC1 /nd it ust be re e bered that the ost purely practical science does ta0e this 2iew o4 ental e2il5 it does not see0 to argue with it li0e a heresy but si ply to snap it li0e a spell. -either odern science nor ancient religion belie2es in co plete 4ree thought. Theology rebu0es certain thoughts by calling the blasphe ous. ,cience rebu0es certain thoughts by calling the orbid. .or exa ple, so e religious societies discouraged en ore or less 4ro thin0ing about sex. The new scienti4ic society de4initely discourages en 4ro thin0ing about death5 it is a 4act, but it is considered a orbid 4act. /nd in dealing with those whose orbidity has a touch o4 ania, odern science cares 4ar less 4or pure logic than a dancing Der2ish. 'n these cases it is not enough that the unhappy an should desire truth5 he ust desire health. -othing can sa2e hi but a blind hunger 4or nor ality, li0e that o4 a beast. / an cannot thin0 hi sel4 out o4 ental e2il5 4or it is actually the organ o4 thought that has beco e diseased, ungo2ernable, and, as it were, independent. He can only be sa2ed by will or 4aith. The o ent his ere reason o2es, it o2es in the old circular rut5 he will go round and round his logical circle, @ust as a an in a third?class carriage on the 'nner +ircle will go round and round the 'nner +ircle unless he per4or s the 2oluntary, 2igorous, and ystical act o4 getting out at &ower ,treet. Decision is the whole business here5 a door ust be shut 4or e2er. )2ery re edy is a desperate re edy. )2ery cure is a iraculous cure. +uring a ad an is not arguing with a philosopher5 it is casting out a de2il. /nd howe2er >uietly doctors and psychologists ay go to wor0 in the atter, their attitude is pro4oundly intolerant ?? as intolerant as %loody 3ary. Their attitude is really thisA that the an ust stop thin0ing, i4 he is to go on li2ing. Their counsel is one o4 intellectual a putation. '4 thy H)/D o44end thee, cut it o445 4or it is better, not erely to enter the *ingdo o4 Hea2en as a child, but to enter it as an i becile, rather than with your whole intellect to be cast into hell ?? or into Hanwell. ,uch is the ad an o4 experience5 he is co only a reasoner, 4re>uently a success4ul reasoner. Doubtless he could be 2an>uished in ere reason, and the case against hi put logically. %ut it can be put uch ore precisely in ore general and e2en aesthetic ter s. He is in the clean and well?lit prison o4 one ideaA he is sharpened to one pain4ul point. He is without healthy hesitation

and healthy co plexity. -ow, as ' explain in the introduction, ' ha2e deter ined in these early chapters to gi2e not so uch a diagra o4 a doctrine as so e pictures o4 a point o4 2iew. /nd ' ha2e described at length y 2ision o4 the aniac 4or this reasonA that @ust as ' a a44ected by the aniac, so ' a a44ected by ost odern thin0ers. That un ista0able ood or note that ' hear 4ro Hanwell, ' hear also 4ro hal4 the chairs o4 science and seats o4 learning to?day5 and ost o4 the ad doctors are ad doctors in ore senses than one. They all ha2e exactly that co bination we ha2e notedA the co bination o4 an expansi2e and exhausti2e reason with a contracted co on sense. They are uni2ersal only in the sense that they ta0e one thin explanation and carry it 2ery 4ar. %ut a pattern can stretch 4or e2er and still be a s all pattern. They see a chess?board white on blac0, and i4 the uni2erse is pa2ed with it, it is still white on blac0. (i0e the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint5 they cannot a0e a ental e44ort and suddenly see it blac0 on white. Ta0e 4irst the ore ob2ious case o4 aterialis . /s an explanation o4 the world, aterialis has a sort o4 insane si plicity. 't has @ust the >uality o4 the ad an7s argu ent5 we ha2e at once the sense o4 it co2ering e2erything and the sense o4 it lea2ing e2erything out. +onte plate so e able and sincere aterialist, as, 4or instance, 3r. 3c+abe, and you will ha2e exactly this uni>ue sensation. He understands e2erything, and e2erything does not see worth understanding. His cos os ay be co plete in e2ery ri2et and cog?wheel, but still his cos os is s aller than our world. ,o ehow his sche e, li0e the lucid sche e o4 the ad an, see s unconscious o4 the alien energies and the large indi44erence o4 the earth5 it is not thin0ing o4 the real things o4 the earth, o4 4ighting peoples or proud others, or 4irst lo2e or 4ear upon the sea. The earth is so 2ery large, and the cos os is so 2ery s all. The cos os is about the s allest hole that a an can hide his head in. 't ust be understood that ' a not now discussing the relation o4 these creeds to truth5 but, 4or the present, solely their relation to health. (ater in the argu ent ' hope to attac0 the >uestion o4 ob@ecti2e 2erity5 here ' spea0 only o4 a pheno enon o4 psychology. ' do not 4or the present atte pt to pro2e to Haec0el that aterialis is untrue, any ore than ' atte pted to pro2e to the an who thought he was +hrist that he was labouring under an error. ' erely re ar0 here on the 4act that both cases ha2e the sa e 0ind o4 co pleteness and the sa e 0ind o4 inco pleteness. $ou can explain a an7s detention at Hanwell by an indi44erent public by saying that it is the cruci4ixion o4 a god o4 who the world is not worthy. The explanation does explain. ,i ilarly you ay explain the order in the uni2erse by saying that all things, e2en the souls o4 en, are lea2es ine2itably un4olding on an utterly unconscious tree ?? the blind destiny o4 atter. The explanation does explain, though not, o4 course, so co pletely as the ad an7s. %ut the point here is that the nor al hu an ind not only ob@ects to both, but 4eels to both the sa e ob@ection. 'ts approxi ate state ent is that i4 the an in Hanwell is the real &od, he is not uch o4 a god. /nd, si ilarly, i4 the cos os o4 the aterialist is the real cos os, it

is not uch o4 a cos os. The thing has shrun0. The deity is less di2ine than any en5 and ;according to Haec0el< the whole o4 li4e is so ething uch ore grey, narrow, and tri2ial than any separate aspects o4 it. The parts see greater than the whole. .or we ust re e ber that the aterialist philosophy ;whether true or not< is certainly uch ore li iting than any religion. 'n one sense, o4 course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than the sel2es. / +hristian is only restricted in the sa e sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot thin0 +hristianity 4alse and continue to be a +hristian5 and the atheist cannot thin0 atheis 4alse and continue to be an atheist. %ut as it happens, there is a 2ery special sense in which aterialis has ore restrictions than spiritualis . 3r. 3c+abe thin0s e a sla2e because ' a not allowed to belie2e in deter inis . ' thin0 3r. 3c+abe a sla2e because he is not allowed to belie2e in 4airies. %ut i4 we exa ine the two 2etoes we shall see that his is really uch ore o4 a pure 2eto than ine. The +hristian is >uite 4ree to belie2e that there is a considerable a ount o4 settled order and ine2itable de2elop ent in the uni2erse. %ut the aterialist is not allowed to ad it into his spotless achine the slightest spec0 o4 spiritualis or iracle. Poor 3r. 3c+abe is not allowed to retain e2en the tiniest i p, though it ight be hiding in a pi pernel. The +hristian ad its that the uni2erse is ani4old and e2en iscellaneous, @ust as a sane an 0nows that he is co plex. The sane an 0nows that he has a touch o4 the beast, a touch o4 the de2il, a touch o4 the saint, a touch o4 the citizen. -ay, the really sane an 0nows that he has a touch o4 the ad an. %ut the aterialist7s world is >uite si ple and solid, @ust as the ad an is >uite sure he is sane. The aterialist is sure that history has been si ply and solely a chain o4 causation, @ust as the interesting person be4ore entioned is >uite sure that he is si ply and solely a chic0en. 3aterialists and ad en ne2er ha2e doubts. ,piritual doctrines do not actually li it the ind as do aterialistic denials. )2en i4 ' belie2e in i ortality ' need not thin0 about it. %ut i4 ' disbelie2e in i ortality ' ust not thin0 about it. 'n the 4irst case the road is open and ' can go as 4ar as ' li0e5 in the second the road is shut. %ut the case is e2en stronger, and the parallel with adness is yet ore strange. .or it was our case against the exhausti2e and logical theory o4 the lunatic that, right or wrong, it gradually destroyed his hu anity. -ow it is the charge against the ain deductions o4 the aterialist that, right or wrong, they gradually destroy his hu anity5 ' do not ean only 0indness, ' ean hope, courage, poetry, initiati2e, all that is hu an. .or instance, when aterialis leads en to co plete 4atalis ;as it generally does<, it is >uite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating 4orce. 't is absurd to say that you are especially ad2ancing 4reedo when you only use 4ree thought to destroy 4ree will. The deter inists co e to bind, not to loose. They ay well call their law the 1chain1 o4 causation. 't is the worst chain that e2er 4ettered a hu an being. $ou ay use the language o4 liberty, i4 you li0e, about aterialistic teaching, but it is ob2ious that this is @ust as inapplicable to it as a whole as the sa e language

when applied to a an loc0ed up in a ad?house. $ou ay say, i4 you li0e, that the an is 4ree to thin0 hi sel4 a poached egg. %ut it is surely a ore assi2e and i portant 4act that i4 he is a poached egg he is not 4ree to eat, drin0, sleep, wal0, or s o0e a cigarette. ,i ilarly you ay say, i4 you li0e, that the bold deter inist speculator is 4ree to disbelie2e in the reality o4 the will. %ut it is a uch ore assi2e and i portant 4act that he is not 4ree to raise, to curse, to than0, to @usti4y, to urge, to punish, to resist te ptations, to incite obs, to a0e -ew $ear resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebu0e tyrants, or e2en to say 1than0 you1 4or the ustard. 'n passing 4ro this sub@ect ' ay note that there is a >ueer 4allacy to the e44ect that aterialistic 4atalis is in so e way 4a2ourable to ercy, to the abolition o4 cruel punish ents or punish ents o4 any 0ind. This is startlingly the re2erse o4 the truth. 't is >uite tenable that the doctrine o4 necessity a0es no di44erence at all5 that it lea2es the 4logger 4logging and the 0ind 4riend exhorting as be4ore. %ut ob2iously i4 it stops either o4 the it stops the 0ind exhortation. That the sins are ine2itable does not pre2ent punish ent5 i4 it pre2ents anything it pre2ents persuasion. Deter inis is >uite as li0ely to lead to cruelty as it is certain to lead to cowardice. Deter inis is not inconsistent with the cruel treat ent o4 cri inals. 6hat it is ;perhaps< inconsistent with is the generous treat ent o4 cri inals5 with any appeal to their better 4eelings or encourage ent in their oral struggle. The deter inist does not belie2e in appealing to the will, but he does belie2e in changing the en2iron ent. He ust not say to the sinner, 1&o and sin no ore,1 because the sinner cannot help it. %ut he can put hi in boiling oil5 4or boiling oil is an en2iron ent. +onsidered as a 4igure, there4ore, the aterialist has the 4antastic outline o4 the 4igure o4 the ad an. %oth ta0e up a position at once unanswerable and intolerable. !4 course it is not only o4 the aterialist that all this is true. The sa e would apply to the other extre e o4 speculati2e logic. There is a sceptic 4ar ore terrible than he who belie2es that e2erything began in atter. 't is possible to eet the sceptic who belie2es that e2erything began in hi sel4. He doubts not the existence o4 angels or de2ils, but the existence o4 en and cows. .or hi his own 4riends are a ythology ade up by hi sel4. He created his own 4ather and his own other. This horrible 4ancy has in it so ething decidedly attracti2e to the so ewhat ystical egois o4 our day. That publisher who thought that en would get on i4 they belie2ed in the sel2es, those see0ers a4ter the ,uper an who are always loo0ing 4or hi in the loo0ing?glass, those writers who tal0 about i pressing their personalities instead o4 creating li4e 4or the world, all these people ha2e really only an inch between the and this aw4ul e ptiness. Then when this 0indly world all round the an has been blac0ened out li0e a lie5 when 4riends 4ade into ghosts, and the 4oundations o4 the world 4ail5 then when the an, belie2ing in nothing and in no an, is alone in his own night are, then the great indi2idualistic otto shall be written o2er hi in a2enging irony. The stars will be only dots in the blac0ness o4 his own

brain5 his other7s 4ace will be only a s0etch 4ro his own insane pencil on the walls o4 his cell. %ut o2er his cell shall be written, with dread4ul truth, 1He belie2es in hi sel4.1 /ll that concerns us here, howe2er, is to note that this panegoistic extre e o4 thought exhibits the sa e paradox as the other extre e o4 aterialis . 't is e>ually co plete in theory and e>ually crippling in practice. .or the sa0e o4 si plicity, it is easier to state the notion by saying that a an can belie2e that he is always in a drea . -ow, ob2iously there can be no positi2e proo4 gi2en to hi that he is not in a drea , 4or the si ple reason that no proo4 can be o44ered that ight not be o44ered in a drea . %ut i4 the an began to burn down (ondon and say that his house0eeper would soon call hi to brea04ast, we should ta0e hi and put hi with other logicians in a place which has o4ten been alluded to in the course o4 this chapter. The an who cannot belie2e his senses, and the an who cannot belie2e anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is pro2ed not by any error in their argu ent, but by the ani4est ista0e o4 their whole li2es. They ha2e both loc0ed the sel2es up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars5 they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness o4 hea2en, the other e2en into the health and happiness o4 the earth. Their position is >uite reasonable5 nay, in a sense it is in4initely reasonable, @ust as a threepenny bit is in4initely circular. %ut there is such a thing as a ean in4inity, a base and sla2ish eternity. 't is a using to notice that any o4 the oderns, whether sceptics or ystics, ha2e ta0en as their sign a certain eastern sy bol, which is the 2ery sy bol o4 this ulti ate nullity. 6hen they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his outh. There is a startling sarcas in the i age o4 that 2ery unsatis4actory eal. The eternity o4 the aterial 4atalists, the eternity o4 the eastern pessi ists, the eternity o4 the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists o4 to?day is, indeed, 2ery well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded ani al who destroys e2en hi sel4. This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chie4 ar0 and ele ent o4 insanity5 we ay say in su ary that it is reason used without root, reason in the 2oid. The an who begins to thin0 without the proper 4irst principles goes ad5 he begins to thin0 at the wrong end. /nd 4or the rest o4 these pages we ha2e to try and disco2er what is the right end. %ut we ay as0 in conclusion, i4 this be what dri2es en ad, what is it that 0eeps the sane= %y the end o4 this boo0 ' hope to gi2e a de4inite, so e will thin0 a 4ar too de4inite, answer. %ut 4or the o ent it is possible in the sa e solely practical anner to gi2e a general answer touching what in actual hu an history 0eeps en sane. 3ysticis 0eeps en sane. /s long as you ha2e ystery you ha2e health5 when you destroy ystery you create orbidity. The ordinary an has always been sane because the ordinary an has always been a ystic. He has per itted the twilight. He has always had one 4oot in earth and the other in 4airyland. He has always le4t hi sel4 4ree to doubt his gods5 but ;unli0e the agnostic o4 to?day< 4ree also to belie2e in the . He has always cared ore 4or truth than 4or consistency. '4 he saw two truths that see ed to

contradict each other, he would ta0e the two truths and the contradiction along with the . His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, li0e his physical sightA he sees two di44erent pictures at once and yet sees all the better 4or that. Thus he has always belie2ed that there was such a thing as 4ate, but such a thing as 4ree will also. Thus he belie2ed that children were indeed the 0ingdo o4 hea2en, but ne2ertheless ought to be obedient to the 0ingdo o4 earth. He ad ired youth because it was young and age because it was not. 't is exactly this balance o4 apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy o4 the healthy an. The whole secret o4 ysticis is thisA that an can understand e2erything by the help o4 what he does not understand. The orbid logician see0s to a0e e2erything lucid, and succeeds in a0ing e2erything ysterious. The ystic allows one thing to be ysterious, and e2erything else beco es lucid. The deter inist a0es the theory o4 causation >uite clear, and then 4inds that he cannot say 1i4 you please1 to the house aid. The +hristian per its 4ree will to re ain a sacred ystery5 but because o4 this his relations with the house aid beco e o4 a spar0ling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed o4 dog a in a central dar0ness5 but it branches 4orth in all directions with abounding natural health. /s we ha2e ta0en the circle as the sy bol o4 reason and adness, we ay 2ery well ta0e the cross as the sy bol at once o4 ystery and o4 health. %uddhis is centripetal, but +hristianity is centri4ugalA it brea0s out. .or the circle is per4ect and in4inite in its nature5 but it is 4ixed 4or e2er in its size5 it can ne2er be larger or s aller. %ut the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its 4our ar s 4or e2er without altering its shape. %ecause it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itsel4 and is bound. The cross opens its ar s to the 4our winds5 it is a signpost 4or 4ree tra2ellers. ,y bols alone are o4 e2en a cloudy 2alue in spea0ing o4 this deep atter5 and another sy bol 4ro physical nature will express su44iciently well the real place o4 ysticis be4ore an0ind. The one created thing which we cannot loo0 at is the one thing in the light o4 which we loo0 at e2erything ?? (i0e the sun at noonday, ysticis explains e2erything else by the blaze o4 its own 2ictorious in2isibility ?? Detached intellectualis is ;in the exact sense o4 a popular phrase< all oonshine5 4or it is light without heat, and it is secondary light, re4lected 4ro a dead world. %ut the &ree0s were right when they ade /pollo the god both o4 i agination and o4 sanity5 4or he was both the patron o4 poetry and the patron o4 healing. !4 necessary dog as and a special creed ' shall spea0 later. %ut that transcendentalis by which all en li2e has pri arily uch the position o4 the sun in the s0y. 6e are conscious o4 it as o4 a 0ind o4 splendid con4usion5 it is so ething both shining and shapeless, at once a blaze and a blur. %ut the circle o4 the oon is as clear and un ista0able, as recurrent and ine2itable, as the circle o4 )uclid on a blac0board. .or the oon is utterly reasonable5 and the oon is the other o4 lunatics and has gi2en to the all her na e.

'''9TH) ,:'+'D) !. TH!:&HT TH) phrases o4 the street are not only 4orcible but subtleA 4or a 4igure o4 speech can o4ten get into a crac0 too s all 4or a de4inition. Phrases li0e 1put out1 or 1o44 colour1 ight ha2e been coined by 3r. Henry Ba es in an agony o4 2erbal precision. /nd there is no ore subtle truth than that o4 the e2eryday phrase about a an ha2ing 1his heart in the right place.1 't in2ol2es the idea o4 nor al proportion5 not only does a certain 4unction exist, but it is rightly related to other 4unctions. 'ndeed, the negation o4 this phrase would describe with peculiar accuracy the so ewhat orbid ercy and per2erse tenderness o4 the ost representati2e oderns. '4, 4or instance, ' had to describe with 4airness the character o4 3r. %ernard ,haw, ' could not express ysel4 ore exactly than by saying that he has a heroically large and generous heart5 but not a heart in the right place. /nd this is so o4 the typical society o4 our ti e. The odern world is not e2il5 in so e ways the odern world is 4ar too good. 't is 4ull o4 wild and wasted 2irtues. 6hen a religious sche e is shattered ;as +hristianity was shattered at the "e4or ation<, it is not erely the 2ices that are let loose. The 2ices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do da age. %ut the 2irtues are let loose also5 and the 2irtues wander ore wildly, and the 2irtues do ore terrible da age. The odern world is 4ull o4 the old +hristian 2irtues gone ad. The 2irtues ha2e gone ad because they ha2e been isolated 4ro each other and are wandering alone. Thus so e scientists care 4or truth5 and their truth is pitiless. Thus so e hu anitarians only care 4or pity5 and their pity ;' a sorry to say< is o4ten untruth4ul. .or exa ple, 3r. %latch4ord attac0s +hristianity because he is ad on one +hristian 2irtueA the erely ystical and al ost irrational 2irtue o4 charity. He has a strange idea that he will a0e it easier to 4orgi2e sins by saying that there are no sins to 4orgi2e. 3r. %latch4ord is not only an early +hristian, he is the only early +hristian who ought really to ha2e been eaten by lions. .or in his case the pagan accusation is really trueA his ercy would ean ere anarchy. He really is the ene y o4 the hu an race ?? because he is so hu an. /s the other extre e, we ay ta0e the acrid realist, who has deliberately 0illed in hi sel4 all hu an pleasure in happy tales or in the healing o4 the heart. Tor>ue ada tortured people physically 4or the sa0e o4 oral truth. Dola tortured people orally 4or the sa0e o4 physical truth. %ut in Tor>ue ada7s ti e there was at least a syste that could to so e extent a0e righteousness and peace 0iss each other. -ow they do not e2en bow. %ut a uch stronger case than these two o4 truth and pity can be 4ound in the re ar0able case o4 the dislocation o4 hu ility. 't is only with one aspect o4 hu ility that we are here concerned. Hu ility was largely eant as a restraint upon the arrogance and in4inity o4 the appetite o4 an. He was always outstripping his ercies with his own newly in2ented needs. His 2ery power o4 en@oy ent destroyed hal4 his @oys. %y as0ing 4or pleasure, he lost the chie4 pleasure5 4or the chie4 pleasure is surprise. Hence it beca e e2ident that i4 a an would a0e his world large, he ust be always a0ing hi sel4 s all. )2en the

haughty 2isions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations o4 hu ility. &iants that tread down 4orests li0e grass are the creations o4 hu ility. Towers that 2anish upwards abo2e the loneliest star are the creations o4 hu ility. .or towers are not tall unless we loo0 up at the 5 and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. /ll this gigantes>ue i agination, which is, perhaps, the ightiest o4 the pleasures o4 an, is at botto entirely hu ble. 't is i possible without hu ility to en@oy anything ?? e2en pride. %ut what we su44er 4ro to?day is hu ility in the wrong place. 3odesty has o2ed 4ro the organ o4 a bition. 3odesty has settled upon the organ o4 con2iction5 where it was ne2er eant to be. / an was eant to be doubt4ul about hi sel4, but undoubting about the truth5 this has been exactly re2ersed. -owadays the part o4 a an that a an does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert hi sel4. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt ?? the Di2ine "eason. Huxley preached a hu ility content to learn 4ro -ature. %ut the new sceptic is so hu ble that he doubts i4 he can e2en learn. Thus we should be wrong i4 we had said hastily that there is no hu ility typical o4 our ti e. The truth is that there is a real hu ility typical o4 our ti e5 but it so happens that it is practically a ore poisonous hu ility than the wildest prostrations o4 the ascetic. The old hu ility was a spur that pre2ented a an 4ro stopping5 not a nail in his boot that pre2ented hi 4ro going on. .or the old hu ility ade a an doubt4ul about his e44orts, which ight a0e hi wor0 harder. %ut the new hu ility a0es a an doubt4ul about his ai s, which will a0e hi stop wor0ing altogether. /t any street corner we ay eet a an who utters the 4rantic and blasphe ous state ent that he ay be wrong. )2ery day one co es across so ebody who says that o4 course his 2iew ay not be the right one. !4 course his 2iew ust be the right one, or it is not his 2iew. 6e are on the road to producing a race o4 en too entally odest to belie2e in the ultiplication table. 6e are in danger o4 seeing philosophers who doubt the law o4 gra2ity as being a ere 4ancy o4 their own. ,co44ers o4 old ti e were too proud to be con2inced5 but these are too hu ble to be con2inced. The ee0 do inherit the earth5 but the odern sceptics are too ee0 e2en to clai their inheritance. 't is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second proble . The last chapter has been concerned only with a 4act o4 obser2ationA that what peril o4 orbidity there is 4or an co es rather 4ro his reason than his i agination. 't was not eant to attac0 the authority o4 reason5 rather it is the ulti ate purpose to de4end it. .or it needs de4ence. The whole odern world is at war with reason5 and the tower already reels. The sages, it is o4ten said, can see no answer to the riddle o4 religion. %ut the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer5 it is that they cannot e2en see the riddle. They are li0e children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the play4ul assertion that a door is not a door. The odern latitudinarians spea0, 4or instance, about authority in religion not only as i4 there were no reason in it, but as i4 there had ne2er been any reason 4or it. /part 4ro seeing its philosophical

basis, they cannot e2en see its historical cause. "eligious authority has o4ten, doubtless, been oppressi2e or unreasonable5 @ust as e2ery legal syste ;and especially our present one< has been callous and 4ull o4 a cruel apathy. 't is rational to attac0 the police5 nay, it is glorious. %ut the odern critics o4 religious authority are li0e en who should attac0 the police without e2er ha2ing heard o4 burglars. .or there is a great and possible peril to the hu an indA a peril as practical as burglary. /gainst it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. /nd against it so ething certainly ust be reared as a barrier, i4 our race is to a2oid ruin. That peril is that the hu an intellect is 4ree to destroy itsel4. Bust as one generation could pre2ent the 2ery existence o4 the next generation, by all entering a onastery or @u ping into the sea, so one set o4 thin0ers can in so e degree pre2ent 4urther thin0ing by teaching the next generation that there is no 2alidity in any hu an thought. 't is idle to tal0 always o4 the alternati2e o4 reason and 4aith. "eason is itsel4 a atter o4 4aith. 't is an act o4 4aith to assert that our thoughts ha2e any relation to reality at all. '4 you are erely a sceptic, you ust sooner or later as0 yoursel4 the >uestion, 16hy should /-$TH'-& go right5 e2en obser2ation and deduction= 6hy should not good logic be as isleading as bad logic= They are both o2e ents in the brain o4 a bewildered ape=1 The young sceptic says, 1' ha2e a right to thin0 4or ysel4.1 %ut the old sceptic, the co plete sceptic, says, 1' ha2e no right to thin0 4or ysel4. ' ha2e no right to thin0 at all.1 There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ulti ate e2il against which all religious authority was ai ed. 't only appears at the end o4 decadent ages li0e our ownA and already 3r. H. &. 6ells has raised its ruinous banner5 he has written a delicate piece o4 scepticis called 1Doubts o4 the 'nstru ent.1 'n this he >uestions the brain itsel4, and endea2ours to re o2e all reality 4ro all his own assertions, past, present, and to co e. %ut it was against this re ote ruin that all the ilitary syste s in religion were originally ran0ed and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, 4or the suppression o4 reason. They were organized 4or the di44icult de4ence o4 reason. 3an, by a blind instinct, 0new that i4 once things were wildly >uestioned, reason could be >uestioned 4irst. The authority o4 priests to absol2e, the authority o4 popes to de4ine the authority, e2en o4 in>uisitors to terri4yA these were all only dar0 de4ences erected round one central authority, ore unde onstrable, ore supernatural than all ?? the authority o4 a an to thin0. 6e 0now now that this is so5 we ha2e no excuse 4or not 0nowing it. .or we can hear scepticis crashing through the old ring o4 authorities, and at the sa e o ent we can see reason swaying upon her throne. 'n so 4ar as religion is gone, reason is going. .or they are both o4 the sa e pri ary and authoritati2e 0ind. They are both ethods o4 proo4 which cannot the sel2es be pro2ed. /nd in the act o4 destroying the idea o4 Di2ine authority we ha2e largely destroyed the idea o4 that hu an authority by which we do a long?di2ision

su . 6ith a long and sustained tug we ha2e atte pted to pull the itre o44 ponti4ical an5 and his head has co e o44 with it. (est this should be called loose assertion, it is perhaps desirable, though dull, to run rapidly through the chie4 odern 4ashions o4 thought which ha2e this e44ect o4 stopping thought itsel4. 3aterialis and the 2iew o4 e2erything as a personal illusion ha2e so e such e44ect5 4or i4 the ind is echanical, thought cannot be 2ery exciting, and i4 the cos os is unreal, there is nothing to thin0 about. %ut in these cases the e44ect is indirect and doubt4ul. 'n so e cases it is direct and clear5 notably in the case o4 what is generally called e2olution. )2olution is a good exa ple o4 that odern intelligence which, i4 it destroys anything, destroys itsel4. )2olution is either an innocent scienti4ic description o4 how certain earthly things ca e about5 or, i4 it is anything ore than this, it is an attac0 upon thought itsel4. '4 e2olution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalis . '4 e2olution si ply eans that a positi2e thing called an ape turned 2ery slowly into a positi2e thing called a an, then it is stingless 4or the ost orthodox5 4or a personal &od ight @ust as well do things slowly as >uic0ly, especially i4, li0e the +hristian &od, he were outside ti e. %ut i4 it eans anything ore, it eans that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a an 4or hi to change into. 't eans that there is no such thing as a thing. /t best, there is only one thing, and that is a 4lux o4 e2erything and anything. This is an attac0 not upon the 4aith, but upon the ind5 you cannot thin0 i4 there are no things to thin0 about. $ou cannot thin0 i4 you are not separate 4ro the sub@ect o4 thought. Descartes said, 1' thin05 there4ore ' a .1 The philosophic e2olutionist re2erses and negati2es the epigra . He says, 1' a not5 there4ore ' cannot thin0.1 Then there is the opposite attac0 on thoughtA that urged by 3r. H. &. 6ells when he insists that e2ery separate thing is 1uni>ue,1 and there are no categories at all. This also is erely destructi2e. Thin0ing eans connecting things, and stops i4 they cannot be connected. 't need hardly be said that this scepticis 4orbidding thought necessarily 4orbids speech5 a an cannot open his outh without contradicting it. Thus when 3r. 6ells says ;as he did so ewhere<, 1/ll chairs are >uite di44erent,1 he utters not erely a isstate ent, but a contradiction in ter s. '4 all chairs were >uite di44erent, you could not call the 1all chairs.1 /0in to these is the 4alse theory o4 progress, which aintains that we alter the test instead o4 trying to pass the test. 6e o4ten hear it said, 4or instance, 16hat is right in one age is wrong in another.1 This is >uite reasonable, i4 it eans that there is a 4ixed ai , and that certain ethods attain at certain ti es and not at other ti es. '4 wo en, say, desire to be elegant, it ay be that they are i pro2ed at one ti e by growing 4atter and at another ti e by growing thinner. %ut you cannot say that they are i pro2ed by ceasing to wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. '4 the standard changes, how can there be i pro2e ent, which i plies a standard= -ietzsche started a nonsensical idea that en had once sought as good what we now call e2il5 i4 it were so, we could not tal0 o4 surpassing or e2en

4alling short o4 the . How can you o2erta0e Bones i4 you wal0 in the other direction= $ou cannot discuss whether one people has succeeded ore in being iserable than another succeeded in being happy. 't would be li0e discussing whether 3ilton was ore puritanical than a pig is 4at. 't is true that a an ;a silly an< ight a0e change itsel4 his ob@ect or ideal. %ut as an ideal, change itsel4 beco es unchangeable. '4 the change?worshipper wishes to esti ate his own progress, he ust be sternly loyal to the ideal o4 change5 he ust not begin to 4lirt gaily with the ideal o4 onotony. Progress itsel4 cannot progress. 't is worth re ar0, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a wild and rather wea0 anner, welco ed the idea o4 in4inite alteration in society, he instincti2ely too0 a etaphor which suggests an i prisoned tediu . He wrote ?? 1(et the great world spin 4or e2er down the ringing groo2es o4 change.1 He thought o4 change itsel4 as an unchangeable groo2e5 and so it is. +hange is about the narrowest and hardest groo2e that a an can get into. The ain point here, howe2er, is that this idea o4 a 4unda ental alteration in the standard is one o4 the things that a0e thought about the past or 4uture si ply i possible. The theory o4 a co plete change o4 standards in hu an history does not erely depri2e us o4 the pleasure o4 honouring our 4athers5 it depri2es us e2en o4 the ore odern and aristocratic pleasure o4 despising the . This bald su ary o4 the thought?destroying 4orces o4 our ti e would not be co plete without so e re4erence to prag atis 5 4or though ' ha2e here used and should e2erywhere de4end the prag atist ethod as a preli inary guide to truth, there is an extre e application o4 it which in2ol2es the absence o4 all truth whate2er. 3y eaning can be put shortly thus. ' agree with the prag atists that apparent ob@ecti2e truth is not the whole atter5 that there is an authoritati2e need to belie2e the things that are necessary to the hu an ind. %ut ' say that one o4 those necessities precisely is a belie4 in ob@ecti2e truth. The prag atist tells a an to thin0 what he ust thin0 and ne2er ind the /bsolute. %ut precisely one o4 the things that he ust thin0 is the /bsolute. This philosophy, indeed, is a 0ind o4 2erbal paradox. Prag atis is a atter o4 hu an needs5 and one o4 the 4irst o4 hu an needs is to be so ething ore than a prag atist. )xtre e prag atis is @ust as inhu an as the deter inis it so power4ully attac0s. The deter inist ;who, to do hi @ustice, does not pretend to be a hu an being< a0es nonsense o4 the hu an sense o4 actual choice. The prag atist, who pro4esses to be specially hu an, a0es nonsense o4 the hu an sense o4 actual 4act. To su up our contention so 4ar, we ay say that the ost characteristic current philosophies ha2e not only a touch o4 ania, but a touch o4 suicidal ania. The ere >uestioner has 0noc0ed his head against the li its o4 hu an thought5 and crac0ed it. This is what a0es so 4utile the warnings o4 the orthodox and the boasts o4 the ad2anced about the dangerous boyhood o4 4ree

thought. 6hat we are loo0ing at is not the boyhood o4 4ree thought5 it is the old age and ulti ate dissolution o4 4ree thought. 't is 2ain 4or bishops and pious bigwigs to discuss what dread4ul things will happen i4 wild scepticis runs its course. 't has run its course. 't is 2ain 4or elo>uent atheists to tal0 o4 the great truths that will be re2ealed i4 once we see 4ree thought begin. 6e ha2e seen it end. 't has no ore >uestions to as05 it has >uestioned itsel4. $ou cannot call up any wilder 2ision than a city in which en as0 the sel2es i4 they ha2e any sel2es. $ou cannot 4ancy a ore sceptical world than that in which en doubt i4 there is a world. 't ight certainly ha2e reached its ban0ruptcy ore >uic0ly and cleanly i4 it had not been 4eebly ha pered by the application o4 inde4ensible laws o4 blasphe y or by the absurd pretence that odern )ngland is +hristian. %ut it would ha2e reached the ban0ruptcy anyhow. 3ilitant atheists are still un@ustly persecuted5 but rather because they are an old inority than because they are a new one. .ree thought has exhausted its own 4reedo . 't is weary o4 its own success. '4 any eager 4reethin0er now hails philosophic 4reedo as the dawn, he is only li0e the an in 3ar0 Twain who ca e out wrapped in blan0ets to see the sun rise and was @ust in ti e to see it set. '4 any 4rightened curate still says that it will be aw4ul i4 the dar0ness o4 4ree thought should spread, we can only answer hi in the high and power4ul words o4 3r. %elloc, 1Do not, ' beseech you, be troubled about the increase o4 4orces already in dissolution. $ou ha2e ista0en the hour o4 the nightA it is already orning.1 6e ha2e no ore >uestions le4t to as0. 6e ha2e loo0ed 4or >uestions in the dar0est corners and on the wildest pea0s. 6e ha2e 4ound all the >uestions that can be 4ound. 't is ti e we ga2e up loo0ing 4or >uestions and began loo0ing 4or answers. %ut one ore word ust be added. /t the beginning o4 this preli inary negati2e s0etch ' said that our ental ruin has been wrought by wild reason, not by wild i agination. / an does not go ad because he a0es a statue a ile high, but he ay go ad by thin0ing it out in s>uare inches. -ow, one school o4 thin0ers has seen this and @u ped at it as a way o4 renewing the pagan health o4 the world. They see that reason destroys5 but 6ill, they say, creates. The ulti ate authority, they say, is in will, not in reason. The supre e point is not why a an de ands a thing, but the 4act that he does de and it. ' ha2e no space to trace or expound this philosophy o4 6ill. 't ca e, ' suppose, through -ietzsche, who preached so ething that is called egois . That, indeed, was si ple inded enough5 4or -ietzsche denied egois si ply by preaching it. To preach anything is to gi2e it away. .irst, the egoist calls li4e a war without ercy, and then he ta0es the greatest possible trouble to drill his ene ies in war. To preach egois is to practise altruis . %ut howe2er it began, the 2iew is co on enough in current literature. The ain de4ence o4 these thin0ers is that they are not thin0ers5 they are a0ers. They say that choice is itsel4 the di2ine thing. Thus 3r. %ernard ,haw has attac0ed the old idea that en7s acts are to be @udged by the standard o4 the desire o4 happiness. He says that a an does not act 4or his happiness, but 4ro his will. He does not say, 1Ba will a0e e happy,1 but 1' want @a .1 /nd in all this others

4ollow hi with yet greater enthusias . 3r. Bohn Da2idson, a re ar0able poet, is so passionately excited about it that he is obliged to write prose. He publishes a short play with se2eral long pre4aces. This is natural enough in 3r. ,haw, 4or all his plays are pre4acesA 3r. ,haw is ;' suspect< the only an on earth who has ne2er written any poetry. %ut that 3r. Da2idson ;who can write excellent poetry< should write instead laborious etaphysics in de4ence o4 this doctrine o4 will, does show that the doctrine o4 will has ta0en hold o4 en. )2en 3r. H. &. 6ells has hal4 spo0en in its language5 saying that one should test acts not li0e a thin0er, but li0e an artist, saying, 1' .))( this cur2e is right,1 or 1that line ,H/(( go thus.1 They are all excited5 and well they ay be. .or by this doctrine o4 the di2ine authority o4 will, they thin0 they can brea0 out o4 the doo ed 4ortress o4 rationalis . They thin0 they can escape. %ut they cannot escape. This pure praise o4 2olition ends in the sa e brea0 up and blan0 as the ere pursuit o4 logic. )xactly as co plete 4ree thought in2ol2es the doubting o4 thought itsel4, so the acceptation o4 ere 1willing1 really paralyzes the will. 3r. %ernard ,haw has not percei2ed the real di44erence between the old utilitarian test o4 pleasure ;clu sy, o4 course, and easily isstated< and that which he propounds. The real di44erence between the test o4 happiness and the test o4 will is si ply that the test o4 happiness is a test and the other isn7t. $ou can discuss whether a an7s act in @u ping o2er a cli44 was directed towards happiness5 you cannot discuss whether it was deri2ed 4ro will. !4 course it was. $ou can praise an action by saying that it is calculated to bring pleasure or pain to disco2er truth or to sa2e the soul. %ut you cannot praise an action because it shows will5 4or to say that is erely to say that it is an action. %y this praise o4 will you cannot really choose one course as better than another. /nd yet choosing one course as better than another is the 2ery de4inition o4 the will you are praising. The worship o4 will is the negation o4 will. To ad ire ere choice is to re4use to choose. '4 3r. %ernard ,haw co es up to e and says, 16ill so ething,1 that is tanta ount to saying, 1' do not ind what you will,1 and that is tanta ount to saying, 1' ha2e no will in the atter.1 $ou cannot ad ire will in general, because the essence o4 will is that it is particular. / brilliant anarchist li0e 3r. Bohn Da2idson 4eels an irritation against ordinary orality, and there4ore he in2o0es will ?? will to anything. He only wants hu anity to want so ething. %ut hu anity does want so ething. 't wants ordinary orality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will so ething or anything. %ut we ha2e willed so ething. 6e ha2e willed the law against which he rebels. /ll the will?worshippers, 4ro -ietzsche to 3r. Da2idson, are really >uite e pty o4 2olition. They cannot will, they can hardly wish. /nd i4 any one wants a proo4 o4 this, it can be 4ound >uite easily. 't can be 4ound in this 4actA that they always tal0 o4 will as so ething that expands and brea0s out. %ut it is >uite the opposite. )2ery act o4 will is an act o4 sel4?li itation. To desire action is to desire li itation. 'n that sense e2ery act is an act o4 sel4?sacri4ice. 6hen you choose anything, you re@ect e2erything else. That ob@ection, which en o4 this school used to

a0e to the act o4 arriage, is really an ob@ection to e2ery act. )2ery act is an irre2ocable selection exclusion. Bust as when you arry one wo an you gi2e up all the others, so when you ta0e one course o4 action you gi2e up all the other courses. '4 you beco e *ing o4 )ngland, you gi2e up the post o4 %eadle in %ro pton. '4 you go to "o e, you sacri4ice a rich suggesti2e li4e in 6i bledon. 't is the existence o4 this negati2e or li iting side o4 will that a0es ost o4 the tal0 o4 the anarchic will?worshippers little better than nonsense. .or instance, 3r. Bohn Da2idson tells us to ha2e nothing to do with 1Thou shalt not15 but it is surely ob2ious that 1Thou shalt not1 is only one o4 the necessary corollaries o4 1' will.1 1' will go to the (ord 3ayor7s ,how, and thou shalt not stop e.1 /narchis ad@ures us to be bold creati2e artists, and care 4or no laws or li its. %ut it is i possible to be an artist and not care 4or laws and li its. /rt is li itation5 the essence o4 e2ery picture is the 4ra e. '4 you draw a gira44e, you ust draw hi with a long nec0. '4, in your bold creati2e way, you hold yoursel4 4ree to draw a gira44e with a short nec0, you will really 4ind that you are not 4ree to draw a gira44e. The o ent you step into the world o4 4acts, you step into a world o4 li its. $ou can 4ree things 4ro alien or accidental laws, but not 4ro the laws o4 their own nature. $ou ay, i4 you li0e, 4ree a tiger 4ro his bars5 but do not 4ree hi 4ro his stripes. Do not 4ree a ca el o4 the burden o4 his hu pA you ay be 4reeing hi 4ro being a ca el. Do not go about as a de agogue, encouraging triangles to brea0 out o4 the prison o4 their three sides. '4 a triangle brea0s out o4 its three sides, its li4e co es to a la entable end. ,o ebody wrote a wor0 called 1The (o2es o4 the Triangles15 ' ne2er read it, but ' a sure that i4 triangles e2er were lo2ed, they were lo2ed 4or being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in so e ways the ost decisi2e exa ple o4 pure will. The artist lo2es his li itationsA they constitute the TH'-& he is doing. The painter is glad that the can2as is 4lat. The sculptor is glad that the clay is colourless. 'n case the point is not clear, an historic exa ple ay illustrate it. The .rench "e2olution was really an heroic and decisi2e thing, because the Bacobins willed so ething de4inite and li ited. They desired the 4reedo s o4 de ocracy, but also all the 2etoes o4 de ocracy. They wished to ha2e 2otes and -!T to ha2e titles. "epublicanis had an ascetic side in .ran0lin or "obespierre as well as an expansi2e side in Danton or 6il0es. There4ore they ha2e created so ething with a solid substance and shape, the s>uare social e>uality and peasant wealth o4 .rance. %ut since then the re2olutionary or speculati2e ind o4 )urope has been wea0ened by shrin0ing 4ro any proposal because o4 the li its o4 that proposal. (iberalis has been degraded into liberality. 3en ha2e tried to turn 1re2olutionise1 4ro a transiti2e to an intransiti2e 2erb. The Bacobin could tell you not only the syste he would rebel against, but ;what was ore i portant< the syste he would -!T rebel against, the syste he would trust. %ut the new rebel is a ,ceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty5 there4ore he can ne2er be really a re2olutionist. /nd the 4act that he doubts e2erything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. .or all denunciation i plies a oral

doctrine o4 so e 0ind5 and the odern re2olutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one boo0 co plaining that i perial oppression insults the purity o4 wo en, and then he writes another boo0 ;about the sex proble < in which he insults it hi sel4. He curses the ,ultan because +hristian girls lose their 2irginity, and then curses 3rs. &rundy because they 0eep it. /s a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste o4 li4e, and then, as a philosopher, that all li4e is waste o4 ti e. / "ussian pessi ist will denounce a police an 4or 0illing a peasant, and then pro2e by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to ha2e 0illed hi sel4. / an denounces arriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic pro4ligates 4or treating it as a lie. He calls a 4lag a bauble, and then bla es the oppressors o4 Poland or 'reland because they ta0e away that bauble. The an o4 this school goes 4irst to a political eeting, where he co plains that sa2ages are treated as i4 they were beasts5 then he ta0es his hat and u brella and goes on to a scienti4ic eeting, where he pro2es that they practically are beasts. 'n short, the odern re2olutionist, being an in4inite sceptic, is always engaged in under ining his own ines. 'n his boo0 on politics he attac0s en 4or tra pling on orality5 in his boo0 on ethics he attac0s orality 4or tra pling on en. There4ore the odern an in re2olt has beco e practically useless 4or all purposes o4 re2olt. %y rebelling against e2erything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. 't ay be added that the sa e blan0 and ban0ruptcy can be obser2ed in all 4ierce and terrible types o4 literature, especially in satire. ,atire ay be ad and anarchic, but it presupposes an ad itted superiority in certain things o2er others5 it presupposes a standard. 6hen little boys in the street laugh at the 4atness o4 so e distinguished @ournalist, they are unconsciously assu ing a standard o4 &ree0 sculpture. They are appealing to the arble /pollo. /nd the curious disappearance o4 satire 4ro our literature is an instance o4 the 4ierce things 4ading 4or want o4 any principle to be 4ierce about. -ietzsche had so e natural talent 4or sarcas A he could sneer, though he could not laugh5 but there is always so ething bodiless and without weight in his satire, si ply because it has not any ass o4 co on orality behind it. He is hi sel4 ore preposterous than anything he denounces. %ut, indeed, -ietzsche will stand 2ery well as the type o4 the whole o4 this 4ailure o4 abstract 2iolence. The so4tening o4 the brain which ulti ately o2ertoo0 hi was not a physical accident. '4 -ietzsche had not ended in i becility, -ietzscheis would end in i becility. Thin0ing in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. )2ery an who will not ha2e so4tening o4 the heart ust at last ha2e so4tening o4 the brain. This last atte pt to e2ade intellectualis ends in intellectualis , and there4ore in death. The sortie has 4ailed. The wild worship o4 lawlessness and the aterialist worship o4 law end in the sa e 2oid. -ietzsche scales staggering ountains, but he turns up ulti ately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land o4 nothing and -ir2ana. They are both helpless ?? one because he ust not grasp anything, and the other because he ust not let go o4 anything. The Tolstoyan7s will is 4rozen by a

%uddhist instinct that all special actions are e2il. %ut the -ietzscheite7s will is >uite e>ually 4rozen by his 2iew that all special actions are good5 4or i4 all special actions are good, none o4 the are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other li0es all the roads. The result is ?? well, so e things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross?roads. Here ' end ;than0 &od< the 4irst and dullest business o4 this boo0 ?? the rough re2iew o4 recent thought. /4ter this ' begin to s0etch a 2iew o4 li4e which ay not interest y reader, but which, at any rate, interests e. 'n 4ront o4 e, as ' close this page, is a pile o4 odern boo0s that ' ha2e been turning o2er 4or the purpose ?? a pile o4 ingenuity, a pile o4 4utility. %y the accident o4 y present detach ent, ' can see the ine2itable s ash o4 the philosophies o4 ,chopenhauer and Tolstoy, -ietzsche and ,haw, as clearly as an ine2itable ra4tway s ash could be seen 4ro a balloon. They are all on the road to the e ptiness o4 the asylu . .or adness ay be de4ined as using ental acti2ity so as to reach ental helplessness5 and they ha2e nearly reached it. He who thin0s he is ade o4 glass, thin0s to the destruction o4 thought5 4or glass cannot thin0. ,o he who wills to re@ect nothing, wills the destruction o4 will5 4or will is not only the choice o4 so ething, but the re@ection o4 al ost e2erything. /nd as ' turn and tu ble o2er the cle2er, wonder4ul, tireso e, and useless odern boo0s, the tide o4 one o4 the ri2ets y eye. 't is called 1Beanne d7/rc,1 by /natole .rance. ' ha2e only glanced at it, but a glance was enough to re ind e o4 "enan7s 18ie de Besus.1 't has the sa e strange ethod o4 the re2erent sceptic. 't discredits supernatural stories that ha2e so e 4oundation, si ply by telling natural stories that ha2e no 4oundation. %ecause we cannot belie2e in what a saint did, we are to pretend that we 0now exactly what he 4elt. %ut ' do not ention either boo0 in order to criticise it, but because the accidental co bination o4 the na es called up two startling i ages o4 ,anity which blasted all the boo0s be4ore e. Boan o4 /rc was not stuc0 at the cross?roads, either by re@ecting all the paths li0e Tolstoy, or by accepting the all li0e -ietzsche. ,he chose a path, and went down it li0e a thunderbolt. $et Boan, when ' ca e to thin0 o4 her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or -ietzsche, all that was e2en tolerable in either o4 the . ' thought o4 all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities o4 the earth, the re2erence 4or the poor, the dignity o4 the bowed bac0. Boan o4 /rc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured po2erty as well as ad iring it5 whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to 4ind out its secret. /nd then ' thought o4 all that was bra2e and proud and pathetic in poor -ietzsche, and his utiny against the e ptiness and ti idity o4 our ti e. ' thought o4 his cry 4or the ecstatic e>uilibriu o4 danger, his hunger 4or the rush o4 great horses, his cry to ar s. 6ell, Boan o4 /rc had all that, and again with this di44erence, that she did not praise 4ighting, but 4ought. 6e *-!6 that she was not a4raid o4 an ar y, while -ietzsche, 4or all we 0now, was a4raid o4 a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant5 she was the peasant. -ietzsche only praised the warrior5 she was

the warrior. ,he beat the both at their own antagonistic ideals5 she was ore gentle than the one, ore 2iolent than the other. $et she was a per4ectly practical person who did so ething, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. 't was i possible that the thought should not cross y ind that she and her 4aith had perhaps so e secret o4 oral unity and utility that has been lost. /nd with that thought ca e a larger one, and the colossal 4igure o4 her 3aster had also crossed the theatre o4 y thoughts. The sa e odern di44iculty which dar0ened the sub@ect? atter o4 /natole .rance also dar0ened that o4 )rnest "enan. "enan also di2ided his hero7s pity 4ro his hero7s pugnacity. "enan e2en represented the righteous anger at Berusale as a ere ner2ous brea0down a4ter the idyllic expectations o4 &alilee. /s i4 there were any inconsistency between ha2ing a lo2e 4or hu anity and ha2ing a hatred 4or inhu anityC /ltruists, with thin, wea0 2oices, denounce +hrist as an egoist. )goists ;with e2en thinner and wea0er 2oices< denounce Hi as an altruist. 'n our present at osphere such ca2ils are co prehensible enough. The lo2e o4 a hero is ore terrible than the hatred o4 a tyrant. The hatred o4 a hero is ore generous than the lo2e o4 a philanthropist. There is a huge and heroic sanity o4 which oderns can only collect the 4rag ents. There is a giant o4 who we see only the lopped ar s and legs wal0ing about. They ha2e torn the soul o4 +hrist into silly strips, labelled egois and altruis , and they are e>ually puzzled by His insane agni4icence and His insane ee0ness. They ha2e parted His gar ents a ong the , and 4or His 2esture they ha2e cast lots5 though the coat was without sea wo2en 4ro the top throughout. '89TH) )TH'+, !. )(.(/-D 6H)- the business an rebu0es the idealis o4 his o44ice?boy, it is co only in so e such speech as thisA 1/h, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air5 but in iddle age they all brea0 up li0e clouds, and one co es down to a belie4 in practical politics, to using the achinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.1 Thus, at least, 2enerable and philanthropic old en now in their honoured gra2es used to tal0 to e when ' was a boy. %ut since then ' ha2e grown up and ha2e disco2ered that these philanthropic old en were telling lies. 6hat has really happened is exactly the opposite o4 what they said would happen. They said that ' should lose y ideals and begin to belie2e in the ethods o4 practical politicians. -ow, ' ha2e not lost y ideals in the least5 y 4aith in 4unda entals is exactly what it always was. 6hat ' ha2e lost is y old childli0e 4aith in practical politics. ' a still as uch concerned as e2er about the %attle o4 /r ageddon5 but ' a not so uch concerned about the &eneral )lection. /s a babe ' leapt up on y other7s 0nee at the ere ention o4 it. -o5 the 2ision is always solid and reliable. The 2ision is always a 4act. 't is the reality that is o4ten a 4raud. /s uch as ' e2er did, ore than ' e2er did, ' belie2e in (iberalis . %ut there was a rosy ti e o4 innocence when ' belie2ed in (iberals.

' ta0e this instance o4 one o4 the enduring 4aiths because, ha2ing now to trace the roots o4 y personal speculation, this ay be counted, ' thin0, as the only positi2e bias. ' was brought up a (iberal, and ha2e always belie2ed in de ocracy, in the ele entary liberal doctrine o4 a sel4?go2erning hu anity. '4 any one 4inds the phrase 2ague or threadbare, ' can only pause 4or a o ent to explain that the principle o4 de ocracy, as ' ean it, can be stated in two propositions. The 4irst is thisA that the things co on to all en are ore i portant than the things peculiar to any en. !rdinary things are ore 2aluable than extraordinary things5 nay, they are ore extraordinary. 3an is so ething ore aw4ul than en5 so ething ore strange. The sense o4 the iracle o4 hu anity itsel4 should be always ore 2i2id to us than any ar2els o4 power, intellect, art, or ci2ilization. The ere an on two legs, as such, should be 4elt as so ething ore heartbrea0ing than any usic and ore startling than any caricature. Death is ore tragic e2en than death by star2ation. Ha2ing a nose is ore co ic e2en than ha2ing a -or an nose. This is the 4irst principle o4 de ocracyA that the essential things in en are the things they hold in co on, not the things they hold separately. /nd the second principle is erely thisA that the political instinct or desire is one o4 these things which they hold in co on. .alling in lo2e is ore poetical than dropping into poetry. The de ocratic contention is that go2ern ent ;helping to rule the tribe< is a thing li0e 4alling in lo2e, and not a thing li0e dropping into poetry. 't is not so ething analogous to playing the church organ, painting on 2ellu , disco2ering the -orth Pole ;that insidious habit<, looping the loop, being /strono er "oyal, and so on. .or these things we do not wish a an to do at all unless he does the well. 't is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one7s own lo2e?letters or blowing one7s own nose. These things we want a an to do 4or hi sel4, e2en i4 he does the badly. ' a not here arguing the truth o4 any o4 these conceptions5 ' 0now that so e oderns are as0ing to ha2e their wi2es chosen by scientists, and they ay soon be as0ing, 4or all ' 0now, to ha2e their noses blown by nurses. ' erely say that an0ind does recognize these uni2ersal hu an 4unctions, and that de ocracy classes go2ern ent a ong the . 'n short, the de ocratic 4aith is thisA that the ost terribly i portant things ust be le4t to ordinary en the sel2es ?? the ating o4 the sexes, the rearing o4 the young, the laws o4 the state. This is de ocracy5 and in this ' ha2e always belie2ed. %ut there is one thing that ' ha2e ne2er 4ro y youth up been able to understand. ' ha2e ne2er been able to understand where people got the idea that de ocracy was in so e way opposed to tradition. 't is ob2ious that tradition is only de ocracy extended through ti e. 't is trusting to a consensus o4 co on hu an 2oices rather than to so e isolated or arbitrary record. The an who >uotes so e &er an historian against the tradition o4 the +atholic +hurch, 4or instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority o4 one expert against the aw4ul authority o4 a ob. 't is >uite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, ore respect4ully than a boo0 o4 history. The legend is generally ade by the

a@ority o4 people in the 2illage, who are sane. The boo0 is generally written by the one an in the 2illage who is ad. Those who urge against tradition that en in the past were ignorant ay go and urge it at the +arlton +lub, along with the state ent that 2oters in the slu s are ignorant. 't will not do 4or us. '4 we attach great i portance to the opinion o4 ordinary en in great unani ity when we are dealing with daily atters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or 4able. Tradition ay be de4ined as an extension o4 the 4ranchise. Tradition eans gi2ing 2otes to the ost obscure o4 all classes, our ancestors. 't is the de ocracy o4 the dead. Tradition re4uses to sub it to the s all and arrogant oligarchy o4 those who erely happen to be wal0ing about. /ll de ocrats ob@ect to en being dis>uali4ied by the accident o4 birth5 tradition ob@ects to their being dis>uali4ied by the accident o4 death. De ocracy tells us not to neglect a good an7s opinion, e2en i4 he is our groo 5 tradition as0s us not to neglect a good an7s opinion, e2en i4 he is our 4ather. ', at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas o4 de ocracy and tradition5 it see s e2ident to e that they are the sa e idea. 6e will ha2e the dead at our councils. The ancient &ree0s 2oted by stones5 these shall 2ote by to bstones. 't is all >uite regular and o44icial, 4or ost to bstones, li0e ost ballot papers, are ar0ed with a cross. ' ha2e 4irst to say, there4ore, that i4 ' ha2e had a bias, it was always a bias in 4a2our o4 de ocracy, and there4ore o4 tradition. %e4ore we co e to any theoretic or logical beginnings ' a content to allow 4or that personal e>uation5 ' ha2e always been ore inclined to belie2e the ruc0 o4 hard?wor0ing people than to belie2e that special and troubleso e literary class to which ' belong. ' pre4er e2en the 4ancies and pre@udices o4 the people who see li4e 4ro the inside to the clearest de onstrations o4 the people who see li4e 4ro the outside. ' would always trust the old wi2es7 4ables against the old aids7 4acts. /s long as wit is other wit it can be as wild as it pleases. -ow, ' ha2e to put together a general position, and ' pretend to no training in such things. ' propose to do it, there4ore, by writing down one a4ter another the three or 4our 4unda ental ideas which ' ha2e 4ound 4or ysel4, pretty uch in the way that ' 4ound the . Then ' shall roughly synthesise the , su ing up y personal philosophy or natural religion5 then shall describe y startling disco2ery that the whole thing had been disco2ered be4ore. 't had been disco2ered by +hristianity. %ut o4 these pro4ound persuasions which ' ha2e to recount in order, the earliest was concerned with this ele ent o4 popular tradition. /nd without the 4oregoing explanation touching tradition and de ocracy ' could hardly a0e y ental experience clear. /s it is, ' do not 0now whether ' can a0e it clear, but ' now propose to try. 3y 4irst and last philosophy, that which ' belie2e in with unbro0en certainty, ' learnt in the nursery. ' generally learnt it 4ro a nurse5 that is, 4ro the sole n and star?appointed priestess at once o4 de ocracy and tradition. The things ' belie2ed ost then, the things ' belie2e ost now, are the things called 4airy tales. They see to e to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not 4antasiesA co pared with the other things

are 4antastic. +o pared with the religion and rationalis are both abnor al, though religion is abnor ally right and rationalis abnor ally wrong. .airyland is nothing but the sunny country o4 co on sense. 't is not earth that @udges hea2en, but hea2en that @udges earth5 so 4or e at least it was not earth that criticised el4land, but el4land that criticised the earth. ' 0new the agic beanstal0 be4ore ' had tasted beans5 ' was sure o4 the 3an in the 3oon be4ore ' was certain o4 the oon. This was at one with all popular tradition. 3odern inor poets are naturalists, and tal0 about the bush or the broo05 but the singers o4 the old epics and 4ables were supernaturalists, and tal0ed about the gods o4 broo0 and bush. That is what the oderns ean when they say that the ancients did not 1appreciate -ature,1 because they said that -ature was di2ine. !ld nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the 4airies that dance on the grass5 and the old &ree0s could not see the trees 4or the dryads. %ut ' deal here with what ethic and philosophy co e 4ro being 4ed on 4airy tales. '4 ' were describing the in detail ' could note any noble and healthy principles that arise 4ro the . There is the chi2alrous lesson o4 1Bac0 the &iant *iller15 that giants should be 0illed because they are gigantic. 't is a anly utiny against pride as such. .or the rebel is older than all the 0ingdo s, and the Bacobin has ore tradition than the Bacobite. There is the lesson o4 1+inderella,1 which is the sa e as that o4 the 3agni4icat ?? )#/(T/8'T H:3'(),. There is the great lesson o4 1%eauty and the %east15 that a thing ust be lo2ed %).!") it is lo2eable. There is the terrible allegory o4 the 1,leeping %eauty,1 which tells how the hu an creature was blessed with all birthday gi4ts, yet cursed with death5 and how death also ay perhaps be so4tened to a sleep. %ut ' a not concerned with any o4 the separate statutes o4 el4and, but with the whole spirit o4 its law, which ' learnt be4ore ' could spea0, and shall retain when ' cannot write. ' a concerned with a certain way o4 loo0ing at li4e, which was created in e by the 4airy tales, but has since been ee0ly rati4ied by the ere 4acts. 't ight be stated this way. There are certain se>uences or de2elop ents ;cases o4 one thing 4ollowing another<, which are, in the true sense o4 the word, reasonable. They are, in the true sense o4 the word, necessary. ,uch are athe atical and erely logical se>uences. 6e in 4airyland ;who are the ost reasonable o4 all creatures< ad it that reason and that necessity. .or instance, i4 the :gly ,isters are older than +inderella, it is ;in an iron and aw4ul sense< -)+),,/"$ that +inderella is younger than the :gly ,isters. There is no getting out o4 it. Haec0el ay tal0 as uch 4atalis about that 4act as he pleasesA it really ust be. '4 Bac0 is the son o4 a iller, a iller is the 4ather o4 Bac0. +old reason decrees it 4ro her aw4ul throneA and we in 4airyland sub it. '4 the three brothers all ride horses, there are six ani als and eighteen legs in2ol2edA that is true rationalis , and 4airyland is 4ull o4 it. %ut as ' put y head o2er the hedge o4 the el2es and began to ta0e notice o4 the natural world, ' obser2ed an extraordinary thing. ' obser2ed that learned en in spectacles were tal0ing o4 the actual things that happened ?? dawn and death and so on ?? as i4 TH)$ were rational and ine2itable.

They tal0ed as i4 the 4act that trees bear 4ruit were @ust as -)+),,/"$ as the 4act that two and one trees a0e three. %ut it is not. There is an enor ous di44erence by the test o4 4airyland5 which is the test o4 the i agination. $ou cannot '3/&'-) two and one not a0ing three. %ut you can easily i agine trees not growing 4ruit5 you can i agine the growing golden candlestic0s or tigers hanging on by the tail. These en in spectacles spo0e uch o4 a an na ed -ewton, who was hit by an apple, and who disco2ered a law. %ut they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law o4 reason, and the ere 4act o4 apples 4alling. '4 the apple hit -ewton7s nose, -ewton7s nose hit the apple. That is a true necessityA because we cannot concei2e the one occurring without the other. %ut we can >uite well concei2e the apple not 4alling on his nose5 we can 4ancy it 4lying ardently through the air to hit so e other nose, o4 which it had a ore de4inite disli0e. 6e ha2e always in our 4airy tales 0ept this sharp distinction between the science o4 ental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science o4 physical 4acts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions. 6e belie2e in bodily iracles, but not in ental i possibilities. 6e belie2e that a %ean?stal0 cli bed up to Hea2en5 but that does not at all con4use our con2ictions on the philosophical >uestion o4 how any beans a0e 4i2e. Here is the peculiar per4ection o4 tone and truth in the nursery tales. The an o4 science says, 1+ut the stal0, and the apple will 4all15 but he says it cal ly, as i4 the one idea really led up to the other. The witch in the 4airy tale says, 1%low the horn, and the ogre7s castle will 4all 15 but she does not say it as i4 it were so ething in which the e44ect ob2iously arose out o4 the cause. Doubtless she has gi2en the ad2ice to any cha pions, and has seen any castles 4all, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. ,he does not uddle her head until it i agines a necessary ental connection between a horn and a 4alling tower. %ut the scienti4ic en do uddle their heads, until they i agine a necessary ental connection between an apple lea2ing the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really tal0 as i4 they had 4ound not only a set o4 ar2ellous 4acts, but a truth connecting those 4acts. They do tal0 as i4 the connection o4 two strange things physically connected the philosophically. They 4eel that because one inco prehensible thing constantly 4ollows another inco prehensible thing the two together so ehow a0e up a co prehensible thing. Two blac0 riddles a0e a white answer. 'n 4airyland we a2oid the word 1law15 but in the land o4 science they are singularly 4ond o4 it. Thus they will call so e interesting con@ecture about how 4orgotten 4ol0s pronounced the alphabet, &ri 7s (aw. %ut &ri 7s (aw is 4ar less intellectual than &ri 7s .airy Tales. The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales5 while the law is not a law. / law i plies that we 0now the nature o4 the generalisation and enact ent5 not erely that we ha2e noticed so e o4 the e44ects. '4 there is a law that pic0? poc0ets shall go to prison, it i plies that there is an i aginable ental connection between the idea o4 prison and the idea o4 pic0ing poc0ets. /nd we 0now what the idea is. 6e can say why we

ta0e liberty 4ro a an who ta0es liberties. %ut we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chic0en any ore than we can say why a bear could turn into a 4airy prince. /s 'D)/,, the egg and the chic0en are 4urther o44 4ro each other than the bear and the prince5 4or no egg in itsel4 suggests a chic0en, whereas so e princes do suggest bears. &ranted, then, that certain trans4or ations do happen, it is essential that we should regard the in the philosophic anner o4 4airy tales, not in the unphilosophic anner o4 science and the 1(aws o4 -ature.1 6hen we are as0ed why eggs turn to birds or 4ruits 4all in autu n, we ust answer exactly as the 4airy god other would answer i4 +inderella as0ed her why ice turned to horses or her clothes 4ell 4ro her at twel2e o7cloc0. 6e ust answer that it is 3/&'+. 't is not a 1law,1 4or we do not understand its general 4or ula. 't is not a necessity, 4or though we can count on it happening practically, we ha2e no right to say that it ust always happen. 't is no argu ent 4or unalterable law ;as Huxley 4ancied< that we count on the ordinary course o4 things. 6e do not count on it5 we bet on it. 6e ris0 the re ote possibility o4 a iracle as we do that o4 a poisoned panca0e or a world?destroying co et. 6e lea2e it out o4 account, not because it is a iracle, and there4ore an i possibility, but because it is a iracle, and there4ore an exception. /ll the ter s used in the science boo0s, 1law,1 1necessity,1 1order,1 1tendency,1 and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assu e an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that e2er satis4ied e as describing -ature are the ter s used in the 4airy boo0s, 1char ,1 1spell,1 1enchant ent.1 They express the arbitrariness o4 the 4act and its ystery. / tree grows 4ruit because it is a 3/&'+ tree. 6ater runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. ' deny altogether that this is 4antastic or e2en ystical. 6e ay ha2e so e ysticis later on5 but this 4airy?tale language about things is si ply rational and agnostic. 't is the only way ' can express in words y clear and de4inite perception that one thing is >uite distinct 4ro another5 that there is no logical connection between 4lying and laying eggs. 't is the an who tal0s about 1a law1 that he has ne2er seen who is the ystic. -ay, the ordinary scienti4ic an is strictly a senti entalist. He is a senti entalist in this essential sense, that he is soa0ed and swept away by ere associations. He has so o4ten seen birds 4ly and lay eggs that he 4eels as i4 there ust be so e drea y, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. / 4orlorn lo2er ight be unable to dissociate the oon 4ro lost lo2e5 so the aterialist is unable to dissociate the oon 4ro the tide. 'n both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen the together. / senti entalist ight shed tears at the s ell o4 apple? blosso , because, by a dar0 association o4 his own, it re inded hi o4 his boyhood. ,o the aterialist pro4essor ;though he conceals his tears< is yet a senti entalist, because, by a dar0 association o4 his own, apple?blosso s re ind hi o4 apples. %ut the cool rationalist 4ro 4airyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow cri son tulips5 it so eti es does in his country. This ele entary wonder, howe2er, is not a ere 4ancy deri2ed

4ro the 4airy tales5 on the contrary, all the 4ire o4 the 4airy tales is deri2ed 4ro this. Bust as we all li0e lo2e tales because there is an instinct o4 sex, we all li0e astonishing tales because they touch the ner2e o4 the ancient instinct o4 astonish ent. This is pro2ed by the 4act that when we are 2ery young children we do not need 4airy talesA we only need tales. 3ere li4e is interesting enough. / child o4 se2en is excited by being told that To y opened a door and saw a dragon. %ut a child o4 three is excited by being told that To y opened a door. %oys li0e ro antic tales5 but babies li0e realistic tales ?? because they 4ind the ro antic. 'n 4act, a baby is about the only person, ' should thin0, to who a odern realistic no2el could be read without boring hi . This pro2es that e2en nursery tales only echo an al ost pre?natal leap o4 interest and a aze ent. These tales say that apples were golden only to re4resh the 4orgotten o ent when we 4ound that they were green. They a0e ri2ers run with wine only to a0e us re e ber, 4or one wild o ent, that they run with water. ' ha2e said that this is wholly reasonable and e2en agnostic. /nd, indeed, on this point ' a all 4or the higher agnosticis 5 its better na e is 'gnorance. 6e ha2e all read in scienti4ic boo0s, and, indeed, in all ro ances, the story o4 the an who has 4orgotten his na e. This an wal0s about the streets and can see and appreciate e2erything5 only he cannot re e ber who he is. 6ell, e2ery an is that an in the story. )2ery an has 4orgotten who he is. !ne ay understand the cos os, but ne2er the ego5 the sel4 ore distant than any star. Thou shalt lo2e the (ord thy &od5 but thou shalt not 0now thysel4. 6e are all under the sa e ental cala ity5 we ha2e all 4orgotten our na es. 6e ha2e all 4orgotten what we really are. /ll that we call co on sense and rationality and practicality and positi2is only eans that 4or certain dead le2els o4 our li4e we 4orget that we ha2e 4orgotten. /ll that we call spirit and art and ecstacy only eans that 4or one aw4ul instant we re e ber that we 4orget. %ut though ;li0e the an without e ory in the no2el< we wal0 the streets with a sort o4 hal4?witted ad iration, still it is ad iration. 't is ad iration in )nglish and not only ad iration in (atin. The wonder has a positi2e ele ent o4 praise. This is the next ilestone to be de4initely ar0ed on our road through 4airyland. ' shall spea0 in the next chapter about opti ists and pessi ists in their intellectual aspect, so 4ar as they ha2e one. Here a only trying to describe the enor ous e otions which cannot be described. /nd the strongest e otion was that li4e was as precious as it was puzzling. 't was an ecstacy because it was an ad2enture5 it was an ad2enture because it was an opportunity. The goodness o4 the 4airy tale was not a44ected by the 4act that there ight be ore dragons than princesses5 it was good to be in a 4airy tale. The test o4 all happiness is gratitude5 and ' 4elt grate4ul, though ' hardly 0new to who . +hildren are grate4ul when ,anta +laus puts in their stoc0ings gi4ts o4 toys or sweets. +ould ' not be grate4ul to ,anta +laus when he put in y stoc0ings the gi4t o4 two iraculous legs= 6e than0 people 4or birthday presents o4 cigars and slippers. +an ' than0 no one 4or the birthday present o4 birth= There were, then, these two 4irst 4eelings, inde4ensible and

indisputable. The world was a shoc0, but it was not erely shoc0ing5 existence was a surprise, but it was a pleasant surprise. 'n 4act, all y 4irst 2iews were exactly uttered in a riddle that stuc0 in y brain 4ro boyhood. The >uestion was, 16hat did the 4irst 4rog say=1 /nd the answer was, 1(ord, how you ade e @u pC1 That says succinctly all that ' a saying. &od ade the 4rog @u p5 but the 4rog pre4ers @u ping. %ut when these things are settled there enters the second great principle o4 the 4airy philosophy. /ny one can see it who will si ply read 1&ri 7s .airy Tales1 or the 4ine collections o4 3r. /ndrew (ang. .or the pleasure o4 pedantry ' will call it the Doctrine o4 +onditional Boy. Touchstone tal0ed o4 uch 2irtue in an 1i415 according to el4in ethics all 2irtue is in an 1i4.1 The note o4 the 4airy utterance always is, 1$ou ay li2e in a palace o4 gold and sapphire, i4 you do not say the word 7cow175 or 1$ou ay li2e happily with the *ing7s daughter, i4 you do not show her an onion.1 The 2ision always hangs upon a 2eto. /ll the dizzy and colossal things conceded depend upon one s all thing withheld. /ll the wild and whirling things that are let loose depend upon one thing that is 4orbidden. 3r. 6. %. $eats, in his ex>uisite and piercing el4in poetry, describes the el2es as lawless5 they plunge in innocent anarchy on the unbridled horses o4 the air ?? 1"ide on the crest o4 the dishe2elled tide, /nd dance upon the ountains li0e a 4la e.1 't is a dread4ul thing to say that 3r. 6. %. $eats does not understand 4airyland. %ut ' do say it. He is an ironical 'rish an, 4ull o4 intellectual reactions. He is not stupid enough to understand 4airyland. .airies pre4er people o4 the yo0el type li0e ysel45 people who gape and grin and do as they are told. 3r. $eats reads into el4land all the righteous insurrection o4 his own race. %ut the lawlessness o4 'reland is a +hristian lawlessness, rounded on reason and @ustice. The .enian is rebelling against so ething he understands only too well5 but the true citizen o4 4airyland is obeying so ething that he does not understand at all. 'n the 4airy tale an inco prehensible happiness rests upon an inco prehensible condition. / box is opened, and all e2ils 4ly out. / word is 4orgotten, and cities perish. / la p is lit, and lo2e 4lies away. / 4lower is pluc0ed, and hu an li2es are 4or4eited. /n apple is eaten, and the hope o4 &od is gone. This is the tone o4 4airy tales, and it is certainly not lawlessness or e2en liberty, though en under a ean odern tyranny ay thin0 it liberty by co parison. People out o4 Portland &aol ight thin0 .leet ,treet 4ree5 but closer study will pro2e that both 4airies and @ournalists are the sla2es o4 duty. .airy god others see at least as strict as other god others. +inderella recei2ed a coach out o4 6onderland and a coach an out o4 nowhere, but she recei2ed a co and ?? which ight ha2e co e out o4 %rixton ?? that she should be bac0 by twel2e. /lso, she had a glass slipper5 and it cannot be a coincidence that glass is so co on a substance in 4ol0?lore. This princess li2es in a glass castle, that princess on a glass hill5 this one sees all things in a

irror5 they ay all li2e in glass houses i4 they will not throw stones. .or this thin glitter o4 glass e2erywhere is the expression o4 the 4act that the happiness is bright but brittle, li0e the substance ost easily s ashed by a house aid or a cat. /nd this 4airy?tale senti ent also san0 into e and beca e y senti ent towards the whole world. ' 4elt and 4eel that li4e itsel4 is as bright as the dia ond, but as brittle as the window? pane5 and when the hea2ens were co pared to the terrible crystal ' can re e ber a shudder. ' was a4raid that &od would drop the cos os with a crash. "e e ber, howe2er, that to be brea0able is not the sa e as to be perishable. ,tri0e a glass, and it will not endure an instant5 si ply do not stri0e it, and it will endure a thousand years. ,uch, it see ed, was the @oy o4 an, either in el4land or on earth5 the happiness depended on -!T D!'-& ,!3)TH'-& which you could at any o ent do and which, 2ery o4ten, it was not ob2ious why you should not do. -ow, the point here is that to 3) this did not see un@ust. '4 the iller7s third son said to the 4airy, 1)xplain why ' ust not stand on y head in the 4airy palace,1 the other ight 4airly reply, 16ell, i4 it co es to that, explain the 4airy palace.1 '4 +inderella says, 1How is it that ' ust lea2e the ball at twel2e=1 her god other ight answer, 1How is it that you are going there till twel2e=1 '4 ' lea2e a an in y will ten tal0ing elephants and a hundred winged horses, he cannot co plain i4 the conditions parta0e o4 the slight eccentricity o4 the gi4t. He ust not loo0 a winged horse in the outh. /nd it see ed to e that existence was itsel4 so 2ery eccentric a legacy that ' could not co plain o4 not understanding the li itations o4 the 2ision when ' did not understand the 2ision they li ited. The 4ra e was no stranger than the picture. The 2eto ight well be as wild as the 2ision5 it ight be as startling as the sun, as elusi2e as the waters, as 4antastic and terrible as the towering trees. .or this reason ;we ay call it the 4airy god other philosophy< ' ne2er could @oin the young en o4 y ti e in 4eeling what they called the general senti ent o4 ")8!(T. ' should ha2e resisted, let us hope, any rules that were e2il, and with these and their de4inition ' shall deal in another chapter. %ut ' did not 4eel disposed to resist any rule erely because it was ysterious. )states are so eti es held by 4oolish 4or s, the brea0ing o4 a stic0 or the pay ent o4 a peppercornA ' was willing to hold the huge estate o4 earth and hea2en by any such 4eudal 4antasy. 't could not well be wilder than the 4act that ' was allowed to hold it at all. /t this stage ' gi2e only one ethical instance to show y eaning. ' could ne2er ix in the co on ur ur o4 that rising generation against onoga y, because no restriction on sex see ed so odd and unexpected as sex itsel4. To be allowed, li0e )ndy ion, to a0e lo2e to the oon and then to co plain that Bupiter 0ept his own oons in a hare see ed to e ;bred on 4airy tales li0e )ndy ion7s< a 2ulgar anti?cli ax. *eeping to one wo an is a s all price 4or so uch as seeing one wo an. To co plain that ' could only be arried once was li0e co plaining that ' had only been born once. 't was inco ensurate with the terrible excite ent o4 which one was tal0ing. 't showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility

to it. / an is a 4ool who co plains that he cannot enter )den by 4i2e gates at once. Polyga y is a lac0 o4 the realization o4 sex5 it is li0e a an pluc0ing 4i2e pears in ere absence o4 ind. The aesthetes touched the last insane li its o4 language in their eulogy on lo2ely things. The thistledown ade the weep5 a burnished beetle brought the to their 0nees. $et their e otion ne2er i pressed e 4or an instant, 4or this reason, that it ne2er occurred to the to pay 4or their pleasure in any sort o4 sy bolic sacri4ice. 3en ;' 4elt< ight 4ast 4orty days 4or the sa0e o4 hearing a blac0bird sing. 3en ight go through 4ire to 4ind a cowslip. $et these lo2ers o4 beauty could not e2en 0eep sober 4or the blac0bird. They would not go through co on +hristian arriage by way o4 reco pense to the cowslip. ,urely one ight pay 4or extraordinary @oy in ordinary orals. !scar 6ilde said that sunsets were not 2alued because we could not pay 4or sunsets. %ut !scar 6ilde was wrong5 we can pay 4or sunsets. 6e can pay 4or the by not being !scar 6ilde. 6ell, ' le4t the 4airy tales lying on the 4loor o4 the nursery, and ' ha2e not 4ound any boo0s so sensible since. ' le4t the nurse guardian o4 tradition and de ocracy, and ' ha2e not 4ound any odern type so sanely radical or so sanely conser2ati2e. %ut the atter 4or i portant co ent was hereA that when ' 4irst went out into the ental at osphere o4 the odern world, ' 4ound that the odern world was positi2ely opposed on two points to y nurse and to the nursery tales. 't has ta0en e a long ti e to 4ind out that the odern world is wrong and y nurse was right. The really curious thing was thisA that odern thought contradicted this basic creed o4 y boyhood on its two ost essential doctrines. ' ha2e explained that the 4airy tales rounded in e two con2ictions5 4irst, that this world is a wild and startling place, which ight ha2e been >uite di44erent, but which is >uite delight4ul5 second, that be4ore this wildness and delight one ay well be odest and sub it to the >ueerest li itations o4 so >ueer a 0indness. %ut ' 4ound the whole odern world running li0e a high tide against both y tendernesses5 and the shoc0 o4 that collision created two sudden and spontaneous senti ents, which ' ha2e had e2er since and which, crude as they were, ha2e since hardened into con2ictions. .irst, ' 4ound the whole odern world tal0ing scienti4ic 4atalis 5 saying that e2erything is as it ust always ha2e been, being un4olded without 4ault 4ro the beginning. The lea4 on the tree is green because it could ne2er ha2e been anything else. -ow, the 4airy?tale philosopher is glad that the lea4 is green precisely because it ight ha2e been scarlet. He 4eels as i4 it had turned green an instant be4ore he loo0ed at it. He is pleased that snow is white on the strictly reasonable ground that it ight ha2e been blac0. )2ery colour has in it a bold >uality as o4 choice5 the red o4 garden roses is not only decisi2e but dra atic, li0e suddenly spilt blood. He 4eels that so ething has been D!-). %ut the great deter inists o4 the nineteenth century were strongly against this nati2e 4eeling that so ething had happened an instant be4ore. 'n 4act, according to the , nothing e2er really had happened since the beginning o4 the world. -othing e2er had happened since existence had happened5 and e2en about the date o4

that they were not 2ery sure. The odern world as ' 4ound it was solid 4or odern +al2inis , 4or the necessity o4 things being as they are. %ut when ' ca e to as0 the ' 4ound they had really no proo4 o4 this una2oidable repetition in things except the 4act that the things were repeated. -ow, the ere repetition ade the things to e rather ore weird than ore rational. 't was as i4, ha2ing seen a curiously shaped nose in the street and dis issed it as an accident, ' had then seen six other noses o4 the sa e astonishing shape. ' should ha2e 4ancied 4or a o ent that it ust be so e local secret society. ,o one elephant ha2ing a trun0 was odd5 but all elephants ha2ing trun0s loo0ed li0e a plot. ' spea0 here only o4 an e otion, and o4 an e otion at once stubborn and subtle. %ut the repetition in -ature see ed so eti es to be an excited repetition, li0e that o4 an angry school aster saying the sa e thing o2er and o2er again. The grass see ed signalling to e with all its 4ingers at once5 the crowded stars see ed bent upon being understood. The sun would a0e e see hi i4 he rose a thousand ti es. The recurrences o4 the uni2erse rose to the addening rhyth o4 an incantation, and ' began to see an idea. /ll the towering aterialis which do inates the odern ind rests ulti ately upon one assu ption5 a 4alse assu ption. 't is supposed that i4 a thing goes on repeating itsel4 it is probably dead5 a piece o4 cloc0wor0. People 4eel that i4 the uni2erse was personal it would 2ary5 i4 the sun were ali2e it would dance. This is a 4allacy e2en in relation to 0nown 4act. .or the 2ariation in hu an a44airs is generally brought into the , not by li4e, but by death5 by the dying down or brea0ing o44 o4 their strength or desire. / an 2aries his o2e ents because o4 so e slight ele ent o4 4ailure or 4atigue. He gets into an o nibus because he is tired o4 wal0ing5 or he wal0s because he is tired o4 sitting still. %ut i4 his li4e and @oy were so gigantic that he ne2er tired o4 going to 'slington, he ight go to 'slington as regularly as the Tha es goes to ,heerness. The 2ery speed and ecstacy o4 his li4e would ha2e the stillness o4 death. The sun rises e2ery orning. ' do not rise e2ery orning5 but the 2ariation is due not to y acti2ity, but to y inaction. -ow, to put the atter in a popular phrase, it ight be true that the sun rises regularly because he ne2er gets tired o4 rising. His routine ight be due, not to a li4elessness, but to a rush o4 li4e. The thing ' ean can be seen, 4or instance, in children, when they 4ind so e ga e or @o0e that they specially en@oy. / child 0ic0s his legs rhyth ically through excess, not absence, o4 li4e. %ecause children ha2e abounding 2itality, because they are in spirit 4ierce and 4ree, there4ore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, 1Do it again15 and the grown?up person does it again until he is nearly dead. .or grown?up people are not strong enough to exult in onotony. %ut perhaps &od is strong enough to exult in onotony. 't is possible that &od says e2ery orning, 1Do it again1 to the sun5 and e2ery e2ening, 1Do it again1 to the oon. 't ay not be auto atic necessity that a0es all daisies ali0e5 it ay be that &od a0es e2ery daisy separately, but has ne2er got tired o4 a0ing the . 't ay be that He has the eternal appetite o4 in4ancy5 4or we ha2e sinned and grown old, and our .ather is younger than we. The

repetition in -ature ay not be a ere recurrence5 it ay be a theatrical )-+!"). Hea2en ay )-+!") the bird who laid an egg. '4 the hu an being concei2es and brings 4orth a hu an child instead o4 bringing 4orth a 4ish, or a bat, or a gri44in, the reason ay not be that we are 4ixed in an ani al 4ate without li4e or purpose. 't ay be that our little tragedy has touched the gods, that they ad ire it 4ro their starry galleries, and that at the end o4 e2ery hu an dra a an is called again and again be4ore the curtain. "epetition ay go on 4or illions o4 years, by ere choice, and at any instant it ay stop. 3an ay stand on the earth generation a4ter generation, and yet each birth be his positi2ely last appearance. This was y 4irst con2iction5 ade by the shoc0 o4 y childish e otions eeting the odern creed in id?career. ' had always 2aguely 4elt 4acts to be iracles in the sense that they are wonder4ulA now ' began to thin0 the iracles in the stricter sense that they were 6'(.:(. ' ean that they were, or ight be, repeated exercises o4 so e will. 'n short, ' had always belie2ed that the world in2ol2ed agicA now ' thought that perhaps it in2ol2ed a agician. /nd this pointed a pro4ound e otion always present and sub?conscious5 that this world o4 ours has so e purpose5 and i4 there is a purpose, there is a person. ' had always 4elt li4e 4irst as a storyA and i4 there is a story there is a story?teller. %ut odern thought also hit y second hu an tradition. 't went against the 4airy 4eeling about strict li its and conditions. The one thing it lo2ed to tal0 about was expansion and largeness. Herbert ,pencer would ha2e been greatly annoyed i4 any one had called hi an i perialist, and there4ore it is highly regrettable that nobody did. %ut he was an i perialist o4 the lowest type. He popularized this conte ptible notion that the size o4 the solar syste ought to o2er?awe the spiritual dog a o4 an. 6hy should a an surrender his dignity to the solar syste any ore than to a whale= '4 ere size pro2es that an is not the i age o4 &od, then a whale ay be the i age o4 &od5 a so ewhat 4or less i age5 what one ight call an i pressionist portrait. 't is >uite 4utile to argue that an is s all co pared to the cos os5 4or an was always s all co pared to the nearest tree. %ut Herbert ,pencer, in his headlong i perialis , would insist that we had in so e way been con>uered and annexed by the astrono ical uni2erse. He spo0e about en and their ideals exactly as the ost insolent :nionist tal0s about the 'rish and their ideals. He turned an0ind into a s all nationality. /nd his e2il in4luence can be seen e2en in the ost spirited and honourable o4 later scienti4ic authors5 notably in the early ro ances o4 3r. H. &. 6ells. 3any oralists ha2e in an exaggerated way represented the earth as wic0ed. %ut 3r. 6ells and his school ade the hea2ens wic0ed. 6e should li4t up our eyes to the stars 4ro whence would co e our ruin. %ut the expansion o4 which ' spea0 was uch ore e2il than all this. ' ha2e re ar0ed that the aterialist, li0e the ad an, is in prison5 in the prison o4 one thought. These people see ed to thin0 it singularly inspiring to 0eep on saying that the prison was 2ery large. The size o4 this scienti4ic uni2erse ga2e one no no2elty, no relie4. The cos os went on 4or e2er, but not in its

wildest constellation could there be anything really interesting5 anything, 4or instance, such as 4orgi2eness or 4ree will. The grandeur or in4inity o4 the secret o4 its cos os added nothing to it. 't was li0e telling a prisoner in "eading gaol that he would be glad to hear that the gaol now co2ered hal4 the county. The warder would ha2e nothing to show the an except ore and ore long corridors o4 stone lit by ghastly lights and e pty o4 all that is hu an. ,o these expanders o4 the uni2erse had nothing to show us except ore and ore in4inite corridors o4 space lit by ghastly suns and e pty o4 all that is di2ine. 'n 4airyland there had been a real law5 a law that could be bro0en, 4or the de4inition o4 a law is so ething that can be bro0en. %ut the achinery o4 this cos ic prison was so ething that could not be bro0en5 4or we oursel2es were only a part o4 its achinery. 6e were either unable to do things or we were destined to do the . The idea o4 the ystical condition >uite disappeared5 one can neither ha2e the 4ir ness o4 0eeping laws nor the 4un o4 brea0ing the . The largeness o4 this uni2erse had nothing o4 that 4reshness and airy outbrea0 which we ha2e praised in the uni2erse o4 the poet. This odern uni2erse is literally an e pire5 that is, it was 2ast, but it is not 4ree. !ne went into larger and larger windowless roo s, roo s big with %abylonian perspecti2e5 but one ne2er 4ound the s allest window or a whisper o4 outer air. Their in4ernal parallels see ed to expand with distance5 but 4or e all good things co e to a point, swords 4or instance. ,o 4inding the boast o4 the big cos os so unsatis4actory to y e otions ' began to argue about it a little5 and ' soon 4ound that the whole attitude was e2en shallower than could ha2e been expected. /ccording to these people the cos os was one thing since it had one unbro0en rule. !nly ;they would say< while it is one thing it is also the only thing there is. 6hy, then, should one worry particularly to call it large= There is nothing to co pare it with. 't would be @ust as sensible to call it s all. / an ay say, 1' li0e this 2ast cos os, with its throng o4 stars and its crowd o4 2aried creatures.1 %ut i4 it co es to that why should not a an say, 1' li0e this cosy little cos os, with its decent nu ber o4 stars and as neat a pro2ision o4 li2e stoc0 as ' wish to see1= !ne is as good as the other5 they are both ere senti ents. 't is ere senti ent to re@oice that the sun is larger than the earth5 it is >uite as sane a senti ent to re@oice that the sun is no larger than it is. / an chooses to ha2e an e otion about the largeness o4 the world5 why should he not choose to ha2e an e otion about its s allness= 't happened that ' had that e otion. 6hen one is 4ond o4 anything one addresses it by di inuti2es, e2en i4 it is an elephant or a li4e?guards an. The reason is, that anything, howe2er huge, that can be concei2ed o4 as co plete, can be concei2ed o4 as s all. '4 ilitary oustaches did not suggest a sword or tus0s a tail, then the ob@ect would be 2ast because it would be i easurable. %ut the o ent you can i agine a guards an you can i agine a s all guards an. The o ent you really see an elephant you can call it 1Tiny.1 '4 you can a0e a statue o4 a thing you can a0e a statuette o4 it. These people pro4essed that the uni2erse was one coherent thing5 but they were not 4ond o4 the

uni2erse. %ut ' was 4right4ully 4ond o4 the uni2erse and wanted to address it by a di inuti2e. ' o4ten did so5 and it ne2er see ed to ind. /ctually and in truth ' did 4eel that these di dog as o4 2itality were better expressed by calling the world s all than by calling it large. .or about in4inity there was a sort o4 carelessness which was the re2erse o4 the 4ierce and pious care which ' 4elt touching the pricelessness and the peril o4 li4e. They showed only a dreary waste5 but ' 4elt a sort o4 sacred thri4t. .or econo y is 4ar ore ro antic than extra2agance. To the stars were an unending inco e o4 hal4pence5 but ' 4elt about the golden sun and the sil2er oon as a schoolboy 4eels i4 he has one so2ereign and one shilling. These subconscious con2ictions are best hit o44 by the colour and tone o4 certain tales. Thus ' ha2e said that stories o4 agic alone can express y sense that li4e is not only a pleasure but a 0ind o4 eccentric pri2ilege. ' ay express this other 4eeling o4 cos ic cosiness by allusion to another boo0 always read in boyhood, 1"obinson +rusoe,1 which ' read about this ti e, and which owes its eternal 2i2acity to the 4act that it celebrates the poetry o4 li its, nay, e2en the wild ro ance o4 prudence. +rusoe is a an on a s all roc0 with a 4ew co 4orts @ust snatched 4ro the seaA the best thing in the boo0 is si ply the list o4 things sa2ed 4ro the wrec0. The greatest o4 poe s is an in2entory. )2ery 0itchen tool beco es ideal because +rusoe ight ha2e dropped it in the sea. 't is a good exercise, in e pty or ugly hours o4 the day, to loo0 at anything, the coal?scuttle or the boo0?case, and thin0 how happy one could be to ha2e brought it out o4 the sin0ing ship on to the solitary island. %ut it is a better exercise still to re e ber how all things ha2e had this hair?breadth escapeA e2erything has been sa2ed 4ro a wrec0. )2ery an has had one horrible ad2entureA as a hidden unti ely birth he had not been, as in4ants that ne2er see the light. 3en spo0e uch in y boyhood o4 restricted or ruined en o4 geniusA and it was co on to say that any a an was a &reat 3ight?Ha2e?%een. To e it is a ore solid and startling 4act that any an in the street is a &reat 3ight? -ot?Ha2e?%een. %ut ' really 4elt ;the 4ancy ay see 4oolish< as i4 all the order and nu ber o4 things were the ro antic re nant o4 +rusoe7s ship. That there are two sexes and one sun, was li0e the 4act that there were two guns and one axe. 't was poignantly urgent that none should be lost5 but so ehow, it was rather 4un that none could be added. The trees and the planets see ed li0e things sa2ed 4ro the wrec0A and when ' saw the 3atterhorn ' was glad that it had not been o2erloo0ed in the con4usion. ' 4elt econo ical about the stars as i4 they were sapphires ;they are called so in 3ilton7s )den<A ' hoarded the hills. .or the uni2erse is a single @ewel, and while it is a natural cant to tal0 o4 a @ewel as peerless and priceless, o4 this @ewel it is literally true. This cos os is indeed without peer and without priceA 4or there cannot be another one. Thus ends, in una2oidable inade>uacy, the atte pt to utter the unutterable things. These are y ulti ate attitudes towards li4e5 the soils 4or the seeds o4 doctrine. These in so e dar0 way ' thought be4ore ' could write, and 4elt be4ore ' could thin0A

that we ay proceed ore easily a4terwards, ' will roughly recapitulate the now. ' 4elt in y bones5 4irst, that world does not explain itsel4. 't ay be iracle with a supernatural explanation5 it ay be a con@uring tric0, with a natural explanation. %ut the explanation o4 the con@uring tric0, i4 it is to satis4y e, will ha2e to be better than the natural explanations ' ha2e heard. The thing is agic, true or 4alse. ,econd, ' ca e to 4eel as i4 agic ust ha2e a eaning, and eaning ust ha2e so e one to ean it. There was so ething personal in the world, as in a wor0 o4 art5 whate2er it eant it eant 2iolently. Third, ' thought this purpose beauti4ul in its old design, in spite o4 its de4ects, such as dragons. .ourth, that the proper 4or o4 than0s to it is so e 4or o4 hu ility and restraintA we should than0 &od 4or beer and %urgundy by not drin0ing too uch o4 the . 6e owed, also, an obedience to whate2er ade us. /nd last, and strangest, there had co e into y ind a 2ague and 2ast i pression that in so e way all good was a re nant to be stored and held sacred out o4 so e pri ordial ruin. 3an had sa2ed his good as +rusoe sa2ed his goodsA he had sa2ed the 4ro a wrec0. /ll this ' 4elt and the age ga2e e no encourage ent to 4eel it. /nd all this ti e ' had not e2en thought o4 +hristian theology. 89TH) .(/& !. TH) 6!"(D 6H)- ' was a boy there were two curious en running about who were called the opti ist and the pessi ist. ' constantly used the words ysel4, but ' cheer4ully con4ess that ' ne2er had any 2ery special idea o4 what they eant. The only thing which ight be considered e2ident was that they could not ean what they said5 4or the ordinary 2erbal explanation was that the opti ist thought this world as good as it could be, while the pessi ist thought it as bad as it could be. %oth these state ents being ob2iously ra2ing nonsense, one had to cast about 4or other explanations. /n opti ist could not ean a an who thought e2erything right and nothing wrong. .or that is eaningless5 it is li0e calling e2erything right and nothing le4t. :pon the whole, ' ca e to the conclusion that the opti ist thought e2erything good except the pessi ist, and that the pessi ist thought e2erything bad, except hi sel4. 't would be un4air to o it altogether 4ro the list the ysterious but suggesti2e de4inition said to ha2e been gi2en by a little girl, 1/n opti ist is a an who loo0s a4ter your eyes, and a pessi ist is a an who loo0s a4ter your 4eet.1 ' a not sure that this is not the best de4inition o4 all. There is e2en a sort o4 allegorical truth in it. .or there ight, perhaps, be a pro4itable distinction drawn between that ore dreary thin0er who thin0s erely o4 our contact with the earth 4ro o ent to o ent, and that happier thin0er who considers rather our pri ary power o4 2ision and o4 choice o4 road. %ut this is a deep ista0e in this alternati2e o4 the opti ist and the pessi ist. The assu ption o4 it is that a an criticises this world as i4 he were house?hunting, as i4 he were being shown o2er a new suite o4 apart ents. '4 a an ca e to this

world 4ro so e other world in 4ull possession o4 his powers he ight discuss whether the ad2antage o4 idsu er woods ade up 4or the disad2antage o4 ad dogs, @ust as a an loo0ing 4or lodgings ight balance the presence o4 a telephone against the absence o4 a sea 2iew. %ut no an is in that position. / an belongs to this world be4ore he begins to as0 i4 it is nice to belong to it. He has 4ought 4or the 4lag, and o4ten won heroic 2ictories 4or the 4lag long be4ore he has e2er enlisted. To put shortly what see s the essential atter, he has a loyalty long be4ore he has any ad iration. 'n the last chapter it has been said that the pri ary 4eeling that this world is strange and yet attracti2e is best expressed in 4airy tales. The reader ay, i4 he li0es, put down the next stage to that bellicose and e2en @ingo literature which co only co es next in the history o4 a boy. 6e all owe uch sound orality to the penny dread4uls. 6hate2er the reason, it see ed and still see s to e that our attitude towards li4e can be better expressed in ter s o4 a 0ind o4 ilitary loyalty than in ter s o4 criticis and appro2al. 3y acceptance o4 the uni2erse is not opti is , it is ore li0e patriotis . 't is a atter o4 pri ary loyalty. The world is not a lodging?house at %righton, which we are to lea2e because it is iserable. 't is the 4ortress o4 our 4a ily, with the 4lag 4lying on the turret, and the ore iserable it is the less we should lea2e it. The point is not that this world is too sad to lo2e or too glad not to lo2e5 the point is that when you do lo2e a thing, its gladness is a reason 4or lo2ing it, and its sadness a reason 4or lo2ing it ore. /ll opti istic thoughts about )ngland and all pessi istic thoughts about her are ali0e reasons 4or the )nglish patriot. ,i ilarly, opti is and pessi is are ali0e argu ents 4or the cos ic patriot. (et us suppose we are con4ronted with a desperate thing ?? say Pi lico. '4 we thin0 what is really best 4or Pi lico we shall 4ind the thread o4 thought leads to the throne or the ystic and the arbitrary. 't is not enough 4or a an to disappro2e o4 Pi licoA in that case he will erely cut his throat or o2e to +helsea. -or, certainly, is it enough 4or a an to appro2e o4 Pi licoA 4or then it will re ain Pi lico, which would be aw4ul. The only way out o4 it see s to be 4or so ebody to lo2e Pi licoA to lo2e it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. '4 there arose a an who lo2ed Pi lico, then Pi lico would rise into i2ory towers and golden pinnacles5 Pi lico would attire hersel4 as a wo an does when she is lo2ed. .or decoration is not gi2en to hide horrible thingsA but to decorate things already adorable. / other does not gi2e her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. / lo2er does not gi2e a girl a nec0lace to hide her nec0. '4 en lo2ed Pi lico as others lo2e children, arbitrarily, because it is TH)'",, Pi lico in a year or two ight be 4airer than .lorence. ,o e readers will say that this is a ere 4antasy. ' answer that this is the actual history o4 an0ind. This, as a 4act, is how cities did grow great. &o bac0 to the dar0est roots o4 ci2ilization and you will 4ind the 0notted round so e sacred stone or encircling so e sacred well. People 4irst paid honour to a spot and a4terwards gained glory 4or it. 3en did not lo2e "o e because she was great. ,he was great because they

had lo2ed her. The eighteenth?century theories o4 the social contract ha2e been exposed to uch clu sy criticis in our ti e5 in so 4ar as they eant that there is at the bac0 o4 all historic go2ern ent an idea o4 content and co?operation, they were de onstrably right. %ut they really were wrong in so 4ar as they suggested that en had e2er ai ed at order or ethics directly by a conscious exchange o4 interests. 3orality did not begin by one an saying to another, 1' will not hit you i4 you do not hit e15 there is no trace o4 such a transaction. There ', a trace o4 both en ha2ing said, 16e ust not hit each other in the holy place.1 They gained their orality by guarding their religion. They did not culti2ate courage. They 4ought 4or the shrine, and 4ound they had beco e courageous. They did not culti2ate cleanliness. They puri4ied the sel2es 4or the altar, and 4ound that they were clean. The history o4 the Bews is the only early docu ent 0nown to ost )nglish en, and the 4acts can be @udged su44iciently 4ro that. The Ten +o and ents which ha2e been 4ound substantially co on to an0ind were erely ilitary co ands5 a code o4 regi ental orders, issued to protect a certain ar0 across a certain desert. /narchy was e2il because it endangered the sanctity. /nd only when they ade a holy day 4or &od did they 4ind they had ade a holiday 4or en. '4 it be granted that this pri ary de2otion to a place or thing is a source o4 creati2e energy, we can pass on to a 2ery peculiar 4act. (et us reiterate 4or an instant that the only right opti is is a sort o4 uni2ersal patriotis . 6hat is the atter with the pessi ist= ' thin0 it can be stated by saying that he is the cos ic anti?patriot. /nd what is the atter with the anti? patriot= ' thin0 it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid 4riend. /nd what is the atter with the candid 4riend= There we stri0e the roc0 o4 real li4e and i utable hu an nature. ' 2enture to say that what is bad in the candid 4riend is si ply that he is not candid. He is 0eeping so ething bac0 ?? his own gloo y pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not erely to help. This is certainly, ' thin0, what a0es a certain sort o4 anti?patriot irritating to healthy citizens. ' do not spea0 ;o4 course< o4 the anti?patriotis which only irritates 4e2erish stoc0bro0ers and gushing actresses5 that is only patriotis spea0ing plainly. / an who says that no patriot should attac0 the %oer 6ar until it is o2er is not worth answering intelligently5 he is saying that no good son should warn his other o44 a cli44 until she has 4allen o2er it. %ut there is an anti?patriot who honestly angers honest en, and the explanation o4 hi is, ' thin0, what ' ha2e suggestedA he is the uncandid candid 4riend5 the an who says, 1' a sorry to say we are ruined,1 and is not sorry at all. /nd he ay be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor5 4or he is using that ugly 0nowledge which was allowed hi to strengthen the ar y, to discourage people 4ro @oining it. %ecause he is allowed to be pessi istic as a ilitary ad2iser he is being pessi istic as a recruiting sergeant. Bust in the sa e way the pessi ist ;who is the cos ic anti? patriot< uses the 4reedo that li4e allows to her counsellors to

lure away the people 4ro her 4lag. &ranted that he states only 4acts, it is still essential to 0now what are his e otions, what is his oti2e. 't ay be that twel2e hundred en in Tottenha are down with s allpox5 but we want to 0now whether this is stated by so e great philosopher who wants to curse the gods, or only by so e co on clergy an who wants to help the en. The e2il o4 the pessi ist is, then, not that he chastises gods and en, but that he does not lo2e what he chastises ?? he has not this pri ary and supernatural loyalty to things. 6hat is the e2il o4 the an co only called an opti ist= !b2iously, it is 4elt that the opti ist, wishing to de4end the honour o4 this world, will de4end the inde4ensible. He is the @ingo o4 the uni2erse5 he will say, 13y cos os, right or wrong.1 He will be less inclined to the re4or o4 things5 ore inclined to a sort o4 4ront?bench o44icial answer to all attac0s, soothing e2ery one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world. /ll this ;which is true o4 a type o4 opti ist< leads us to the one really interesting point o4 psychology, which could not be explained without it. 6e say there ust be a pri al loyalty to li4eA the only >uestion is, shall it be a natural or a supernatural loyalty= '4 you li0e to put it so, shall it be a reasonable or an unreasonable loyalty= -ow, the extraordinary thing is that the bad opti is ;the whitewashing, the wea0 de4ence o4 e2erything< co es in with the reasonable opti is . "ational opti is leads to stagnationA it is irrational opti is that leads to re4or . (et e explain by using once ore the parallel o4 patriotis . The an who is ost li0ely to ruin the place he lo2es is exactly the an who lo2es it with a reason. The an who will i pro2e the place is the an who lo2es it without a reason. '4 a an lo2es so e 4eature o4 Pi lico ;which see s unli0ely<, he ay 4ind hi sel4 de4ending that 4eature against Pi lico itsel4. %ut i4 he si ply lo2es Pi lico itsel4, he ay lay it waste and turn it into the -ew Berusale . ' do not deny that re4or ay be excessi2e5 ' only say that it is the ystic patriot who re4or s. 3ere @ingo sel4?content ent is co onest a ong those who ha2e so e pedantic reason 4or their patriotis . The worst @ingoes do not lo2e )ngland, but a theory o4 )ngland. '4 we lo2e )ngland 4or being an e pire, we ay o2errate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. %ut i4 we lo2e it only 4or being a nation, we can 4ace all e2entsA 4or it would be a nation e2en i4 the Hindoos ruled us. Thus also only those will per it their patriotis to 4alsi4y history whose patriotis depends on history. / an who lo2es )ngland 4or being )nglish will not ind how she arose. %ut a an who lo2es )ngland 4or being /nglo?,axon ay go against all 4acts 4or his 4ancy. He ay end ;li0e +arlyle and .ree an< by aintaining that the -or an +on>uest was a ,axon +on>uest. He ay end in utter unreason ?? because he has a reason. / an who lo2es .rance 4or being ilitary will palliate the ar y o4 1EFG. %ut a an who lo2es .rance 4or being .rance will i pro2e the ar y o4 1EFG. This is exactly what the .rench ha2e done, and .rance is a good instance o4 the wor0ing paradox. -owhere else is patriotis ore purely abstract and arbitrary5 and nowhere else is re4or ore drastic and sweeping. The ore transcendental is your patriotis , the ore practical are your politics.

Perhaps the ost e2eryday instance o4 this point is in the case o4 wo en5 and their strange and strong loyalty. ,o e stupid people started the idea that because wo en ob2iously bac0 up their own people through e2erything, there4ore wo en are blind and do not see anything. They can hardly ha2e 0nown any wo en. The sa e wo en who are ready to de4end their en through thic0 and thin are ;in their personal intercourse with the an< al ost orbidly lucid about the thinness o4 his excuses or the thic0ness o4 his head. / an7s 4riend li0es hi but lea2es hi as he isA his wi4e lo2es hi and is always trying to turn hi into so ebody else. 6o en who are utter ystics in their creed are utter cynics in their criticis . Thac0eray expressed this well when he ade Pendennis7 other, who worshipped her son as a god, yet assu e that he would go wrong as a an. ,he underrated his 2irtue, though she o2errated his 2alue. The de2otee is entirely 4ree to criticise5 the 4anatic can sa4ely be a sceptic. (o2e is not blind5 that is the last thing that it is. (o2e is bound5 and the ore it is bound the less it is blind. This at least had co e to be y position about all that was called opti is , pessi is , and i pro2e ent. %e4ore any cos ic act o4 re4or we ust ha2e a cos ic oath o4 allegiance. / an ust be interested in li4e, then he could be disinterested in his 2iews o4 it. 13y son gi2e e thy heart15 the heart ust be 4ixed on the right thingA the o ent we ha2e a 4ixed heart we ha2e a 4ree hand. ' ust pause to anticipate an ob2ious criticis . 't will be said that a rational person accepts the world as ixed o4 good and e2il with a decent satis4action and a decent endurance. %ut this is exactly the attitude which ' aintain to be de4ecti2e. 't is, ' 0now, 2ery co on in this age5 it was per4ectly put in those >uiet lines o4 3atthew /rnold which are ore piercingly blasphe ous than the shrie0s o4 ,chopenhauer ?? 1)nough we li2eA ?? and i4 a li4e, 6ith large results so little ri4e, Though bearable, see hardly worth This po p o4 worlds, this pain o4 birth.1 ' 0now this 4eeling 4ills our epoch, and ' thin0 it 4reezes our epoch. .or our Titanic purposes o4 4aith and re2olution, what we need is not the cold acceptance o4 the world as a co pro ise, but so e way in which we can heartily hate and heartily lo2e it. 6e do not want @oy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly content ent5 we want a 4iercer delight and a 4iercer discontent. 6e ha2e to 4eel the uni2erse at once as an ogre7s castle, to be stor ed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at e2ening. -o one doubts that an ordinary an can get on with this worldA but we de and not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. +an he hate it enough to change it, and yet lo2e it enough to thin0 it worth changing= +an he loo0 up at its colossal good without once 4eeling ac>uiescence= +an he loo0 up at its colossal e2il without once 4eeling despair= +an he, in short, be at once not only a pessi ist and an opti ist, but a 4anatical pessi ist and a 4anatical opti ist= 's he enough o4 a pagan to die 4or the world, and enough o4 a +hristian to die to

it= 'n this co bination, ' aintain, it is the rational opti ist who 4ails, the irrational opti ist who succeeds. He is ready to s ash the whole uni2erse 4or the sa0e o4 itsel4. ' put these things not in their ature logical se>uence, but as they ca eA and this 2iew was cleared and sharpened by an accident o4 the ti e. :nder the lengthening shadow o4 'bsen, an argu ent arose whether it was not a 2ery nice thing to urder one7s sel4. &ra2e oderns told us that we ust not e2en say 1poor 4ellow,1 o4 a an who had blown his brains out, since he was an en2iable person, and had only blown the out because o4 their exceptional excellence. 3r. 6illia /rcher e2en suggested that in the golden age there would be penny?in?the?slot achines, by which a an could 0ill hi sel4 4or a penny. 'n all this ' 4ound ysel4 utterly hostile to any who called the sel2es liberal and hu ane. -ot only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. 't is the ulti ate and absolute e2il, the re4usal to ta0e an interest in existence5 the re4usal to ta0e the oath o4 loyalty to li4e. The an who 0ills a an, 0ills a an. The an who 0ills hi sel4, 0ills all en5 as 4ar as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse ;sy bolically considered< than any rape or dyna ite outrage. .or it destroys all buildingsA it insults all wo en. The thie4 is satis4ied with dia onds5 but the suicide is notA that is his cri e. He cannot be bribed, e2en by the blazing stones o4 the +elestial +ity. The thie4 co pli ents the things he steals, i4 not the owner o4 the . %ut the suicide insults e2erything on earth by not stealing it. He de4iles e2ery 4lower by re4using to li2e 4or its sa0e. There is not a tiny creature in the cos os at who his death is not a sneer. 6hen a an hangs hi sel4 on a tree, the lea2es ight 4all o44 in anger and the birds 4ly away in 4uryA 4or each has recei2ed a personal a44ront. !4 course there ay be pathetic e otional excuses 4or the act. There o4ten are 4or rape, and there al ost always are 4or dyna ite. %ut i4 it co es to clear ideas and the intelligent eaning o4 things, then there is uch ore rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross? roads and the sta0e dri2en through the body, than in 3r. /rcher7s suicidal auto atic achines. There is a eaning in burying the suicide apart. The an7s cri e is di44erent 4ro other cri es ?? 4or it a0es e2en cri es i possible. /bout the sa e ti e ' read a sole n 4lippancy by so e 4ree thin0erA he said that a suicide was only the sa e as a artyr. The open 4allacy o4 this helped to clear the >uestion. !b2iously a suicide is the opposite o4 a artyr. / artyr is a an who cares so uch 4or so ething outside hi , that he 4orgets his own personal li4e. / suicide is a an who cares so little 4or anything outside hi , that he wants to see the last o4 e2erything. !ne wants so ething to beginA the other wants e2erything to end. 'n other words, the artyr is noble, exactly because ;howe2er he renounces the world or execrates all hu anity< he con4esses this ulti ate lin0 with li4e5 he sets his heart outside hi sel4A he dies that so ething ay li2e. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this lin0 with beingA he is a ere destroyer5 spiritually, he destroys the uni2erse. /nd then ' re e bered the sta0e and the cross?roads, and the >ueer 4act that +hristianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. .or +hristianity had shown a wild

encourage ent o4 the artyr. Historic +hristianity was accused, not entirely without reason, o4 carrying artyrdo and asceticis to a point, desolate and pessi istic. The early +hristian artyrs tal0ed o4 death with a horrible happiness. They blasphe ed the beauti4ul duties o4 the bodyA they s elt the gra2e a4ar o44 li0e a 4ield o4 4lowers. /ll this has see ed to any the 2ery poetry o4 pessi is . $et there is the sta0e at the crossroads to show what +hristianity thought o4 the pessi ist. This was the 4irst o4 the long train o4 enig as with which +hristianity entered the discussion. /nd there went with it a peculiarity o4 which ' shall ha2e to spea0 ore ar0edly, as a note o4 all +hristian notions, but which distinctly began in this one. The +hristian attitude to the artyr and the suicide was not what is so o4ten a44ir ed in odern orals. 't was not a atter o4 degree. 't was not that a line ust be drawn so ewhere, and that the sel4?slayer in exaltation 4ell within the line, the sel4? slayer in sadness @ust beyond it. The +hristian 4eeling e2idently was not erely that the suicide was carrying artyrdo too 4ar. The +hristian 4eeling was 4uriously 4or one and 4uriously against the otherA these two things that loo0ed so uch ali0e were at opposite ends o4 hea2en and hell. !ne an 4lung away his li4e5 he was so good that his dry bones could heal cities in pestilence. /nother an 4lung away li4e5 he was so bad that his bones would pollute his brethren7s. ' a not saying this 4ierceness was right5 but why was it so 4ierce= Here it was that ' 4irst 4ound that y wandering 4eet were in so e beaten trac0. +hristianity had also 4elt this opposition o4 the artyr to the suicideA had it perhaps 4elt it 4or the sa e reason= Had +hristianity 4elt what ' 4elt, but could not ;and cannot< express ?? this need 4or a 4irst loyalty to things, and then 4or a ruinous re4or o4 things= Then ' re e bered that it was actually the charge against +hristianity that it co bined these two things which ' was wildly trying to co bine. +hristianity was accused, at one and the sa e ti e, o4 being too opti istic about the uni2erse and o4 being too pessi istic about the world. The coincidence ade e suddenly stand still. /n i becile habit has arisen in odern contro2ersy o4 saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. ,o e dog a, we are told, was credible in the twel4th century, but is not credible in the twentieth. $ou ight as well say that a certain philosophy can be belie2ed on 3ondays, but cannot be belie2ed on Tuesdays. $ou ight as well say o4 a 2iew o4 the cos os that it was suitable to hal4?past three, but not suitable to hal4?past 4our. 6hat a an can belie2e depends upon his philosophy, not upon the cloc0 or the century. '4 a an belie2es in unalterable natural law, he cannot belie2e in any iracle in any age. '4 a an belie2es in a will behind law, he can belie2e in any iracle in any age. ,uppose, 4or the sa0e o4 argu ent, we are concerned with a case o4 thau aturgic healing. / aterialist o4 the twel4th century could not belie2e it any ore than a aterialist o4 the twentieth century. %ut a +hristian ,cientist o4 the twentieth century can belie2e it as uch as a +hristian o4 the twel4th century. 't is si ply a atter o4 a an7s theory o4 things. There4ore in dealing with any historical answer,

the point is not whether it was gi2en in our ti e, but whether it was gi2en in answer to our >uestion. /nd the ore ' thought about when and how +hristianity had co e into the world, the ore ' 4elt that it had actually co e to answer this >uestion. 't is co only the loose and latitudinarian +hristians who pay >uite inde4ensible co pli ents to +hristianity. They tal0 as i4 there had ne2er been any piety or pity until +hristianity ca e, a point on which any ediae2al would ha2e been eager to correct the . They represent that the re ar0able thing about +hristianity was that it was the 4irst to preach si plicity or sel4?restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will thin0 e 2ery narrow ;whate2er that eans< i4 ' say that the re ar0able thing about +hristianity was that it was the 4irst to preach +hristianity. 'ts peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and si plicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but ob2ious ideals 4or all an0ind. +hristianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truis uttered a4ter a long tal0. !nly the other day ' saw in an excellent wee0ly paper o4 Puritan tone this re ar0, that +hristianity when stripped o4 its ar our o4 dog a ;as who should spea0 o4 a an stripped o4 his ar our o4 bones<, turned out to be nothing but the Hua0er doctrine o4 the 'nner (ight. -ow, i4 ' were to say that +hristianity ca e into the world specially to destroy the doctrine o4 the 'nner (ight, that would be an exaggeration. %ut it would be 2ery uch nearer to the truth. The last ,toics, li0e 3arcus /urelius, were exactly the people who did belie2e in the 'nner (ight. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care 4or others, their incurable internal care 4or the sel2es, were all due to the 'nner (ight, and existed only by that dis al illu ination. -otice that 3arcus /urelius insists, as such introspecti2e oralists always do, upon s all things done or undone5 it is because he has not hate or lo2e enough to a0e a oral re2olution. He gets up early in the orning, @ust as our own aristocrats li2ing the ,i ple (i4e get up early in the orning5 because such altruis is uch easier than stopping the ga es o4 the a phitheatre or gi2ing the )nglish people bac0 their land. 3arcus /urelius is the ost intolerable o4 hu an types. He is an unsel4ish egoist. /n unsel4ish egoist is a an who has pride without the excuse o4 passion. !4 all concei2able 4or s o4 enlighten ent the worst is what these people call the 'nner (ight. !4 all horrible religions the ost horrible is the worship o4 the god within. /ny one who 0nows any body 0nows how it would wor05 any one who 0nows any one 4ro the Higher Thought +entre 0nows how it does wor0. That Bones shall worship the god within hi turns out ulti ately to ean that Bones shall worship Bones. (et Bones worship the sun or oon, anything rather than the 'nner (ight5 let Bones worship cats or crocodiles, i4 he can 4ind any in his street, but not the god within. +hristianity ca e into the world 4irstly in order to assert with 2iolence that a an had not only to loo0 inwards, but to loo0 outwards, to behold with astonish ent and enthusias a di2ine co pany and a di2ine captain. The only 4un o4 being a +hristian was that a an was not le4t alone with the 'nner (ight, but de4initely recognized an outer light, 4air as the sun, clear as the oon, terrible as an ar y with banners. /ll the sa e, it will be as well i4 Bones does not worship

the sun and oon. '4 he does, there is a tendency 4or hi to i itate the 5 to say, that because the sun burns insects ali2e, he ay burn insects ali2e. He thin0s that because the sun gi2es people sun?stro0e, he ay gi2e his neighbour easles. He thin0s that because the oon is said to dri2e en ad, he ay dri2e his wi4e ad. This ugly side o4 ere external opti is had also shown itsel4 in the ancient world. /bout the ti e when the ,toic idealis had begun to show the wea0nesses o4 pessi is , the old nature worship o4 the ancients had begun to show the enor ous wea0nesses o4 opti is . -ature worship is natural enough while the society is young, or, in other words, Pantheis is all right as long as it is the worship o4 Pan. %ut -ature has another side which experience and sin are not slow in 4inding out, and it is no 4lippancy to say o4 the god Pan that he soon showed the clo2en hoo4. The only ob@ection to -atural "eligion is that so ehow it always beco es unnatural. / an lo2es -ature in the orning 4or her innocence and a iability, and at night4all, i4 he is lo2ing her still, it is 4or her dar0ness and her cruelty. He washes at dawn in clear water as did the 6ise 3an o4 the ,toics, yet, so ehow at the dar0 end o4 the day, he is bathing in hot bull7s blood, as did Bulian the /postate. The ere pursuit o4 health always leads to so ething unhealthy. Physical nature ust not be ade the direct ob@ect o4 obedience5 it ust be en@oyed, not worshipped. ,tars and ountains ust not be ta0en seriously. '4 they are, we end where the pagan nature worship ended. %ecause the earth is 0ind, we can i itate all her cruelties. %ecause sexuality is sane, we can all go ad about sexuality. 3ere opti is had reached its insane and appropriate ter ination. The theory that e2erything was good had beco e an orgy o4 e2erything that was bad. !n the other side our idealist pessi ists were represented by the old re nant o4 the ,toics. 3arcus /urelius and his 4riends had really gi2en up the idea o4 any god in the uni2erse and loo0ed only to the god within. They had no hope o4 any 2irtue in nature, and hardly any hope o4 any 2irtue in society. They had not enough interest in the outer world really to wrec0 or re2olutionise it. They did not lo2e the city enough to set 4ire to it. Thus the ancient world was exactly in our own desolate dile a. The only people who really en@oyed this world were busy brea0ing it up5 and the 2irtuous people did not care enough about the to 0noc0 the down. 'n this dile a ;the sa e as ours< +hristianity suddenly stepped in and o44ered a singular answer, which the world e2entually accepted as TH) answer. 't was the answer then, and ' thin0 it is the answer now. This answer was li0e the slash o4 a sword5 it sundered5 it did not in any sense senti entally unite. %rie4ly, it di2ided &od 4ro the cos os. That transcendence and distinctness o4 the deity which so e +hristians now want to re o2e 4ro +hristianity, was really the only reason why any one wanted to be a +hristian. 't was the whole point o4 the +hristian answer to the unhappy pessi ist and the still ore unhappy opti ist. /s ' a here only concerned with their particular proble , ' shall indicate only brie4ly this great etaphysical suggestion. /ll descriptions o4 the creating or sustaining principle in things ust be etaphorical, because they ust be 2erbal. Thus the pantheist is

4orced to spea0 o4 &od in all things as i4 he were in a box. Thus the e2olutionist has, in his 2ery na e, the idea o4 being unrolled li0e a carpet. /ll ter s, religious and irreligious, are open to this charge. The only >uestion is whether all ter s are useless, or whether one can, with such a phrase, co2er a distinct 'D)/ about the origin o4 things. ' thin0 one can, and so e2idently does the e2olutionist, or he would not tal0 about e2olution. /nd the root phrase 4or all +hristian theis was this, that &od was a creator, as an artist is a creator. / poet is so separate 4ro his poe that he hi sel4 spea0s o4 it as a little thing he has 1thrown o44.1 )2en in gi2ing it 4orth he has 4lung it away. This principle that all creation and procreation is a brea0ing o44 is at least as consistent through the cos os as the e2olutionary principle that all growth is a branching out. / wo an loses a child e2en in ha2ing a child. /ll creation is separation. %irth is as sole n a parting as death. 't was the pri e philosophic principle o4 +hristianity that this di2orce in the di2ine act o4 a0ing ;such as se2ers the poet 4ro the poe or the other 4ro the new?born child< was the true description o4 the act whereby the absolute energy ade the world. /ccording to ost philosophers, &od in a0ing the world ensla2ed it. /ccording to +hristianity, in a0ing it, He set it 4ree. &od had written, not so uch a poe , but rather a play5 a play he had planned as per4ect, but which had necessarily been le4t to hu an actors and stage? anagers, who had since ade a great ess o4 it. ' will discuss the truth o4 this theore later. Here ' ha2e only to point out with what a startling s oothness it passed the dile a we ha2e discussed in this chapter. 'n this way at least one could be both happy and indignant without degrading one7s sel4 to be either a pessi ist or an opti ist. !n this syste one could 4ight all the 4orces o4 existence without deserting the 4lag o4 existence. !ne could be at peace with the uni2erse and yet be at war with the world. ,t. &eorge could still 4ight the dragon, howe2er big the onster bul0ed in the cos os, though he were bigger than the ighty cities or bigger than the e2erlasting hills. '4 he were as big as the world he could yet be 0illed in the na e o4 the world. ,t. &eorge had not to consider any ob2ious odds or proportions in the scale o4 things, but only the original secret o4 their design. He can sha0e his sword at the dragon, e2en i4 it is e2erything5 e2en i4 the e pty hea2ens o2er his head are only the huge arch o4 its open @aws. /nd then 4ollowed an experience i possible to describe. 't was as i4 ' had been blundering about since y birth with two huge and un anageable achines, o4 di44erent shapes and without apparent connection ?? the world and the +hristian tradition. ' had 4ound this hole in the worldA the 4act that one ust so ehow 4ind a way o4 lo2ing the world without trusting it5 so ehow one ust lo2e the word without being worldly. ' 4ound this pro@ecting 4eature o4 +hristian theology, li0e a sort o4 hard spi0e, the dog atic insistence that &od was personal, and had ade a world separate 4ro Hi sel4. The spi0e o4 dog a 4itted exactly into the hole in the world ?? it had e2idently been eant to go there ?? and then the strange thing began to happen. 6hen once these two parts o4 the two achines had co e together, one a4ter another,

all the other parts 4itted and 4ell in with an eerie exactitude. ' could hear bolt a4ter bolt o2er all the achinery 4alling into its place with a 0ind o4 clic0 o4 relie4. Ha2ing got one part right, all the other parts were repeating that rectitude, as cloc0 a4ter doc0 stri0es noon. 'nstinct a4ter instinct was answered by doctrine a4ter doctrine. !r, to 2ary the etaphor, ' was li0e one who had ad2anced into a hostile country to ta0e one high 4ortress. /nd when that 4ort had 4allen the whole country surrendered and turned solid behind e. The whole land was lit up, as it were, bac0 to the 4irst 4ields o4 y childhood. /ll those blind 4ancies o4 boyhood which in the 4ourth chapter ' ha2e tried in 2ain to trace on the dar0ness, beca e suddenly transparent and sane. ' was right when ' 4elt that roses were red by so e sort o4 choiceA it was the di2ine choice. ' was right when ' 4elt that ' would al ost rather say that grass was the wrong colour than say it ust by necessity ha2e been that colourA it ight 2erily ha2e been any other. 3y sense that happiness hung on the crazy thread o4 a condition did ean so ething when all was saidA it eant the whole doctrine o4 the .all. )2en those di and shapeless onsters o4 notions which ' ha2e not been able to describe, uch less de4end, stepped >uietly into their places li0e colossal caryatides o4 the creed. The 4ancy that the cos os was not 2ast and 2oid, but s all and cosy, had a 4ul4illed signi4icance now, 4or anything that is a wor0 o4 art ust be s all in the sight o4 the artist5 to &od the stars ight be only s all and dear, li0e dia onds. /nd y haunting instinct that so ehow good was not erely a tool to be used, but a relic to be guarded, li0e the goods 4ro +rusoe7s ship ?? e2en that had been the wild whisper o4 so ething originally wise, 4or, according to +hristianity, we were indeed the sur2i2ors o4 a wrec0, the crew o4 a golden ship that had gone down be4ore the beginning o4 the world. %ut the i portant atter was this, that it entirely re2ersed the reason 4or opti is . /nd the instant the re2ersal was ade it 4elt li0e the abrupt ease when a bone is put bac0 in the soc0et. ' had o4ten called ysel4 an opti ist, to a2oid the too e2ident blasphe y o4 pessi is . %ut all the opti is o4 the age had been 4alse and disheartening 4or this reason, that it had always been trying to pro2e that we 4it in to the world. The +hristian opti is is based on the 4act that we do -!T 4it in to the world. ' had tried to be happy by telling ysel4 that an is an ani al, li0e any other which sought its eat 4ro &od. %ut now ' really was happy, 4or ' had learnt that an is a onstrosity. ' had been right in 4eeling all things as odd, 4or ' ysel4 was at once worse and better than all things. The opti ist7s pleasure was prosaic, 4or it dwelt on the naturalness o4 e2erything5 the +hristian pleasure was poetic, 4or it dwelt on the unnaturalness o4 e2erything in the light o4 the supernatural. The odern philosopher had told e again and again that ' was in the right place, and ' had still 4elt depressed e2en in ac>uiescence. %ut ' had heard that ' was in the 6"!-& place, and y soul sang 4or @oy, li0e a bird in spring. The 0nowledge 4ound out and illu inated 4orgotten cha bers in the dar0 house o4 in4ancy. ' 0new now why grass had always see ed to e as >ueer as the green beard o4 a giant, and why ' could 4eel ho esic0 at ho e.

8'9TH) P/"/D!#), !. +H"',T'/-'T$ TH) real trouble with this world o4 ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor e2en that it is a reasonable one. The co onest 0ind o4 trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not >uite. (i4e is not an illogicality5 yet it is a trap 4or logicians. 't loo0s @ust a little ore athe atical and regular than it is5 its exactitude is ob2ious, but its inexactitude is hidden5 its wildness lies in wait. ' gi2e one coarse instance o4 what ' ean. ,uppose so e athe atical creature 4ro the oon were to rec0on up the hu an body5 he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. / an is two en, he on the right exactly rese bling hi on the le4t. Ha2ing noted that there was an ar on the right and one on the le4t, a leg on the right and one on the le4t, he ight go 4urther and still 4ind on each side the sa e nu ber o4 4ingers, the sa e nu ber o4 toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and e2en twin lobes o4 the brain. /t last he would ta0e it as a law5 and then, where he 4ound a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. /nd @ust then, where he ost 4elt he was right, he would be wrong. 't is this silent swer2ing 4ro accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny ele ent in e2erything. 't see s a sort o4 secret treason in the uni2erse. /n apple or an orange is round enough to get itsel4 called round, and yet is not round a4ter all. The earth itsel4 is shaped li0e an orange in order to lure so e si ple astrono er into calling it a globe. / blade o4 grass is called a4ter the blade o4 a sword, because it co es to a point5 but it doesn7t. )2erywhere in things there is this ele ent o4 the >uiet and incalculable. 't escapes the rationalists, but it ne2er escapes till the last o ent. .ro the grand cur2e o4 our earth it could easily be in4erred that e2ery inch o4 it was thus cur2ed. 't would see rational that as a an has a brain on both sides, he should ha2e a heart on both sides. $et scienti4ic en are still organizing expeditions to 4ind the -orth Pole, because they are so 4ond o4 4lat country. ,cienti4ic en are also still organizing expeditions to 4ind a an7s heart5 and when they try to 4ind it, they generally get on the wrong side o4 hi . -ow, actual insight or inspiration is best tested by whether it guesses these hidden al4or ations or surprises. '4 our athe atician 4ro the oon saw the two ar s and the two ears, he ight deduce the two shoulder?blades and the two hal2es o4 the brain. %ut i4 he guessed that the an7s heart was in the right place, then ' should call hi so ething ore than a athe atician. -ow, this is exactly the clai which ' ha2e since co e to propound 4or +hristianity. -ot erely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly beco es illogical, it has 4ound, so to spea0, an illogical truth. 't not only goes right about things, but it goes wrong ;i4 one ay say so< exactly where the things go wrong. 'ts plan suits the secret irregularities, and expects the unexpected. 't is si ple about the si ple truth5 but it is stubborn about the subtle truth. 't will ad it that a an has two

hands, it will not ad it ;though all the 3odernists wail to it< the ob2ious deduction that he has two hearts. 't is y only purpose in this chapter to point this out5 to show that whene2er we 4eel there is so ething odd in +hristian theology, we shall generally 4ind that there is so ething odd in the truth. ' ha2e alluded to an un eaning phrase to the e44ect that such and such a creed cannot be belie2ed in our age. !4 course, anything can be belie2ed in any age. %ut, oddly enough, there really is a sense in which a creed, i4 it is belie2ed at all, can be belie2ed ore 4ixedly in a co plex society than in a si ple one. '4 a an 4inds +hristianity true in %ir ingha , he has actually clearer reasons 4or 4aith than i4 he had 4ound it true in 3ercia. .or the ore co plicated see s the coincidence, the less it can be a coincidence. '4 snow4la0es 4ell in the shape, say, o4 the heart o4 3idlothian, it ight be an accident. %ut i4 snow4la0es 4ell in the exact shape o4 the aze at Ha pton +ourt, ' thin0 one ight call it a iracle. 't is exactly as o4 such a iracle that ' ha2e since co e to 4eel o4 the philosophy o4 +hristianity. The co plication o4 our odern world pro2es the truth o4 the creed ore per4ectly than any o4 the plain proble s o4 the ages o4 4aith. 't was in -otting Hill and %attersea that ' began to see that +hristianity was true. This is why the 4aith has that elaboration o4 doctrines and details which so uch distresses those who ad ire +hristianity without belie2ing in it. 6hen once one belie2es in a creed, one is proud o4 its co plexity, as scientists are proud o4 the co plexity o4 science. 't shows how rich it is in disco2eries. '4 it is right at all, it is a co pli ent to say that it7s elaborately right. / stic0 ight 4it a hole or a stone a hollow by accident. %ut a 0ey and a loc0 are both co plex. /nd i4 a 0ey 4its a loc0, you 0now it is the right 0ey. %ut this in2ol2ed accuracy o4 the thing a0es it 2ery di44icult to do what ' now ha2e to do, to describe this accu ulation o4 truth. 't is 2ery hard 4or a an to de4end anything o4 which he is entirely con2inced. 't is co parati2ely easy when he is only partially con2inced. He is partially con2inced because he has 4ound this or that proo4 o4 the thing, and he can expound it. %ut a an is not really con2inced o4 a philosophic theory when he 4inds that so ething pro2es it. He is only really con2inced when he 4inds that e2erything pro2es it. /nd the ore con2erging reasons he 4inds pointing to this con2iction, the ore bewildered he is i4 as0ed suddenly to su the up. Thus, i4 one as0ed an ordinary intelligent an, on the spur o4 the o ent, 16hy do you pre4er ci2ilization to sa2agery=1 he would loo0 wildly round at ob@ect a4ter ob@ect, and would only be able to answer 2aguely, 16hy, there is that boo0case . . . and the coals in the coal?scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and police en.1 The whole case 4or ci2ilization is that the case 4or it is co plex. 't has done so any things. %ut that 2ery ultiplicity o4 proo4 which ought to a0e reply o2erwhel ing a0es reply i possible. There is, there4ore, about all co plete con2iction a 0ind o4 huge helplessness. The belie4 is so big that it ta0es a long ti e to get it into action. /nd this hesitation chie4ly arises, oddly

enough, 4ro an indi44erence about where one should begin. /ll roads lead to "o e5 which is one reason why any people ne2er get there. 'n the case o4 this de4ence o4 the +hristian con2iction ' con4ess that ' would as soon begin the argu ent with one thing as another5 ' would begin it with a turnip or a taxi eter cab. %ut i4 ' a to be at all care4ul about a0ing y eaning clear, it will, ' thin0, be wiser to continue the current argu ents o4 the last chapter, which was concerned to urge the 4irst o4 these ystical coincidences, or rather rati4ications. /ll ' had hitherto heard o4 +hristian theology had alienated e 4ro it. ' was a pagan at the age o4 twel2e, and a co plete agnostic by the age o4 sixteen5 and ' cannot understand any one passing the age o4 se2enteen without ha2ing as0ed hi sel4 so si ple a >uestion. ' did, indeed, retain a cloudy re2erence 4or a cos ic deity and a great historical interest in the .ounder o4 +hristianity. %ut ' certainly regarded Hi as a an5 though perhaps ' thought that, e2en in that point, He had an ad2antage o2er so e o4 His odern critics. ' read the scienti4ic and sceptical literature o4 y ti e ?? all o4 it, at least, that ' could 4ind written in )nglish and lying about5 and ' read nothing else5 ' ean ' read nothing else on any other note o4 philosophy. The penny dread4uls which ' also read were indeed in a healthy and heroic tradition o4 +hristianity5 but ' did not 0now this at the ti e. ' ne2er read a line o4 +hristian apologetics. ' read as little as ' can o4 the now. 't was Huxley and Herbert ,pencer and %radlaugh who brought e bac0 to orthodox theology. They sowed in y ind y 4irst wild doubts o4 doubt. !ur grand others were >uite right when they said that To Paine and the 4ree?thin0ers unsettled the ind. They do. They unsettled ine horribly. The rationalist ade e >uestion whether reason was o4 any use whate2er5 and when ' had 4inished Herbert ,pencer ' had got as 4ar as doubting ;4or the 4irst ti e< whether e2olution had occurred at all. /s ' laid down the last o4 +olonel 'ngersoll7s atheistic lectures the dread4ul thought bro0e across y ind, 1/l ost thou persuadest e to be a +hristian.1 ' was in a desperate way. This odd e44ect o4 the great agnostics in arousing doubts deeper than their own ight be illustrated in any ways. ' ta0e only one. /s ' read and re?read all the non?+hristian or anti? +hristian accounts o4 the 4aith, 4ro Huxley to %radlaugh, a slow and aw4ul i pression grew gradually but graphically upon y ind ?? the i pression that +hristianity ust be a ost extraordinary thing. .or not only ;as ' understood< had +hristianity the ost 4la ing 2ices, but it had apparently a ystical talent 4or co bining 2ices which see ed inconsistent with each other. 't was attac0ed on all sides and 4or all contradictory reasons. -o sooner had one rationalist de onstrated that it was too 4ar to the east than another de onstrated with e>ual clearness that it was uch too 4ar to the west. -o sooner had y indignation died down at its angular and aggressi2e s>uareness than ' was called up again to notice and conde n its ener2ating and sensual roundness. 'n case any reader has not co e across the thing ' ean, ' will gi2e such instances as ' re e ber at rando o4 this sel4?contradiction in the sceptical attac0. ' gi2e 4our or 4i2e o4 the 5 there are 4i4ty ore.

Thus, 4or instance, ' was uch o2ed by the elo>uent attac0 on +hristianity as a thing o4 inhu an gloo 5 4or ' thought ;and still thin0< sincere pessi is the unpardonable sin. 'nsincere pessi is is a social acco plish ent, rather agreeable than otherwise5 and 4ortunately nearly all pessi is is insincere. %ut i4 +hristianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessi istic and opposed to li4e, then ' was >uite prepared to blow up ,t. Paul7s +athedral. %ut the extraordinary thing is this. They did pro2e to e in +hapter '. ;to y co plete satis4action< that +hristianity was too pessi istic5 and then, in +hapter ''., they began to pro2e to e that it was a great deal too opti istic. !ne accusation against +hristianity was that it pre2ented en, by orbid tears and terrors, 4ro see0ing @oy and liberty in the boso o4 -ature. %ut another accusation was that it co 4orted en with a 4ictitious pro2idence, and put the in a pin0?and?white nursery. !ne great agnostic as0ed why -ature was not beauti4ul enough, and why it was hard to be 4ree. /nother great agnostic ob@ected that +hristian opti is , 1the gar ent o4 a0e?belie2e wo2en by pious hands,1 hid 4ro us the 4act that -ature was ugly, and that it was i possible to be 4ree. !ne rationalist had hardly done calling +hristianity a night are be4ore another began to call it a 4ool7s paradise. This puzzled e5 the charges see ed inconsistent. +hristianity could not at once be the blac0 as0 on a white world, and also the white as0 on a blac0 world. The state o4 the +hristian could not be at once so co 4ortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so unco 4ortable that he was a 4ool to stand it. '4 it 4alsi4ied hu an 2ision it ust 4alsi4y it one way or another5 it could not wear both green and rose?coloured spectacles. ' rolled on y tongue with a terrible @oy, as did all young en o4 that ti e, the taunts which ,winburne hurled at the dreariness o4 the creed ?? 1Thou hast con>uered, ! pale &alilaean, the world has grown gray with Thy breath.1 %ut when ' read the sa e poet7s accounts o4 paganis ;as in 1/talanta1<, ' gathered that the world was, i4 possible, ore gray be4ore the &alilean breathed on it than a4terwards. The poet aintained, indeed, in the abstract, that li4e itsel4 was pitch dar0. /nd yet, so ehow, +hristianity had dar0ened it. The 2ery an who denounced +hristianity 4or pessi is was hi sel4 a pessi ist. ' thought there ust be so ething wrong. /nd it did 4or one wild o ent cross y ind that, perhaps, those ight not be the 2ery best @udges o4 the relation o4 religion to happiness who, by their own account, had neither one nor the other. 't ust be understood that ' did not conclude hastily that the accusations were 4alse or the accusers 4ools. ' si ply deduced that +hristianity ust be so ething e2en weirder and wic0eder than they ade out. / thing ight ha2e these two opposite 2ices5 but it ust be a rather >ueer thing i4 it did. / an ight be too 4at in one place and too thin in another5 but he would be an odd shape. /t this point y thoughts were only o4 the odd shape o4 the +hristian religion5 ' did not allege any odd shape in the rationalistic ind.

Here is another case o4 the sa e 0ind. ' 4elt that a strong case against +hristianity lay in the charge that there is so ething ti id, on0ish, and un anly about all that is called 1+hristian,1 especially in its attitude towards resistance and 4ighting. The great sceptics o4 the nineteenth century were largely 2irile. %radlaugh in an expansi2e way, Huxley, in a reticent way, were decidedly en. 'n co parison, it did see tenable that there was so ething wea0 and o2er patient about +hristian counsels. The &ospel paradox about the other chee0, the 4act that priests ne2er 4ought, a hundred things ade plausible the accusation that +hristianity was an atte pt to a0e a an too li0e a sheep. ' read it and belie2ed it, and i4 ' had read nothing di44erent, ' should ha2e gone on belie2ing it. %ut ' read so ething 2ery di44erent. ' turned the next page in y agnostic anual, and y brain turned up?side down. -ow ' 4ound that ' was to hate +hristianity not 4or 4ighting too little, but 4or 4ighting too uch. +hristianity, it see ed, was the other o4 wars. +hristianity had deluged the world with blood. ' had got thoroughly angry with the +hristian, because he ne2er was angry. /nd now ' was told to be angry with hi because his anger had been the ost huge and horrible thing in hu an history5 because his anger had soa0ed the earth and s o0ed to the sun. The 2ery people who reproached +hristianity with the ee0ness and non?resistance o4 the onasteries were the 2ery people who reproached it also with the 2iolence and 2alour o4 the +rusades. 't was the 4ault o4 poor old +hristianity ;so ehow or other< both that )dward the +on4essor did not 4ight and that "ichard +oeur de (eon did. The Hua0ers ;we were told< were the only characteristic +hristians5 and yet the assacres o4 +ro well and /l2a were characteristic +hristian cri es. 6hat could it all ean= 6hat was this +hristianity which always 4orbade war and always produced wars= 6hat could be the nature o4 the thing which one could abuse 4irst because it would not 4ight, and second because it was always 4ighting= 'n what world o4 riddles was born this onstrous urder and this onstrous ee0ness= The shape o4 +hristianity grew a >ueerer shape e2ery instant. ' ta0e a third case5 the strangest o4 all, because it in2ol2es the one real ob@ection to the 4aith. The one real ob@ection to the +hristian religion is si ply that it is one religion. The world is a big place, 4ull o4 2ery di44erent 0inds o4 people. +hristianity ;it ay reasonably be said< is one thing con4ined to one 0ind o4 people5 it began in Palestine, it has practically stopped with )urope. ' was duly i pressed with this argu ent in y youth, and ' was uch drawn towards the doctrine o4ten preached in )thical ,ocieties ?? ' ean the doctrine that there is one great unconscious church o4 all hu anity rounded on the o nipresence o4 the hu an conscience. +reeds, it was said, di2ided en5 but at least orals united the . The soul ight see0 the strangest and ost re ote lands and ages and still 4ind essential ethical co on sense. 't ight 4ind +on4ucius under )astern trees, and he would be writing 1Thou shalt not steal.1 't ight decipher the dar0est hieroglyphic on the ost pri e2al desert, and the eaning when deciphered would be 1(ittle boys should tell the truth.1 ' belie2ed this doctrine o4 the

brotherhood o4 all en in the possession o4 a oral sense, and ' belie2e it still ?? with other things. /nd ' was thoroughly annoyed with +hristianity 4or suggesting ;as ' supposed< that whole ages and e pires o4 en had utterly escaped this light o4 @ustice and reason. %ut then ' 4ound an astonishing thing. ' 4ound that the 2ery people who said that an0ind was one church 4ro Plato to ) erson were the 2ery people who said that orality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. '4 ' as0ed, say, 4or an altar, ' was told that we needed none, 4or en our brothers ga2e us clear oracles and one creed in their uni2ersal custo s and ideals. %ut i4 ' ildly pointed out that one o4 en7s uni2ersal custo s was to ha2e an altar, then y agnostic teachers turned clean round and told e that en had always been in dar0ness and the superstitions o4 sa2ages. ' 4ound it was their daily taunt against +hristianity that it was the light o4 one people and had le4t all others to die in the dar0. %ut ' also 4ound that it was their special boast 4or the sel2es that science and progress were the disco2ery o4 one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dar0. Their chie4 insult to +hristianity was actually their chie4 co pli ent to the sel2es, and there see ed to be a strange un4airness about all their relati2e insistence on the two things. 6hen considering so e pagan or agnostic, we were to re e ber that all en had one religion5 when considering so e ystic or spiritualist, we were only to consider what absurd religions so e en had. 6e could trust the ethics o4 )pictetus, because ethics had ne2er changed. 6e ust not trust the ethics o4 %ossuet, because ethics had changed. They changed in two hundred years, but not in two thousand. This began to be alar ing. 't loo0ed not so uch as i4 +hristianity was bad enough to include any 2ices, but rather as i4 any stic0 was good enough to beat +hristianity with. 6hat again could this astonishing thing be li0e which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not ind contradicting the sel2es= ' saw the sa e thing on e2ery side. ' can gi2e no 4urther space to this discussion o4 it in detail5 but lest any one supposes that ' ha2e un4airly selected three accidental cases ' will run brie4ly through a 4ew others. Thus, certain sceptics wrote that the great cri e o4 +hristianity had been its attac0 on the 4a ily5 it had dragged wo en to the loneliness and conte plation o4 the cloister, away 4ro their ho es and their children. %ut, then, other sceptics ;slightly ore ad2anced< said that the great cri e o4 +hristianity was 4orcing the 4a ily and arriage upon us5 that it doo ed wo en to the drudgery o4 their ho es and children, and 4orbade the loneliness and conte plation. The charge was actually re2ersed. !r, again, certain phrases in the )pistles or the arriage ser2ice, were said by the anti? +hristians to show conte pt 4or wo an7s intellect. %ut ' 4ound that the anti?+hristians the sel2es had a conte pt 4or wo an7s intellect5 4or it was their great sneer at the +hurch on the +ontinent that 1only wo en1 went to it. !r again, +hristianity was reproached with its na0ed and hungry habits5 with its sac0cloth and dried peas. %ut the next inute +hristianity was being reproached with its po p and its ritualis 5 its shrines o4

porphyry and its robes o4 gold. 't was abused 4or being too plain and 4or being too coloured. /gain +hristianity had always been accused o4 restraining sexuality too uch, when %radlaugh the 3althusian disco2ered that it restrained it too little. 't is o4ten accused in the sa e breath o4 pri respectability and o4 religious extra2agance. %etween the co2ers o4 the sa e atheistic pa phlet ' ha2e 4ound the 4aith rebu0ed 4or its disunion, 1!ne thin0s one thing, and one another,1 and rebu0ed also 4or its union, 1't is di44erence o4 opinion that pre2ents the world 4ro going to the dogs.1 'n the sa e con2ersation a 4ree?thin0er, a 4riend o4 ine, bla ed +hristianity 4or despising Bews, and then despised it hi sel4 4or being Bewish. ' wished to be >uite 4air then, and ' wish to be >uite 4air now5 and ' did not conclude that the attac0 on +hristianity was all wrong. ' only concluded that i4 +hristianity was wrong, it was 2ery wrong indeed. ,uch hostile horrors ight be co bined in one thing, but that thing ust be 2ery strange and solitary. There are en who are isers, and also spendthri4ts5 but they are rare. There are en sensual and also ascetic5 but they are rare. %ut i4 this ass o4 ad contradictions really existed, >ua0erish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread?bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust o4 the eye, the ene y o4 wo en and their 4oolish re4uge, a sole n pessi ist and a silly opti ist, i4 this e2il existed, then there was in this e2il so ething >uite supre e and uni>ue. .or ' 4ound in y rationalist teachers no explanation o4 such exceptional corruption. +hristianity ;theoretically spea0ing< was in their eyes only one o4 the ordinary yths and errors o4 ortals. TH)$ ga2e e no 0ey to this twisted and unnatural badness. ,uch a paradox o4 e2il rose to the stature o4 the supernatural. 't was, indeed, al ost as supernatural as the in4allibility o4 the Pope. /n historic institution, which ne2er went right, is really >uite as uch o4 a iracle as an institution that cannot go wrong. The only explanation which i ediately occurred to y ind was that +hristianity did not co e 4ro hea2en, but 4ro hell. "eally, i4 Besus o4 -azareth was not +hrist, He ust ha2e been /ntichrist. /nd then in a >uiet hour a strange thought struc0 e li0e a still thunderbolt. There had suddenly co e into y ind another explanation. ,uppose we heard an un0nown an spo0en o4 by any en. ,uppose we were puzzled to hear that so e en said he was too tall and so e too short5 so e ob@ected to his 4atness, so e la ented his leanness5 so e thought hi too dar0, and so e too 4air. !ne explanation ;as has been already ad itted< would be that he ight be an odd shape. %ut there is another explanation. He ight be the right shape. !utrageously tall en ight 4eel hi to be short. 8ery short en ight 4eel hi to be tall. !ld buc0s who are growing stout ight consider hi insu44iciently 4illed out5 old beaux who were growing thin ight 4eel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines o4 elegance. Perhaps ,wedes ;who ha2e pale hair li0e tow< called hi a dar0 an, while negroes considered hi distinctly blonde. Perhaps ;in short< this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing5 at least the nor al thing, the centre. Perhaps, a4ter all, it is +hristianity that is sane and all its critics that are ad ?? in 2arious ways. ' tested this idea by

as0ing ysel4 whether there was about any o4 the accusers anything orbid that ight explain the accusation. ' was startled to 4ind that this 0ey 4itted a loc0. .or instance, it was certainly odd that the odern world charged +hristianity at once with bodily austerity and with artistic po p. %ut then it was also odd, 2ery odd, that the odern world itsel4 co bined extre e bodily luxury with an extre e absence o4 artistic po p. The odern an thought %ec0et7s robes too rich and his eals too poor. %ut then the odern an was really exceptional in history5 no an be4ore e2er ate such elaborate dinners in such ugly clothes. The odern an 4ound the church too si ple exactly where odern li4e is too co plex5 he 4ound the church too gorgeous exactly where odern li4e is too dingy. The an who disli0ed the plain 4asts and 4easts was ad on )-T")),. The an who disli0ed 2est ents wore a pair o4 preposterous trousers. /nd surely i4 there was any insanity in2ol2ed in the atter at all it was in the trousers, not in the si ply 4alling robe. '4 there was any insanity at all, it was in the extra2agant )-T")),, not in the bread and wine. ' went o2er all the cases, and ' 4ound the 0ey 4itted so 4ar. The 4act that ,winburne was irritated at the unhappiness o4 +hristians and yet ore irritated at their happiness was easily explained. 't was no longer a co plication o4 diseases in +hristianity, but a co plication o4 diseases in ,winburne. The restraints o4 +hristians saddened hi si ply because he was ore hedonist than a healthy an should be. The 4aith o4 +hristians angered hi because he was ore pessi ist than a healthy an should be. 'n the sa e way the 3althusians by instinct attac0ed +hristianity5 not because there is anything especially anti? 3althusian about +hristianity, but because there is so ething a little anti?hu an about 3althusianis . -e2ertheless it could not, ' 4elt, be >uite true that +hristianity was erely sensible and stood in the iddle. There was really an ele ent in it o4 e phasis and e2en 4renzy which had @usti4ied the secularists in their super4icial criticis . 't ight be wise, ' began ore and ore to thin0 that it was wise, but it was not erely worldly wise5 it was not erely te perate and respectable. 'ts 4ierce crusaders and ee0 saints ight balance each other5 still, the crusaders were 2ery 4ierce and the saints were 2ery ee0, ee0 beyond all decency. -ow, it was @ust at this point o4 the speculation that ' re e bered y thoughts about the artyr and the suicide. 'n that atter there had been this co bination between two al ost insane positions which yet so ehow a ounted to sanity. This was @ust such another contradiction5 and this ' had already 4ound to be true. This was exactly one o4 the paradoxes in which sceptics 4ound the creed wrong5 and in this ' had 4ound it right. 3adly as +hristians ight lo2e the artyr or hate the suicide, they ne2er 4elt these passions ore adly than ' had 4elt the long be4ore ' drea ed o4 +hristianity. Then the ost di44icult and interesting part o4 the ental process opened, and ' began to trace this idea dar0ly through all the enor ous thoughts o4 our theology. The idea was that which ' had outlined touching the opti ist and the pessi ist5 that we want not an a alga or co pro ise, but both things at the top o4 their energy5 lo2e and wrath both burning. Here ' shall only trace it in relation to

ethics. %ut ' need not re ind the reader that the idea o4 this co bination is indeed central in orthodox theology. .or orthodox theology has specially insisted that +hrist was not a being apart 4ro &od and an, li0e an el4, nor yet a being hal4 hu an and hal4 not, li0e a centaur, but both things at once and both things thoroughly, 2ery an and 2ery &od. -ow let e trace this notion as ' 4ound it. /ll sane en can see that sanity is so e 0ind o4 e>uilibriu 5 that one ay be ad and eat too uch, or ad and eat too little. ,o e oderns ha2e indeed appeared with 2ague 2ersions o4 progress and e2olution which see0s to destroy the 3),!- or balance o4 /ristotle. They see to suggest that we are eant to star2e progressi2ely, or to go on eating larger and larger brea04asts e2ery orning 4or e2er. %ut the great truis o4 the 3),!- re ains 4or all thin0ing en, and these people ha2e not upset any balance except their own. %ut granted that we ha2e all to 0eep a balance, the real interest co es in with the >uestion o4 how that balance can be 0ept. That was the proble which Paganis tried to sol2eA that was the proble which ' thin0 +hristianity sol2ed and sol2ed in a 2ery strange way. Paganis declared that 2irtue was in a balance5 +hristianity declared it was in a con4lictA the collision o4 two passions apparently opposite. !4 course they were not really inconsistent5 but they were such that it was hard to hold si ultaneously. (et us 4ollow 4or a o ent the clue o4 the artyr and the suicide5 and ta0e the case o4 courage. -o >uality has e2er so uch addled the brains and tangled the de4initions o4 erely rational sages. +ourage is al ost a contradiction in ter s. 't eans a strong desire to li2e ta0ing the 4or o4 a readiness to die. 1He that will lose his li4e, the sa e shall sa2e it,1 is not a piece o4 ysticis 4or saints and heroes. 't is a piece o4 e2eryday ad2ice 4or sailors or ountaineers. 't ight be printed in an /lpine guide or a drill boo0. This paradox is the whole principle o4 courage5 e2en o4 >uite earthly or >uite brutal courage. / an cut o44 by the sea ay sa2e his li4e i4 he will ris0 it on the precipice. He can only get away 4ro death by continually stepping within an inch o4 it. / soldier surrounded by ene ies, i4 he is to cut his way out, needs to co bine a strong desire 4or li2ing with a strange carelessness about dying. He ust not erely cling to li4e, 4or then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He ust not erely wait 4or death, 4or then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He ust see0 his li4e in a spirit o4 4urious indi44erence to it5 he ust desire li4e li0e water and yet drin0 death li0e wine. -o philosopher, ' 4ancy, has e2er expressed this ro antic riddle with ade>uate lucidity, and ' certainly ha2e not done so. %ut +hristianity has done oreA it has ar0ed the li its o4 it in the aw4ul gra2es o4 the suicide and the hero, showing the distance between hi who dies 4or the sa0e o4 li2ing and hi who dies 4or the sa0e o4 dying. /nd it has held up e2er since abo2e the )uropean lances the banner o4 the ystery o4 chi2alryA the +hristian courage, which is a disdain o4 death5 not the +hinese courage, which is a disdain o4 li4e. /nd now ' began to 4ind that this duplex passion was the

+hristian 0ey to ethics e2erywhere. )2erywhere the creed ade a oderation out o4 the still crash o4 two i petuous e otions. Ta0e, 4or instance, the atter o4 odesty, o4 the balance between ere pride and ere prostration. The a2erage pagan, li0e the a2erage agnostic, would erely say that he was content with hi sel4, but not insolently sel4?satis4ied, that there were any better and any worse, that his deserts were li ited, but he would see that he got the . 'n short, he would wal0 with his head in the air5 but not necessarily with his nose in the air. This is a anly and rational position, but it is open to the ob@ection we noted against the co pro ise between opti is and pessi is ?? the 1resignation1 o4 3atthew /rnold. %eing a ixture o4 two things, it is a dilution o4 two things5 neither is present in its 4ull strength or contributes its 4ull colour. This proper pride does not li4t the heart li0e the tongue o4 tru pets5 you cannot go clad in cri son and gold 4or this. !n the other hand, this ild rationalist odesty does not cleanse the soul with 4ire and a0e it clear li0e crystal5 it does not ;li0e a strict and searching hu ility< a0e a an as a little child, who can sit at the 4eet o4 the grass. 't does not a0e hi loo0 up and see ar2els5 4or /lice ust grow s all i4 she is to be /lice in 6onderland. Thus it loses both the poetry o4 being proud and the poetry o4 being hu ble. +hristianity sought by this sa e strange expedient to sa2e both o4 the . 't separated the two ideas and then exaggerated the both. 'n one way 3an was to be haughtier than he had e2er been be4ore5 in another way he was to be hu bler than he had e2er been be4ore. 'n so 4ar as ' a 3an ' a the chie4 o4 creatures. 'n so 4ar as ' a a an ' a the chie4 o4 sinners. /ll hu ility that had eant pessi is , that had eant an ta0ing a 2ague or ean 2iew o4 his whole destiny ?? all that was to go. 6e were to hear no ore the wail o4 )cclesiastes that hu anity had no pre?e inence o2er the brute, or the aw4ul cry o4 Ho er that an was only the saddest o4 all the beasts o4 the 4ield. 3an was a statue o4 &od wal0ing about the garden. 3an had pre?e inence o2er all the brutes5 an was only sad because he was not a beast, but a bro0en god. The &ree0 had spo0en o4 en creeping on the earth, as i4 clinging to it. -ow 3an was to tread on the earth as i4 to subdue it. +hristianity thus held a thought o4 the dignity o4 an that could only be expressed in crowns rayed li0e the sun and 4ans o4 peacoc0 plu age. $et at the sa e ti e it could hold a thought about the ab@ect s allness o4 an that could only be expressed in 4asting and 4antastic sub ission, in the gray ashes o4 ,t. Do inic and the white snows o4 ,t. %ernard. 6hen one ca e to thin0 o4 !-)7, ,)(., there was 2ista and 2oid enough 4or any a ount o4 blea0 abnegation and bitter truth. There the realistic gentle an could let hi sel4 go ?? as long as he let hi sel4 go at hi sel4. There was an open playground 4or the happy pessi ist. (et hi say anything against hi sel4 short o4 blasphe ing the original ai o4 his being5 let hi call hi sel4 a 4ool and e2en a da ned 4ool ;though that is +al2inistic<5 but he ust not say that 4ools are not worth sa2ing. He ust not say that a an, H:/ an, can be 2alueless. Here, again in short, +hristianity got o2er the di44iculty o4 co bining 4urious opposites, by 0eeping the both, and 0eeping the both

4urious. The +hurch was positi2e on both points. !ne can hardly thin0 too little o4 one7s sel4. !ne can hardly thin0 too uch o4 one7s soul. Ta0e another caseA the co plicated >uestion o4 charity, which so e highly uncharitable idealists see to thin0 >uite easy. +harity is a paradox, li0e odesty and courage. ,tated baldly, charity certainly eans one o4 two things ?? pardoning unpardonable acts, or lo2ing unlo2able people. %ut i4 we as0 oursel2es ;as we did in the case o4 pride< what a sensible pagan would 4eel about such a sub@ect, we shall probably be beginning at the botto o4 it. / sensible pagan would say that there were so e people one could 4orgi2e, and so e one couldn7tA a sla2e who stole wine could be laughed at5 a sla2e who betrayed his bene4actor could be 0illed, and cursed e2en a4ter he was 0illed. 'n so 4ar as the act was pardonable, the an was pardonable. That again is rational, and e2en re4reshing5 but it is a dilution. 't lea2es no place 4or a pure horror o4 in@ustice, such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent. /nd it lea2es no place 4or a ere tenderness 4or en as en, such as is the whole 4ascination o4 the charitable. +hristianity ca e in here as be4ore. 't ca e in startlingly with a sword, and clo2e one thing 4ro another. 't di2ided the cri e 4ro the cri inal. The cri inal we ust 4orgi2e unto se2enty ti es se2en. The cri e we ust not 4orgi2e at all. 't was not enough that sla2es who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly 0indness. 6e ust be uch ore angry with the4t than be4ore, and yet uch 0inder to thie2es than be4ore. There was roo 4or wrath and lo2e to run wild. /nd the ore ' considered +hristianity, the ore ' 4ound that while it had established a rule and order, the chie4 ai o4 that order was to gi2e roo 4or good things to run wild. 3ental and e otional liberty are not so si ple as they loo0. "eally they re>uire al ost as care4ul a balance o4 laws and conditions as do social and political liberty. The ordinary aesthetic anarchist who sets out to 4eel e2erything 4reely gets 0notted at last in a paradox that pre2ents hi 4eeling at all. He brea0s away 4ro ho e li its to 4ollow poetry. %ut in ceasing to 4eel ho e li its he has ceased to 4eel the 1!dyssey.1 He is 4ree 4ro national pre@udices and outside patriotis . %ut being outside patriotis he is outside 1Henry 8.1 ,uch a literary an is si ply outside all literatureA he is ore o4 a prisoner than any bigot. .or i4 there is a wall between you and the world, it a0es little di44erence whether you describe yoursel4 as loc0ed in or as loc0ed out. 6hat we want is not the uni2ersality that is outside all nor al senti ents5 we want the uni2ersality that is inside all nor al senti ents. 't is all the di44erence between being 4ree 4ro the , as a an is 4ree 4ro a prison, and being 4ree o4 the as a an is 4ree o4 a city. ' a 4ree 4ro 6indsor +astle ;that is, ' a not 4orcibly detained there<, but ' a by no eans 4ree o4 that building. How can an be approxi ately 4ree o4 4ine e otions, able to swing the in a clear space without brea0age or wrong= TH', was the achie2e ent o4 this +hristian paradox o4 the parallel passions. &ranted the pri ary dog a o4 the war between di2ine and diabolic, the re2olt and ruin o4 the world, their opti is and pessi is , as pure poetry, could be loosened li0e

cataracts. ,t. .rancis, in praising all good, could be a ore shouting opti ist than 6alt 6hit an. ,t. Bero e, in denouncing all e2il, could paint the world blac0er than ,chopenhauer. %oth passions were 4ree because both were 0ept in their place. The opti ist could pour out all the praise he li0ed on the gay usic o4 the arch, the golden tru pets, and the purple banners going into battle. %ut he ust not call the 4ight needless. The pessi ist ight draw as dar0ly as he chose the sic0ening arches or the sanguine wounds. %ut he ust not call the 4ight hopeless. ,o it was with all the other oral proble s, with pride, with protest, and with co passion. %y de4ining its ain doctrine, the +hurch not only 0ept see ingly inconsistent things side by side, but, what was ore, allowed the to brea0 out in a sort o4 artistic 2iolence otherwise possible only to anarchists. 3ee0ness grew ore dra atic than adness. Historic +hristianity rose into a high and strange +!:P D) TH)/T") o4 orality ?? things that are to 2irtue what the cri es o4 -ero are to 2ice. The spirits o4 indignation and o4 charity too0 terrible and attracti2e 4or s, ranging 4ro that on0ish 4ierceness that scourged li0e a dog the 4irst and greatest o4 the Plantagenets, to the subli e pity o4 ,t. +atherine, who, in the o44icial sha bles, 0issed the bloody head o4 the cri inal. Poetry could be acted as well as co posed. This heroic and onu ental anner in ethics has entirely 2anished with supernatural religion. They, being hu ble, could parade the sel2esA but we are too proud to be pro inent. !ur ethical teachers write reasonably 4or prison re4or 5 but we are not li0ely to see 3r. +adbury, or any e inent philanthropist, go into "eading &aol and e brace the strangled corpse be4ore it is cast into the >uic0li e. !ur ethical teachers write ildly against the power o4 illionaires5 but we are not li0ely to see 3r. "oc0e4eller, or any odern tyrant, publicly whipped in 6est inster /bbey. Thus, the double charges o4 the secularists, though throwing nothing but dar0ness and con4usion on the sel2es, throw a real light on the 4aith. 't is true that the historic +hurch has at once e phasised celibacy and e phasised the 4a ily5 has at once ;i4 one ay put it so< been 4iercely 4or ha2ing children and 4iercely 4or not ha2ing children. 't has 0ept the side by side li0e two strong colours, red and white, li0e the red and white upon the shield o4 ,t. &eorge. 't has always had a healthy hatred o4 pin0. 't hates that co bination o4 two colours which is the 4eeble expedient o4 the philosophers. 't hates that e2olution o4 blac0 into white which is tanta ount to a dirty gray. 'n 4act, the whole theory o4 the +hurch on 2irginity ight be sy bolized in the state ent that white is a colourA not erely the absence o4 a colour. /ll that ' a urging here can be expressed by saying that +hristianity sought in ost o4 these cases to 0eep two colours coexistent but pure. 't is not a ixture li0e russet or purple5 it is rather li0e a shot sil0, 4or a shot sil0 is always at right angles, and is in the pattern o4 the cross. ,o it is also, o4 course, with the contradictory charges o4 the anti?+hristians about sub ission and slaughter. 't ', true that the +hurch told so e en to 4ight and others not to 4ight5 and it ', true that those who 4ought were li0e thunderbolts and

those who did not 4ight were li0e statues. /ll this si ply eans that the +hurch pre4erred to use its ,uper en and to use its Tolstoyans. There ust be ,!3) good in the li4e o4 battle, 4or so any good en ha2e en@oyed being soldiers. There ust be ,!3) good in the idea o4 non?resistance, 4or so any good en see to en@oy being Hua0ers. /ll that the +hurch did ;so 4ar as that goes< was to pre2ent either o4 these good things 4ro ousting the other. They existed side by side. The Tolstoyans, ha2ing all the scruples o4 on0s, si ply beca e on0s. The Hua0ers beca e a club instead o4 beco ing a sect. 3on0s said all that Tolstoy says5 they poured out lucid la entations about the cruelty o4 battles and the 2anity o4 re2enge. %ut the Tolstoyans are not >uite right enough to run the whole world5 and in the ages o4 4aith they were not allowed to run it. The world did not lose the last charge o4 ,ir Ba es Douglas or the banner o4 Boan the 3aid. /nd so eti es this pure gentleness and this pure 4ierceness et and @usti4ied their @uncture5 the paradox o4 all the prophets was 4ul4illed, and, in the soul o4 ,t. (ouis, the lion lay down with the la b. %ut re e ber that this text is too lightly interpreted. 't is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the la b the lion beco es la b?li0e. %ut that is brutal annexation and i perialis on the part o4 the la b. That is si ply the la b absorbing the lion instead o4 the lion eating the la b. The real proble is ?? +an the lion lie down with the la b and still retain his royal 4erocity= TH/T is the proble the +hurch atte pted5 TH/T is the iracle she achie2ed. This is what ' ha2e called guessing the hidden eccentricities o4 li4e. This is 0nowing that a an7s heart is to the le4t and not in the iddle. This is 0nowing not only that the earth is round, but 0nowing exactly where it is 4lat. +hristian doctrine detected the oddities o4 li4e. 't not only disco2ered the law, but it 4oresaw the exceptions. Those underrate +hristianity who say that it disco2ered ercy5 any one ight disco2er ercy. 'n 4act e2ery one did. %ut to disco2er a plan 4or being erci4ul and also se2ere ?? TH/T was to anticipate a strange need o4 hu an nature. .or no one wants to be 4orgi2en 4or a big sin as i4 it were a little one. /ny one ight say that we should be neither >uite iserable nor >uite happy. %ut to 4ind out how 4ar one 3/$ be >uite iserable without a0ing it i possible to be >uite happy ?? that was a disco2ery in psychology. /ny one ight say, 1-either swagger nor gro2el15 and it would ha2e been a li it. %ut to say, 1Here you can swagger and there you can gro2el1 ?? that was an e ancipation. This was the big 4act about +hristian ethics5 the disco2ery o4 the new balance. Paganis had been li0e a pillar o4 arble, upright because proportioned with sy etry. +hristianity was li0e a huge and ragged and ro antic roc0, which, though it sways on its pedestal at a touch, yet, because its exaggerated excrescences exactly balance each other, is enthroned there 4or a thousand years. 'n a &othic cathedral the colu ns were all di44erent, but they were all necessary. )2ery support see ed an accidental and 4antastic support5 e2ery buttress was a 4lying buttress. ,o in +hristendo apparent accidents balanced. %ec0et wore a hair shirt under his gold and cri son, and there is uch to be said 4or the co bination5 4or %ec0et got the bene4it o4 the hair shirt while

the people in the street got the bene4it o4 the cri son and gold. 't is at least better than the anner o4 the odern illionaire, who has the blac0 and the drab outwardly 4or others, and the gold next his heart. %ut the balance was not always in one an7s body as in %ec0et7s5 the balance was o4ten distributed o2er the whole body o4 +hristendo . %ecause a an prayed and 4asted on the -orthern snows, 4lowers could be 4lung at his 4esti2al in the ,outhern cities5 and because 4anatics dran0 water on the sands o4 ,yria, en could still drin0 cider in the orchards o4 )ngland. This is what a0es +hristendo at once so uch ore perplexing and so uch ore interesting than the Pagan e pire5 @ust as / iens +athedral is not better but ore interesting than the Parthenon. '4 any one wants a odern proo4 o4 all this, let hi consider the curious 4act that, under +hristianity, )urope ;while re aining a unity< has bro0en up into indi2idual nations. Patriotis is a per4ect exa ple o4 this deliberate balancing o4 one e phasis against another e phasis. The instinct o4 the Pagan e pire would ha2e said, 1$ou shall all be "o an citizens, and grow ali0e5 let the &er an grow less slow and re2erent5 the .rench en less experi ental and swi4t.1 %ut the instinct o4 +hristian )urope says, 1(et the &er an re ain slow and re2erent, that the .rench an ay the ore sa4ely be swi4t and experi ental. 6e will a0e an e>uipoise out o4 these excesses. The absurdity called &er any shall correct the insanity called .rance.1 (ast and ost i portant, it is exactly this which explains what is so inexplicable to all the odern critics o4 the history o4 +hristianity. ' ean the onstrous wars about s all points o4 theology, the earth>ua0es o4 e otion about a gesture or a word. 't was only a atter o4 an inch5 but an inch is e2erything when you are balancing. The +hurch could not a44ord to swer2e a hair7s breadth on so e things i4 she was to continue her great and daring experi ent o4 the irregular e>uilibriu . !nce let one idea beco e less power4ul and so e other idea would beco e too power4ul. 't was no 4loc0 o4 sheep the +hristian shepherd was leading, but a herd o4 bulls and tigers, o4 terrible ideals and de2ouring doctrines, each one o4 the strong enough to turn to a 4alse religion and lay waste the world. "e e ber that the +hurch went in speci4ically 4or dangerous ideas5 she was a lion ta er. The idea o4 birth through a Holy ,pirit, o4 the death o4 a di2ine being, o4 the 4orgi2eness o4 sins, or the 4ul4il ent o4 prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn the into so ething blasphe ous or 4erocious. The s allest lin0 was let drop by the arti4icers o4 the 3editerranean, and the lion o4 ancestral pessi is burst his chain in the 4orgotten 4orests o4 the north. !4 these theological e>ualisations ' ha2e to spea0 a4terwards. Here it is enough to notice that i4 so e s all ista0e were ade in doctrine, huge blunders ight be ade in hu an happiness. / sentence phrased wrong about the nature o4 sy bolis would ha2e bro0en all the best statues in )urope. / slip in the de4initions ight stop all the dances5 ight wither all the +hrist as trees or brea0 all the )aster eggs. Doctrines had to be de4ined within strict li its, e2en in order that an ight en@oy general hu an liberties. The +hurch had to be care4ul, i4 only that the world ight be careless.

This is the thrilling ro ance o4 !rthodoxy. People ha2e 4allen into a 4oolish habit o4 spea0ing o4 orthodoxy as so ething hea2y, hu dru , and sa4e. There ne2er was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. 't was sanityA and to be sane is ore dra atic than to be ad. 't was the e>uilibriu o4 a an behind adly rushing horses, see ing to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in e2ery attitude ha2ing the grace o4 statuary and the accuracy o4 arith etic. The +hurch in its early days went 4ierce and 4ast with any warhorse5 yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she erely went ad along one idea, li0e a 2ulgar 4anaticis . ,he swer2ed to le4t and right, so exactly as to a2oid enor ous obstacles. ,he le4t on one hand the huge bul0 o4 /rianis , buttressed by all the worldly powers to a0e +hristianity too worldly. The next instant she was swer2ing to a2oid an orientalis , which would ha2e ade it too unworldly. The orthodox +hurch ne2er too0 the ta e course or accepted the con2entions5 the orthodox +hurch was ne2er respectable. 't would ha2e been easier to ha2e accepted the earthly power o4 the /rians. 't would ha2e been easy, in the +al2inistic se2enteenth century, to 4all into the botto less pit o4 predestination. 't is easy to be a ad anA it is easy to be a heretic. 't is always easy to let the age ha2e its head5 the di44icult thing is to 0eep one7s own. 't is always easy to be a odernist5 as it is easy to be a snob. To ha2e 4allen into any o4 those open traps o4 error and exaggeration which 4ashion a4ter 4ashion and sect a4ter sect set along the historic path o4 +hristendo ?? that would indeed ha2e been si ple. 't is always si ple to 4all5 there are an in4inity o4 angles at which one 4alls, only one at which one stands. To ha2e 4allen into any one o4 the 4ads 4ro &nosticis to +hristian ,cience would indeed ha2e been ob2ious and ta e. %ut to ha2e a2oided the all has been one whirling ad2enture5 and in y 2ision the hea2enly chariot 4lies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. 8''9TH) )T)"-/( ")8!(:T'!TH) 4ollowing propositions ha2e been urgedA .irst, that so e 4aith in our li4e is re>uired e2en to i pro2e it5 second, that so e dissatis4action with things as they are is necessary e2en in order to be satis4ied5 third, that to ha2e this necessary content and necessary discontent it is not su44icient to ha2e the ob2ious e>uilibriu o4 the ,toic. .or ere resignation has neither the gigantic le2ity o4 pleasure nor the superb intolerance o4 pain. There is a 2ital ob@ection to the ad2ice erely to grin and bear it. The ob@ection is that i4 you erely bear it, you do not grin. &ree0 heroes do not grinA but gargoyles do ?? because they are +hristian. /nd when a +hristian is pleased, he is ;in the ost exact sense< 4right4ully pleased5 his pleasure is 4right4ul. +hrist prophesied the whole o4 &othic architecture in that hour when ner2ous and respectable people ;such people as now ob@ect to barrel organs< ob@ected to the shouting o4 the gutter?snipes o4 Berusale . He said, 1'4 these were silent, the 2ery stones would cry out.1 :nder the i pulse o4 His spirit arose li0e a cla orous

chorus the 4acades o4 the ediae2al cathedrals, thronged with shouting 4aces and open ouths. The prophecy has 4ul4illed itsel4A the 2ery stones cry out. '4 these things be conceded, though only 4or argu ent, we ay ta0e up where we le4t it the thread o4 the thought o4 the natural an, called by the ,cotch ;with regrettable 4a iliarity<, 1The !ld 3an.1 6e can as0 the next >uestion so ob2iously in 4ront o4 us. ,o e satis4action is needed e2en to a0e things better. %ut what do we ean by a0ing things better= 3ost odern tal0 on this atter is a ere argu ent in a circle ?? that circle which we ha2e already ade the sy bol o4 adness and o4 ere rationalis . )2olution is only good i4 it produces good5 good is only good i4 it helps e2olution. The elephant stands on the tortoise, and the tortoise on the elephant. !b2iously, it will not do to ta0e our ideal 4ro the principle in nature5 4or the si ple reason that ;except 4or so e hu an or di2ine theory<, there is no principle in nature. .or instance, the cheap anti?de ocrat o4 to?day will tell you sole nly that there is no e>uality in nature. He is right, but he does not see the logical addendu . There is no e>uality in nature5 also there is no ine>uality in nature. 'ne>uality, as uch as e>uality, i plies a standard o4 2alue. To read aristocracy into the anarchy o4 ani als is @ust as senti ental as to read de ocracy into it. %oth aristocracy and de ocracy are hu an idealsA the one saying that all en are 2aluable, the other that so e en are ore 2aluable. %ut nature does not say that cats are ore 2aluable than ice5 nature a0es no re ar0 on the sub@ect. ,he does not e2en say that the cat is en2iable or the ouse pitiable. 6e thin0 the cat superior because we ha2e ;or ost o4 us ha2e< a particular philosophy to the e44ect that li4e is better than death. %ut i4 the ouse were a &er an pessi ist ouse, he ight not thin0 that the cat had beaten hi at all. He ight thin0 he had beaten the cat by getting to the gra2e 4irst. !r he ight 4eel that he had actually in4licted 4right4ul punish ent on the cat by 0eeping hi ali2e. Bust as a icrobe ight 4eel proud o4 spreading a pestilence, so the pessi istic ouse ight exult to thin0 that he was renewing in the cat the torture o4 conscious existence. 't all depends on the philosophy o4 the ouse. $ou cannot e2en say that there is 2ictory or superiority in nature unless you ha2e so e doctrine about what things are superior. $ou cannot e2en say that the cat scores unless there is a syste o4 scoring. $ou cannot e2en say that the cat gets the best o4 it unless there is so e best to be got. 6e cannot, then, get the ideal itsel4 4ro nature, and as we 4ollow here the 4irst and natural speculation, we will lea2e out ;4or the present< the idea o4 getting it 4ro &od. 6e ust ha2e our own 2ision. %ut the atte pts o4 ost oderns to express it are highly 2ague. ,o e 4all bac0 si ply on the cloc0A they tal0 as i4 ere passage through ti e brought so e superiority5 so that e2en a an o4 the 4irst ental calibre carelessly uses the phrase that hu an orality is ne2er up to date. How can anything be up to date= ?? a date has no character. How can one say that +hrist as celebrations are not suitable to the twenty?4i4th o4 a onth= 6hat the writer

eant, o4 course, was that the a@ority is behind his 4a2ourite inority ?? or in 4ront o4 it. !ther 2ague odern people ta0e re4uge in aterial etaphors5 in 4act, this is the chie4 ar0 o4 2ague odern people. -ot daring to de4ine their doctrine o4 what is good, they use physical 4igures o4 speech without stint or sha e, and, what is worst o4 all, see to thin0 these cheap analogies are ex>uisitely spiritual and superior to the old orality. Thus they thin0 it intellectual to tal0 about things being 1high.1 't is at least the re2erse o4 intellectual5 it is a ere phrase 4ro a steeple or a weathercoc0. 1To y was a good boy1 is a pure philosophical state ent, worthy o4 Plato or />uinas. 1To y li2ed the higher li4e1 is a gross etaphor 4ro a ten?4oot rule. This, incidentally, is al ost the whole wea0ness o4 -ietzsche, who so e are representing as a bold and strong thin0er. -o one will deny that he was a poetical and suggesti2e thin0er5 but he was >uite the re2erse o4 strong. He was not at all bold. He ne2er put his own eaning be4ore hi sel4 in bald abstract wordsA as did /ristotle and +al2in, and e2en *arl 3arx, the hard, 4earless en o4 thought. -ietzsche always escaped a >uestion by a physical etaphor, li0e a cheery inor poet. He said, 1beyond good and e2il,1 because he had not the courage to say, 1 ore good than good and e2il,1 or, 1 ore e2il than good and e2il.1 Had he 4aced his thought without etaphors, he would ha2e seen that it was nonsense. ,o, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 1the purer an,1 or 1the happier an,1 or 1the sadder an,1 4or all these are ideas5 and ideas are alar ing. He says 1the upper an,1 or 1o2er an,1 a physical etaphor 4ro acrobats or alpine cli bers. -ietzsche is truly a 2ery ti id thin0er. He does not really 0now in the least what sort o4 an he wants e2olution to produce. /nd i4 he does not 0now, certainly the ordinary e2olutionists, who tal0 about things being 1higher,1 do not 0now either. Then again, so e people 4all bac0 on sheer sub ission and sitting still. -ature is going to do so ething so e day5 nobody 0nows what, and nobody 0nows when. 6e ha2e no reason 4or acting, and no reason 4or not acting. '4 anything happens it is rightA i4 anything is pre2ented it was wrong. /gain, so e people try to anticipate nature by doing so ething, by doing anything. %ecause we ay possibly grow wings they cut o44 their legs. $et nature ay be trying to a0e the centipedes 4or all they 0now. (astly, there is a 4ourth class o4 people who ta0e whate2er it is that they happen to want, and say that that is the ulti ate ai o4 e2olution. /nd these are the only sensible people. This is the only really healthy way with the word e2olution, to wor0 4or what you want, and to call TH/T e2olution. The only intelligible sense that progress or ad2ance can ha2e a ong en, is that we ha2e a de4inite 2ision, and that we wish to a0e the whole world li0e that 2ision. '4 you li0e to put it so, the essence o4 the doctrine is that what we ha2e around us is the ere ethod and preparation 4or so ething that we ha2e to create. This is not a world, but rather the aterial 4or a world. &od has gi2en us not so uch the colours o4 a picture as the colours o4 a palette. %ut he has also gi2en us a sub@ect, a odel, a 4ixed 2ision. 6e ust be clear

about what we want to paint. This adds a 4urther principle to our pre2ious list o4 principles. 6e ha2e said we ust be 4ond o4 this world, e2en in order to change it. 6e now add that we ust be 4ond o4 another world ;real or i aginary< in order to ha2e so ething to change it to. 6e need not debate about the ere words e2olution or progressA personally ' pre4er to call it re4or . .or re4or i plies 4or . 't i plies that we are trying to shape the world in a particular i age5 to a0e it so ething that we see already in our inds. )2olution is a etaphor 4ro ere auto atic unrolling. Progress is a etaphor 4ro erely wal0ing along a road ?? 2ery li0ely the wrong road. %ut re4or is a etaphor 4or reasonable and deter ined enA it eans that we see a certain thing out o4 shape and we ean to put it into shape. /nd we 0now what shape. -ow here co es in the whole collapse and huge blunder o4 our age. 6e ha2e ixed up two di44erent things, two opposite things. Progress should ean that we are always changing the world to suit the 2ision. Progress does ean ;@ust now< that we are always changing the 2ision. 't should ean that we are slow but sure in bringing @ustice and ercy a ong enA it does ean that we are 2ery swi4t in doubting the desirability o4 @ustice and ercyA a wild page 4ro any Prussian sophist a0es en doubt it. Progress should ean that we are always wal0ing towards the -ew Berusale . 't does ean that the -ew Berusale is always wal0ing away 4ro us. 6e are not altering the real to suit the ideal. 6e are altering the idealA it is easier. ,illy exa ples are always si pler5 let us suppose a an wanted a particular 0ind o4 world5 say, a blue world. He would ha2e no cause to co plain o4 the slightness or swi4tness o4 his tas05 he ight toil 4or a long ti e at the trans4or ation5 he could wor0 away ;in e2ery sense< until all was blue. He could ha2e heroic ad2entures5 the putting o4 the last touches to a blue tiger. He could ha2e 4airy drea s5 the dawn o4 a blue oon. %ut i4 he wor0ed har , that high? inded re4or er would certainly ;4ro his own point o4 2iew< lea2e the world better and bluer than he 4ound it. '4 he altered a blade o4 grass to his 4a2ourite colour e2ery day, he would get on slowly. %ut i4 he altered his 4a2ourite colour e2ery day, he would not get on at all. '4, a4ter reading a 4resh philosopher, he started to paint e2erything red or yellow, his wor0 would be thrown awayA there would be nothing to show except a 4ew blue tigers wal0ing about, speci ens o4 his early bad anner. This is exactly the position o4 the a2erage odern thin0er. 't will be said that this is a2owedly a preposterous exa ple. %ut it is literally the 4act o4 recent history. The great and gra2e changes in our political ci2ilization all belonged to the early nineteenth century, not to the later. They belonged to the blac0 and white epoch when en belie2ed 4ixedly in Toryis , in Protestantis , in +al2inis , in "e4or , and not un4re>uently in "e2olution. /nd whate2er each an belie2ed in he ha ered at steadily, without scepticis A and there was a ti e when the )stablished +hurch ight ha2e 4allen, and the House o4 (ords nearly 4ell. 't was because "adicals were wise enough to be constant and consistent5 it was because "adicals were wise enough to be +onser2ati2e. %ut in the existing at osphere there is not

enough ti e and tradition in "adicalis to pull anything down. There is a great deal o4 truth in (ord Hugh +ecil7s suggestion ; ade in a 4ine speech< that the era o4 change is o2er, and that ours is an era o4 conser2ation and repose. %ut probably it would pain (ord Hugh +ecil i4 he realized ;what is certainly the case< that ours is only an age o4 conser2ation because it is an age o4 co plete unbelie4. (et belie4s 4ade 4ast and 4re>uently, i4 you wish institutions to re ain the sa e. The ore the li4e o4 the ind is unhinged, the ore the achinery o4 atter will be le4t to itsel4. The net result o4 all our political suggestions, +ollecti2is , Tolstoyanis , -eo?.eudalis , +o unis , /narchy, ,cienti4ic %ureaucracy ?? the plain 4ruit o4 all o4 the is that the 3onarchy and the House o4 (ords will re ain. The net result o4 all the new religions will be that the +hurch o4 )ngland will not ;4or hea2en 0nows how long< be disestablished. 't was *arl 3arx, -ietzsche, Tolstoy, +unningha e &raha e, %ernard ,haw and /uberon Herbert, who between the , with bowed gigantic bac0s, bore up the throne o4 the /rchbishop o4 +anterbury. 6e ay say broadly that 4ree thought is the best o4 all the sa4eguards against 4reedo . 3anaged in a odern style the e ancipation o4 the sla2e7s ind is the best way o4 pre2enting the e ancipation o4 the sla2e. Teach hi to worry about whether he wants to be 4ree, and he will not 4ree hi sel4. /gain, it ay be said that this instance is re ote or extre e. %ut, again, it is exactly true o4 the en in the streets around us. 't is true that the negro sla2e, being a debased barbarian, will probably ha2e either a hu an a44ection o4 loyalty, or a hu an a44ection 4or liberty. %ut the an we see e2ery day ?? the wor0er in 3r. &radgrind7s 4actory, the little cler0 in 3r. &radgrind7s o44ice ?? he is too entally worried to belie2e in 4reedo . He is 0ept >uiet with re2olutionary literature. He is cal ed and 0ept in his place by a constant succession o4 wild philosophies. He is a 3arxian one day, a -ietzscheite the next day, a ,uper an ;probably< the next day5 and a sla2e e2ery day. The only thing that re ains a4ter all the philosophies is the 4actory. The only an who gains by all the philosophies is &radgrind. 't would be worth his while to 0eep his co ercial helotry supplied with sceptical literature. /nd now ' co e to thin0 o4 it, o4 course, &radgrind is 4a ous 4or gi2ing libraries. He shows his sense. /ll odern boo0s are on his side. /s long as the 2ision o4 hea2en is always changing, the 2ision o4 earth will be exactly the sa e. -o ideal will re ain long enough to be realized, or e2en partly realized. The odern young an will ne2er change his en2iron ent5 4or he will always change his ind. This, there4ore, is our 4irst re>uire ent about the ideal towards which progress is directed5 it ust be 4ixed. 6histler used to a0e any rapid studies o4 a sitter5 it did not atter i4 he tore up twenty portraits. %ut it would atter i4 he loo0ed up twenty ti es, and each ti e saw a new person sitting placidly 4or his portrait. ,o it does not atter ;co parati2ely spea0ing< how o4ten hu anity 4ails to i itate its ideal5 4or then all its old 4ailures are 4ruit4ul. %ut it does 4right4ully atter how o4ten hu anity changes its ideal5 4or then all its old 4ailures are 4ruitless. The >uestion there4ore beco es thisA How can we 0eep the artist discontented with his pictures while pre2enting hi

4ro being 2itally discontented with his art= How can we a0e a an always dissatis4ied with his wor0, yet always satis4ied with wor0ing= How can we a0e sure that the portrait painter will throw the portrait out o4 window instead o4 ta0ing the natural and ore hu an course o4 throwing the sitter out o4 window= / strict rule is not only necessary 4or ruling5 it is also necessary 4or rebelling. This 4ixed and 4a iliar ideal is necessary to any sort o4 re2olution. 3an will so eti es act slowly upon new ideas5 but he will only act swi4tly upon old ideas. '4 ' a erely to 4loat or 4ade or e2ol2e, it ay be towards so ething anarchic5 but i4 ' a to riot, it ust be 4or so ething respectable. This is the whole wea0ness o4 certain schools o4 progress and oral e2olution. They suggest that there has been a slow o2e ent towards orality, with an i perceptible ethical change in e2ery year or at e2ery instant. There is only one great disad2antage in this theory. 't tal0s o4 a slow o2e ent towards @ustice5 but it does not per it a swi4t o2e ent. / an is not allowed to leap up and declare a certain state o4 things to be intrinsically intolerable. To a0e the atter clear, it is better to ta0e a speci4ic exa ple. +ertain o4 the idealistic 2egetarians, such as 3r. ,alt, say that the ti e has now co e 4or eating no eat5 by i plication they assu e that at one ti e it was right to eat eat, and they suggest ;in words that could be >uoted< that so e day it ay be wrong to eat il0 and eggs. ' do not discuss here the >uestion o4 what is @ustice to ani als. ' only say that whate2er is @ustice ought, under gi2en conditions, to be pro pt @ustice. '4 an ani al is wronged, we ought to be able to rush to his rescue. %ut how can we rush i4 we are, perhaps, in ad2ance o4 our ti e= How can we rush to catch a train which ay not arri2e 4or a 4ew centuries= How can ' denounce a an 4or s0inning cats, i4 he is only now what ' ay possibly beco e in drin0ing a glass o4 il0= / splendid and insane "ussian sect ran about ta0ing all the cattle out o4 all the carts. How can ' pluc0 up courage to ta0e the horse out o4 y hanso ?cab, when ' do not 0now whether y e2olutionary watch is only a little 4ast or the cab an7s a little slow= ,uppose ' say to a sweater, 1,la2ery suited one stage o4 e2olution.1 /nd suppose he answers, 1/nd sweating suits this stage o4 e2olution.1 How can ' answer i4 there is no eternal test= '4 sweaters can be behind the current orality, why should not philanthropists be in 4ront o4 it= 6hat on earth is the current orality, except in its literal sense ?? the orality that is always running away= Thus we ay say that a per anent ideal is as necessary to the inno2ator as to the conser2ati2e5 it is necessary whether we wish the 0ing7s orders to be pro ptly executed or whether we only wish the 0ing to be pro ptly executed. The guillotine has any sins, but to do it @ustice there is nothing e2olutionary about it. The 4a2ourite e2olutionary argu ent 4inds its best answer in the axe. The )2olutionist says, 16here do you draw the line=1 the "e2olutionist answers, 1' draw it H)")A exactly between your head and body.1 There ust at any gi2en o ent be an abstract right and wrong i4 any blow is to be struc05 there ust be so ething eternal i4 there is to be anything sudden. There4ore 4or all intelligible hu an purposes, 4or altering things or 4or 0eeping things as they

are, 4or rounding a syste 4or e2er, as in +hina, or 4or altering it e2ery onth as in the early .rench "e2olution, it is e>ually necessary that the 2ision should be a 4ixed 2ision. This is our 4irst re>uire ent. 6hen ' had written this down, ' 4elt once again the presence o4 so ething else in the discussionA as a an hears a church bell abo2e the sound o4 the street. ,o ething see ed to be saying, 13y ideal at least is 4ixed5 4or it was 4ixed be4ore the 4oundations o4 the world. 3y 2ision o4 per4ection assuredly cannot be altered5 4or it is called )den. $ou ay alter the place to which you are going5 but you cannot alter the place 4ro which you ha2e co e. To the orthodox there ust always be a case 4or re2olution5 4or in the hearts o4 en &od has been put under the 4eet o4 ,atan. 'n the upper world hell once rebelled against hea2en. %ut in this world hea2en is rebelling against hell. .or the orthodox there can always be a re2olution5 4or a re2olution is a restoration. /t any instant you ay stri0e a blow 4or the per4ection which no an has seen since /da . -o unchanging custo , no changing e2olution can a0e the original good any thing but good. 3an ay ha2e had concubines as long as cows ha2e had hornsA still they are not a part o4 hi i4 they are sin4ul. 3en ay ha2e been under oppression e2er since 4ish were under water5 still they ought not to be, i4 oppression is sin4ul. The chain ay see as natural to the sla2e, or the paint to the harlot, as does the plu e to the bird or the burrow to the 4ox5 still they are not, i4 they are sin4ul. ' li4t y prehistoric legend to de4y all your history. $our 2ision is not erely a 4ixtureA it is a 4act.1 ' paused to note the new coincidence o4 +hristianityA but ' passed on. ' passed on to the next necessity o4 any ideal o4 progress. ,o e people ;as we ha2e said< see to belie2e in an auto atic and i personal progress in the nature o4 things. %ut it is clear that no political acti2ity can be encouraged by saying that progress is natural and ine2itable5 that is not a reason 4or being acti2e, but rather a reason 4or being lazy. '4 we are bound to i pro2e, we need not trouble to i pro2e. The pure doctrine o4 progress is the best o4 all reasons 4or not being a progressi2e. %ut it is to none o4 these ob2ious co ents that ' wish pri arily to call attention. The only arresting point is thisA that i4 we suppose i pro2e ent to be natural, it ust be 4airly si ple. The world ight concei2ably be wor0ing towards one consu ation, but hardly towards any particular arrange ent o4 any >ualities. To ta0e our original si ileA -ature by hersel4 ay be growing ore blue5 that is, a process so si ple that it ight be i personal. %ut -ature cannot be a0ing a care4ul picture ade o4 any pic0ed colours, unless -ature is personal. '4 the end o4 the world were ere dar0ness or ere light it ight co e as slowly and ine2itably as dus0 or dawn. %ut i4 the end o4 the world is to be a piece o4 elaborate and artistic chiaroscuro, then there ust be design in it, either hu an or di2ine. The world, through ere ti e, ight grow blac0 li0e an old picture, or white li0e an old coat5 but i4 it is turned into a particular piece o4 blac0 and white art ?? then there is an artist. '4 the distinction be not e2ident, ' gi2e an ordinary instance. 6e constantly hear a particularly cos ic creed 4ro the

odern hu anitarians5 ' use the word hu anitarian in the ordinary sense, as eaning one who upholds the clai s o4 all creatures against those o4 hu anity. They suggest that through the ages we ha2e been growing ore and ore hu ane, that is to say, that one a4ter another, groups or sections o4 beings, sla2es, children, wo en, cows, or what not, ha2e been gradually ad itted to ercy or to @ustice. They say that we once thought it right to eat en ;we didn7t<5 but ' a not here concerned with their history, which is highly unhistorical. /s a 4act, anthropophagy is certainly a decadent thing, not a pri iti2e one. 't is uch ore li0ely that odern en will eat hu an 4lesh out o4 a44ectation than that pri iti2e an e2er ate it out o4 ignorance. ' a here only 4ollowing the outlines o4 their argu ent, which consists in aintaining that an has been progressi2ely ore lenient, 4irst to citizens, then to sla2es, then to ani als, and then ;presu ably< to plants. ' thin0 it wrong to sit on a an. ,oon, ' shall thin0 it wrong to sit on a horse. )2entually ;' suppose< ' shall thin0 it wrong to sit on a chair. That is the dri2e o4 the argu ent. /nd 4or this argu ent it can be said that it is possible to tal0 o4 it in ter s o4 e2olution or ine2itable progress. / perpetual tendency to touch 4ewer and 4ewer things ight ?? one 4eels, be a ere brute unconscious tendency, li0e that o4 a species to produce 4ewer and 4ewer children. This dri4t ay be really e2olutionary, because it is stupid. Darwinis can be used to bac0 up two ad oralities, but it cannot be used to bac0 up a single sane one. The 0inship and co petition o4 all li2ing creatures can be used as a reason 4or being insanely cruel or insanely senti ental5 but not 4or a healthy lo2e o4 ani als. !n the e2olutionary basis you ay be inhu ane, or you ay be absurdly hu ane5 but you cannot be hu an. That you and a tiger are one ay be a reason 4or being tender to a tiger. !r it ay be a reason 4or being as cruel as the tiger. 't is one way to train the tiger to i itate you, it is a shorter way to i itate the tiger. %ut in neither case does e2olution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to ad ire his stripes while a2oiding his claws. '4 you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you ust go bac0 to the garden o4 )den. .or the obstinate re inder continued to recurA only the supernatural has ta0en a sane 2iew o4 -ature. The essence o4 all pantheis , e2olutionis , and odern cos ic religion is really in this propositionA that -ature is our other. :n4ortunately, i4 you regard -ature as a other, you disco2er that she is a step? other. The ain point o4 +hristianity was thisA that -ature is not our otherA -ature is our sister. 6e can be proud o4 her beauty, since we ha2e the sa e 4ather5 but she has no authority o2er us5 we ha2e to ad ire, but not to i itate. This gi2es to the typically +hristian pleasure in this earth a strange touch o4 lightness that is al ost 4ri2olity. -ature was a sole n other to the worshippers o4 'sis and +ybele. -ature was a sole n other to 6ordsworth or to ) erson. %ut -ature is not sole n to .rancis o4 /ssisi or to &eorge Herbert. To ,t. .rancis, -ature is a sister, and e2en a younger sisterA a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as lo2ed. This, howe2er, is hardly our ain point at present5 ' ha2e

ad itted it only in order to show how constantly, and as it were accidentally, the 0ey would 4it the s allest doors. !ur ain point is here, that i4 there be a ere trend o4 i personal i pro2e ent in -ature, it ust presu ably be a si ple trend towards so e si ple triu ph. !ne can i agine that so e auto atic tendency in biology ight wor0 4or gi2ing us longer and longer noses. %ut the >uestion is, do we want to ha2e longer and longer noses= ' 4ancy not5 ' belie2e that we ost o4 us want to say to our noses, 1thus 4ar, and no 4arther5 and here shall thy proud point be stayedA1 we re>uire a nose o4 such length as ay ensure an interesting 4ace. %ut we cannot i agine a ere biological trend towards producing interesting 4aces5 because an interesting 4ace is one particular arrange ent o4 eyes, nose, and outh, in a ost co plex relation to each other. Proportion cannot be a dri4tA it is either an accident or a design. ,o with the ideal o4 hu an orality and its relation to the hu anitarians and the anti?hu anitarians. 't is concei2able that we are going ore and ore to 0eep our hands o44 thingsA not to dri2e horses5 not to pic0 4lowers. 6e ay e2entually be bound not to disturb a an7s ind e2en by argu ent5 not to disturb the sleep o4 birds e2en by coughing. The ulti ate apotheosis would appear to be that o4 a an sitting >uite still, nor daring to stir 4or 4ear o4 disturbing a 4ly, nor to eat 4or 4ear o4 inco oding a icrobe. To so crude a consu ation as that we ight perhaps unconsciously dri4t. %ut do we want so crude a consu ation= ,i ilarly, we ight unconsciously e2ol2e along the opposite or -ietzschian line o4 de2elop ent ?? super an crushing super an in one tower o4 tyrants until the uni2erse is s ashed up 4or 4un. %ut do we want the uni2erse s ashed up 4or 4un= 's it not >uite clear that what we really hope 4or is one particular anage ent and proposition o4 these two things5 a certain a ount o4 restraint and respect, a certain a ount o4 energy and astery= '4 our li4e is e2er really as beauti4ul as a 4airy?tale, we shall ha2e to re e ber that all the beauty o4 a 4airy?tale lies in thisA that the prince has a wonder which @ust stops short o4 being 4ear. '4 he is a4raid o4 the giant, there is an end o4 hi 5 but also i4 he is not astonished at the giant, there is an end o4 the 4airy? tale. The whole point depends upon his being at once hu ble enough to wonder, and haughty enough to de4y. ,o our attitude to the giant o4 the world ust not erely be increasing delicacy or increasing conte ptA it ust be one particular proportion o4 the two ?? which is exactly right. 6e ust ha2e in us enough re2erence 4or all things outside us to a0e us tread 4ear4ully on the grass. 6e ust also ha2e enough disdain 4or all things outside us, to a0e us, on due occasion, spit at the stars. $et these two things ;i4 we are to be good or happy< ust be co bined, not in any co bination, but in one particular co bination. The per4ect happiness o4 en on the earth ;i4 it e2er co es< will not be a 4lat and solid thing, li0e the satis4action o4 ani als. 't will be an exact and perilous balance5 li0e that o4 a desperate ro ance. 3an ust ha2e @ust enough 4aith in hi sel4 to ha2e ad2entures, and @ust enough doubt o4 hi sel4 to en@oy the . This, then, is our second re>uire ent 4or the ideal o4 progress. .irst, it ust be 4ixed5 second, it ust be co posite. 't ust not ;i4 it is to satis4y our souls< be the ere 2ictory o4

so e one thing swallowing up e2erything else, lo2e or pride or peace or ad2enture5 it ust be a de4inite picture co posed o4 these ele ents in their best proportion and relation. ' a not concerned at this o ent to deny that so e such good cul ination ay be, by the constitution o4 things, reser2ed 4or the hu an race. ' only point out that i4 this co posite happiness is 4ixed 4or us it ust be 4ixed by so e ind5 4or only a ind can place the exact proportions o4 a co posite happiness. '4 the beati4ication o4 the world is a ere wor0 o4 nature, then it ust be as si ple as the 4reezing o4 the world, or the burning up o4 the world. %ut i4 the beati4ication o4 the world is not a wor0 o4 nature but a wor0 o4 art, then it in2ol2es an artist. /nd here again y conte plation was clo2en by the ancient 2oice which said, 1' could ha2e told you all this a long ti e ago. '4 there is any certain progress it can only be y 0ind o4 progress, the progress towards a co plete city o4 2irtues and do inations where righteousness and peace contri2e to 0iss each other. /n i personal 4orce ight be leading you to a wilderness o4 per4ect 4latness or a pea0 o4 per4ect height. %ut only a personal &od can possibly be leading you ;i4, indeed, you are being led< to a city with @ust streets and architectural proportions, a city in which each o4 you can contribute exactly the right a ount o4 your own colour to the any coloured coat o4 Boseph.1 Twice again, there4ore, +hristianity had co e in with the exact answer that ' re>uired. ' had said, 1The ideal ust be 4ixed,1 and the +hurch had answered, 13ine is literally 4ixed, 4or it existed be4ore anything else.1 ' said secondly, 1't ust be artistically co bined, li0e a picture15 and the +hurch answered, 13ine is >uite literally a picture, 4or ' 0now who painted it.1 Then ' went on to the third thing, which, as it see ed to e, was needed 4or an :topia or goal o4 progress. /nd o4 all the three it is in4initely the hardest to express. Perhaps it ight be put thusA that we need watch4ulness e2en in :topia, lest we 4all 4ro :topia as we 4ell 4ro )den. 6e ha2e re ar0ed that one reason o44ered 4or being a progressi2e is that things naturally tend to grow better. %ut the only real reason 4or being a progressi2e is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argu ent 4or being progressi2e5 it is also the only argu ent against being conser2ati2e. The conser2ati2e theory would really be >uite sweeping and unanswerable i4 it were not 4or this one 4act. %ut all conser2atis is based upon the idea that i4 you lea2e things alone you lea2e the as they are. %ut you do not. '4 you lea2e a thing alone you lea2e it to a torrent o4 change. '4 you lea2e a white post alone it will soon be a blac0 post. '4 you particularly want it to be white you ust be always painting it again5 that is, you ust be always ha2ing a re2olution. %rie4ly, i4 you want the old white post you ust ha2e a new white post. %ut this which is true e2en o4 inani ate things is in a >uite special and terrible sense true o4 all hu an things. /n al ost unnatural 2igilance is really re>uired o4 the citizen because o4 the horrible rapidity with which hu an institutions grow old. 't is the custo in passing ro ance and @ournalis to tal0 o4 en su44ering under old tyrannies. %ut, as a 4act, en ha2e al ost

always su44ered under new tyrannies5 under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years be4ore. Thus )ngland went ad with @oy o2er the patriotic onarchy o4 )lizabeth5 and then ;al ost i ediately a4terwards< went ad with rage in the trap o4 the tyranny o4 +harles the .irst. ,o, again, in .rance the onarchy beca e intolerable, not @ust a4ter it had been tolerated, but @ust a4ter it had been adored. The son o4 (ouis the well? belo2ed was (ouis the guillotined. ,o in the sa e way in )ngland in the nineteenth century the "adical anu4acturer was entirely trusted as a ere tribune o4 the people, until suddenly we heard the cry o4 the ,ocialist that he was a tyrant eating the people li0e bread. ,o again, we ha2e al ost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs o4 public opinion. Bust recently so e o4 us ha2e seen ;not slowly, but with a start< that they are ob2iously nothing o4 the 0ind. They are, by the nature o4 the case, the hobbies o4 a 4ew rich en. 6e ha2e not any need to rebel against anti>uity5 we ha2e to rebel against no2elty. 't is the new rulers, the capitalist or the editor, who really hold up the odern world. There is no 4ear that a odern 0ing will atte pt to o2erride the constitution5 it is ore li0ely that he will ignore the constitution and wor0 behind its bac05 he will ta0e no ad2antage o4 his 0ingly power5 it is ore li0ely that he will ta0e ad2antage o4 his 0ingly powerlessness, o4 the 4act that he is 4ree 4ro criticis and publicity. .or the 0ing is the ost pri2ate person o4 our ti e. 't will not be necessary 4or any one to 4ight again against the proposal o4 a censorship o4 the press. 6e do not need a censorship o4 the press. 6e ha2e a censorship by the press. This startling swi4tness with which popular syste s turn oppressi2e is the third 4act 4or which we shall as0 our per4ect theory o4 progress to allow. 't ust always be on the loo0 out 4or e2ery pri2ilege being abused, 4or e2ery wor0ing right beco ing a wrong. 'n this atter ' a entirely on the side o4 the re2olutionists. They are really right to be always suspecting hu an institutions5 they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child o4 an. The chie4tain chosen to be the 4riend o4 the people beco es the ene y o4 the people5 the newspaper started to tell the truth now exists to pre2ent the truth being told. Here, ' say, ' 4elt that ' was really at last on the side o4 the re2olutionary. /nd then ' caught y breath againA 4or ' re e bered that ' was once again on the side o4 the orthodox. +hristianity spo0e again and saidA 1' ha2e always aintained that en were naturally bac0sliders5 that hu an 2irtue tended o4 its own nature to rust or to rot5 ' ha2e always said that hu an beings as such go wrong, especially happy hu an beings, especially proud and prosperous hu an beings. This eternal re2olution, this suspicion sustained through centuries, you ;being a 2ague odern< call the doctrine o4 progress. '4 you were a philosopher you would call it, as ' do, the doctrine o4 original sin. $ou ay call it the cos ic ad2ance as uch as you li0e5 ' call it what it is ?? the .all.1 ' ha2e spo0en o4 orthodoxy co ing in li0e a sword5 here ' con4ess it ca e in li0e a battle?axe. .or really ;when ' ca e to thin0 o4 it< +hristianity is the only thing le4t that has any real

right to >uestion the power o4 the well?nurtured or the well?bred. ' ha2e listened o4ten enough to ,ocialists, or e2en to de ocrats, saying that the physical conditions o4 the poor ust o4 necessity a0e the entally and orally degraded. ' ha2e listened to scienti4ic en ;and there are still scienti4ic en not opposed to de ocracy< saying that i4 we gi2e the poor healthier conditions 2ice and wrong will disappear. ' ha2e listened to the with a horrible attention, with a hideous 4ascination. .or it was li0e watching a an energetically sawing 4ro the tree the branch he is sitting on. '4 these happy de ocrats could pro2e their case, they would stri0e de ocracy dead. '4 the poor are thus utterly de oralized, it ay or ay not be practical to raise the . %ut it is certainly >uite practical to dis4ranchise the . '4 the an with a bad bedroo cannot gi2e a good 2ote, then the 4irst and swi4test deduction is that he shall gi2e no 2ote. The go2erning class ay not unreasonably sayA 1't ay ta0e us so e ti e to re4or his bedroo . %ut i4 he is the brute you say, it will ta0e hi 2ery little ti e to ruin our country. There4ore we will ta0e your hint and not gi2e hi the chance.1 't 4ills e with horrible a use ent to obser2e the way in which the earnest ,ocialist industriously lays the 4oundation o4 all aristocracy, expatiating blandly upon the e2ident un4itness o4 the poor to rule. 't is li0e listening to so ebody at an e2ening party apologising 4or entering without e2ening dress, and explaining that he had recently been intoxicated, had a personal habit o4 ta0ing o44 his clothes in the street, and had, oreo2er, only @ust changed 4ro prison uni4or . /t any o ent, one 4eels, the host ight say that really, i4 it was as bad as that, he need not co e in at all. ,o it is when the ordinary ,ocialist, with a bea ing 4ace, pro2es that the poor, a4ter their s ashing experiences, cannot be really trustworthy. /t any o ent the rich ay say, 18ery well, then, we won7t trust the ,1 and bang the door in his 4ace. !n the basis o4 3r. %latch4ord7s 2iew o4 heredity and en2iron ent, the case 4or the aristocracy is >uite o2erwhel ing. '4 clean ho es and clean air a0e clean souls, why not gi2e the power ;4or the present at any rate< to those who undoubtedly ha2e the clean air= '4 better conditions will a0e the poor ore 4it to go2ern the sel2es, why should not better conditions already a0e the rich ore 4it to go2ern the = !n the ordinary en2iron ent argu ent the atter is 4airly ani4est. The co 4ortable class ust be erely our 2anguard in :topia. 's there any answer to the proposition that those who ha2e had the best opportunities will probably be our best guides= 's there any answer to the argu ent that those who ha2e breathed clean air had better decide 4or those who ha2e breathed 4oul= /s 4ar as ' 0now, there is only one answer, and that answer is +hristianity. !nly the +hristian +hurch can o44er any rational ob@ection to a co plete con4idence in the rich. .or she has aintained 4ro the beginning that the danger was not in an7s en2iron ent, but in an. .urther, she has aintained that i4 we co e to tal0 o4 a dangerous en2iron ent, the ost dangerous en2iron ent o4 all is the co odious en2iron ent. ' 0now that the ost odern anu4acture has been really occupied in trying to produce an abnor ally large needle. ' 0now that the ost recent

biologists ha2e been chie4ly anxious to disco2er a 2ery s all ca el. %ut i4 we di inish the ca el to his s allest, or open the eye o4 the needle to its largest ?? i4, in short, we assu e the words o4 +hrist to ha2e eant the 2ery least that they could ean, His words ust at the 2ery least ean this ?? that rich en are not 2ery li0ely to be orally trustworthy. +hristianity e2en when watered down is hot enough to boil all odern society to rags. The ere ini u o4 the +hurch would be a deadly ulti atu to the world. .or the whole odern world is absolutely based on the assu ption, not that the rich are necessary ;which is tenable<, but that the rich are trustworthy, which ;4or a +hristian< is not tenable. $ou will hear e2erlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, co panies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argu ent that the rich an cannot be bribed. The 4act is, o4 course, that the rich an is bribed5 he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich an. The whole case 4or +hristianity is that a an who is dependent upon the luxuries o4 this li4e is a corrupt an, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, 4inancially corrupt. There is one thing that +hrist and all the +hristian saints ha2e said with a sort o4 sa2age onotony. They ha2e said si ply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger o4 oral wrec0. 't is not de onstrably un?+hristian to 0ill the rich as 2iolators o4 de4inable @ustice. 't is not de onstrably un?+hristian to crown the rich as con2enient rulers o4 society. 't is not certainly un? +hristian to rebel against the rich or to sub it to the rich. %ut it is >uite certainly un?+hristian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as ore orally sa4e than the poor. / +hristian ay consistently say, 1' respect that an7s ran0, although he ta0es bribes.1 %ut a +hristian cannot say, as all odern en are saying at lunch and brea04ast, 1a an o4 that ran0 would not ta0e bribes.1 .or it is a part o4 +hristian dog a that any an in any ran0 ay ta0e bribes. 't is a part o4 +hristian dog a5 it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part o4 ob2ious hu an history. 6hen people say that a an 1in that position1 would be incorruptible, there is no need to bring +hristianity into the discussion. 6as (ord %acon a bootblac0= 6as the Du0e o4 3arlborough a crossing sweeper= 'n the best :topia, ' ust be prepared 4or the oral 4all o4 any an in any position at any o ent5 especially 4or y 4all 4ro y position at this o ent. 3uch 2ague and senti ental @ournalis has been poured out to the e44ect that +hristianity is a0in to de ocracy, and ost o4 it is scarcely strong or clear enough to re4ute the 4act that the two things ha2e o4ten >uarrelled. The real ground upon which +hristianity and de ocracy are one is 2ery uch deeper. The one specially and peculiarly un?+hristian idea is the idea o4 +arlyle ?? the idea that the an should rule who 4eels that he can rule. 6hate2er else is +hristian, this is heathen. '4 our 4aith co ents on go2ern ent at all, its co ent ust be this ?? that the an should rule who does -!T thin0 that he can rule. +arlyle7s hero ay say, 1' will be 0ing15 but the +hristian saint ust say 1-olo episcopari.1 '4 the great paradox o4 +hristianity eans anything, it eans this ?? that we ust ta0e the crown in our hands, and go hunting in dry places and dar0 corners o4 the earth until we 4ind the one an who 4eels hi sel4 un4it to wear it. +arlyle was >uite

wrong5 we ha2e not got to crown the exceptional an who 0nows he can rule. "ather we ust crown the uch ore exceptional an who 0nows he can7t. -ow, this is one o4 the two or three 2ital de4ences o4 wor0ing de ocracy. The ere achinery o4 2oting is not de ocracy, though at present it is not easy to e44ect any si pler de ocratic ethod. %ut e2en the achinery o4 2oting is pro4oundly +hristian in this practical sense ?? that it is an atte pt to get at the opinion o4 those who would be too odest to o44er it. 't is a ystical ad2enture5 it is specially trusting those who do not trust the sel2es. That enig a is strictly peculiar to +hristendo . There is nothing really hu ble about the abnegation o4 the %uddhist5 the ild Hindoo is ild, but he is not ee0. %ut there is so ething psychologically +hristian about the idea o4 see0ing 4or the opinion o4 the obscure rather than ta0ing the ob2ious course o4 accepting the opinion o4 the pro inent. To say that 2oting is particularly +hristian ay see so ewhat curious. To say that can2assing is +hristian ay see >uite crazy. %ut can2assing is 2ery +hristian in its pri ary idea. 't is encouraging the hu ble5 it is saying to the odest an, 1.riend, go up higher.1 !r i4 there is so e slight de4ect in can2assing, that is in its per4ect and rounded piety, it is only because it ay possibly neglect to encourage the odesty o4 the can2asser. /ristocracy is not an institutionA aristocracy is a sin5 generally a 2ery 2enial one. 't is erely the dri4t or slide o4 en into a sort o4 natural po posity and praise o4 the power4ul, which is the ost easy and ob2ious a44air in the world. 't is one o4 the hundred answers to the 4ugiti2e per2ersion o4 odern 14orce1 that the pro ptest and boldest agencies are also the ost 4ragile or 4ull o4 sensibility. The swi4test things are the so4test things. / bird is acti2e, because a bird is so4t. / stone is helpless, because a stone is hard. The stone ust by its own nature go downwards, because hardness is wea0ness. The bird can o4 its nature go upwards, because 4ragility is 4orce. 'n per4ect 4orce there is a 0ind o4 4ri2olity, an airiness that can aintain itsel4 in the air. 3odern in2estigators o4 iraculous history ha2e sole nly ad itted that a characteristic o4 the great saints is their power o4 1le2itation.1 They ight go 4urther5 a characteristic o4 the great saints is their power o4 le2ity. /ngels can 4ly because they can ta0e the sel2es lightly. This has been always the instinct o4 +hristendo , and especially the instinct o4 +hristian art. "e e ber how .ra /ngelico represented all his angels, not only as birds, but al ost as butter4lies. "e e ber how the ost earnest ediae2al art was 4ull o4 light and 4luttering draperies, o4 >uic0 and capering 4eet. 't was the one thing that the odern Pre?raphaelites could not i itate in the real Pre?raphaelites. %urne?Bones could ne2er reco2er the deep le2ity o4 the 3iddle /ges. 'n the old +hristian pictures the s0y o2er e2ery 4igure is li0e a blue or gold parachute. )2ery 4igure see s ready to 4ly up and 4loat about in the hea2ens. The tattered cloa0 o4 the beggar will bear hi up li0e the rayed plu es o4 the angels. %ut the 0ings in their hea2y gold and the proud in their robes o4 purple will all o4 their nature sin0 downwards, 4or pride cannot rise to le2ity or le2itation. Pride is the downward drag o4

all things into an easy sole nity. !ne 1settles down1 into a sort o4 sel4ish seriousness5 but one has to rise to a gay sel4? 4orget4ulness. / an 14alls1 into a brown study5 he reaches up at a blue s0y. ,eriousness is not a 2irtue. 't would be a heresy, but a uch ore sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a 2ice. 't is really a natural trend or lapse into ta0ing one7s sel4 gra2ely, because it is the easiest thing to do. 't is uch easier to write a good T'3), leading article than a good @o0e in P:-+H. .or sole nity 4lows out o4 en naturally5 but laughter is a leap. 't is easy to be hea2yA hard to be light. ,atan 4ell by the 4orce o4 gra2ity. -ow, it is the peculiar honour o4 )urope since it has been +hristian that while it has had aristocracy it has always at the bac0 o4 its heart treated aristocracy as a wea0ness ?? generally as a wea0ness that ust be allowed 4or. '4 any one wishes to appreciate this point, let hi go outside +hristianity into so e other philosophical at osphere. (et hi , 4or instance, co pare the classes o4 )urope with the castes o4 'ndia. There aristocracy is 4ar ore aw4ul, because it is 4ar ore intellectual. 't is seriously 4elt that the scale o4 classes is a scale o4 spiritual 2alues5 that the ba0er is better than the butcher in an in2isible and sacred sense. %ut no +hristianity, not e2en the ost ignorant or per2erse, e2er suggested that a baronet was better than a butcher in that sacred sense. -o +hristianity, howe2er ignorant or extra2agant, e2er suggested that a du0e would not be da ned. 'n pagan society there ay ha2e been ;' do not 0now< so e such serious di2ision between the 4ree an and the sla2e. %ut in +hristian society we ha2e always thought the gentle an a sort o4 @o0e, though ' ad it that in so e great crusades and councils he earned the right to be called a practical @o0e. %ut we in )urope ne2er really and at the root o4 our souls too0 aristocracy seriously. 't is only an occasional non?)uropean alien ;such as Dr. !scar (e2y, the only intelligent -ietzscheite< who can e2en anage 4or a o ent to ta0e aristocracy seriously. 't ay be a ere patriotic bias, though ' do not thin0 so, but it see s to e that the )nglish aristocracy is not only the type, but is the crown and 4lower o4 all actual aristocracies5 it has all the oligarchical 2irtues as well as all the de4ects. 't is casual, it is 0ind, it is courageous in ob2ious atters5 but it has one great erit that o2erlaps e2en these. The great and 2ery ob2ious erit o4 the )nglish aristocracy is that nobody could possibly ta0e it seriously. 'n short, ' had spelled out slowly, as usual, the need 4or an e>ual law in :topia5 and, as usual, ' 4ound that +hristianity had been there be4ore e. The whole history o4 y :topia has the sa e a using sadness. ' was always rushing out o4 y architectural study with plans 4or a new turret only to 4ind it sitting up there in the sunlight, shining, and a thousand years old. .or e, in the ancient and partly in the odern sense, &od answered the prayer, 1Pre2ent us, ! (ord, in all our doings.1 6ithout 2anity, ' really thin0 there was a o ent when ' could ha2e in2ented the arriage 2ow ;as an institution< out o4 y own head5 but ' disco2ered, with a sigh, that it had been in2ented already. %ut, since it would be too long a business to show how, 4act by 4act and inch by inch, y

own conception o4 :topia was only answered in the -ew Berusale , ' will ta0e this one case o4 the atter o4 arriage as indicating the con2erging dri4t, ' ay say the con2erging crash o4 all the rest. 6hen the ordinary opponents o4 ,ocialis tal0 about i possibilities and alterations in hu an nature they always iss an i portant distinction. 'n odern ideal conceptions o4 society there are so e desires that are possibly not attainableA but there are so e desires that are not desirable. That all en should li2e in e>ually beauti4ul houses is a drea that ay or ay not be attained. %ut that all en should li2e in the sa e beauti4ul house is not a drea at all5 it is a night are. That a an should lo2e all old wo en is an ideal that ay not be attainable. %ut that a an should regard all old wo en exactly as he regards his other is not only an unattainable ideal, but an ideal which ought not to be attained. ' do not 0now i4 the reader agrees with e in these exa ples5 but ' will add the exa ple which has always a44ected e ost. ' could ne2er concei2e or tolerate any :topia which did not lea2e to e the liberty 4or which ' chie4ly care, the liberty to bind ysel4. +o plete anarchy would not erely a0e it i possible to ha2e any discipline or 4idelity5 it would also a0e it i possible to ha2e any 4un. To ta0e an ob2ious instance, it would not be worth while to bet i4 a bet were not binding. The dissolution o4 all contracts would not only ruin orality but spoil sport. -ow betting and such sports are only the stunted and twisted shapes o4 the original instinct o4 an 4or ad2enture and ro ance, o4 which uch has been said in these pages. /nd the perils, rewards, punish ents, and 4ul4il ents o4 an ad2enture ust be real, or the ad2enture is only a shi4ting and heartless night are. '4 ' bet ' ust be ade to pay, or there is no poetry in betting. '4 ' challenge ' ust be ade to 4ight, or there is no poetry in challenging. '4 ' 2ow to be 4aith4ul ' ust be cursed when ' a un4aith4ul, or there is no 4un in 2owing. $ou could not e2en a0e a 4airy tale 4ro the experiences o4 a an who, when he was swallowed by a whale, ight 4ind hi sel4 at the top o4 the )i44el Tower, or when he was turned into a 4rog ight begin to beha2e li0e a 4la ingo. .or the purpose e2en o4 the wildest ro ance results ust be real5 results ust be irre2ocable. +hristian arriage is the great exa ple o4 a real and irre2ocable result5 and that is why it is the chie4 sub@ect and centre o4 all our ro antic writing. /nd this is y last instance o4 the things that ' should as0, and as0 i perati2ely, o4 any social paradise5 ' should as0 to be 0ept to y bargain, to ha2e y oaths and engage ents ta0en seriously5 ' should as0 :topia to a2enge y honour on ysel4. /ll y odern :topian 4riends loo0 at each other rather doubt4ully, 4or their ulti ate hope is the dissolution o4 all special ties. %ut again ' see to hear, li0e a 0ind o4 echo, an answer 4ro beyond the world. 1$ou will ha2e real obligations, and there4ore real ad2entures when you get to y :topia. %ut the hardest obligation and the steepest ad2enture is to get there.1 8'''9TH) "!3/-+) !. !"TH!D!#$

'T is custo ary to co plain o4 the bustle and strenuousness o4 our epoch. %ut in truth the chie4 ar0 o4 our epoch is a pro4ound laziness and 4atigue5 and the 4act is that the real laziness is the cause o4 the apparent bustle. Ta0e one >uite external case5 the streets are noisy with taxicabs and otorcars5 but this is not due to hu an acti2ity but to hu an repose. There would be less bustle i4 there were ore acti2ity, i4 people were si ply wal0ing about. !ur world would be ore silent i4 it were ore strenuous. /nd this which is true o4 the apparent physical bustle is true also o4 the apparent bustle o4 the intellect. 3ost o4 the achinery o4 odern language is labour?sa2ing achinery5 and it sa2es ental labour 2ery uch ore than it ought. ,cienti4ic phrases are used li0e scienti4ic wheels and piston?rods to a0e swi4ter and s oother yet the path o4 the co 4ortable. (ong words go rattling by us li0e long railway trains. 6e 0now they are carrying thousands who are too tired or too indolent to wal0 and thin0 4or the sel2es. 't is a good exercise to try 4or once in a way to express any opinion one holds in words o4 one syllable. '4 you say 1The social utility o4 the indeter inate sentence is recognized by all cri inologists as a part o4 our sociological e2olution towards a ore hu ane and scienti4ic 2iew o4 punish ent,1 you can go on tal0ing li0e that 4or hours with hardly a o2e ent o4 the gray atter inside your s0ull. %ut i4 you begin 1' wish Bones to go to gaol and %rown to say when Bones shall co e out,1 you will disco2er, with a thrill o4 horror, that you are obliged to thin0. The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is uch ore etaphysical subtlety in the word 1da n1 than in the word 1degeneration.1 %ut these long co 4ortable words that sa2e odern people the toil o4 reasoning ha2e one particular aspect in which they are especially ruinous and con4using. This di44iculty occurs when the sa e long word is used in di44erent connections to ean >uite di44erent things. Thus, to ta0e a well?0nown instance, the word 1idealist1 has one eaning as a piece o4 philosophy and >uite another as a piece o4 oral rhetoric. 'n the sa e way the scienti4ic aterialists ha2e had @ust reason to co plain o4 people ixing up 1 aterialist1 as a ter o4 cos ology with 1 aterialist1 as a oral taunt. ,o, to ta0e a cheaper instance, the an who hates 1progressi2es1 in (ondon always calls hi sel4 a 1progressi2e1 in ,outh /4rica. / con4usion >uite as un eaning as this has arisen in connection with the word 1liberal1 as applied to religion and as applied to politics and society. 't is o4ten suggested that all (iberals ought to be 4reethin0ers, because they ought to lo2e e2erything that is 4ree. $ou ight @ust as well say that all idealists ought to be High +hurch en, because they ought to lo2e e2erything that is high. $ou ight as well say that (ow +hurch en ought to li0e (ow 3ass, or that %road +hurch en ought to li0e broad @o0es. The thing is a ere accident o4 words. 'n actual odern )urope a 4reethin0er does not ean a an who thin0s 4or hi sel4. 't eans a an who, ha2ing thought 4or hi sel4, has co e to one particular class o4 conclusions, the aterial origin o4 pheno ena, the i possibility o4 iracles, the i probability o4

personal i ortality and so on. /nd none o4 these ideas are particularly liberal. -ay, indeed al ost all these ideas are de4initely illiberal, as it is the purpose o4 this chapter to show. 'n the 4ew 4ollowing pages ' propose to point out as rapidly as possible that on e2ery single one o4 the atters ost strongly insisted on by liberalisers o4 theology their e44ect upon social practice would be de4initely illiberal. /l ost e2ery conte porary proposal to bring 4reedo into the church is si ply a proposal to bring tyranny into the world. .or 4reeing the church now does not e2en ean 4reeing it in all directions. 't eans 4reeing that peculiar set o4 dog as loosely called scienti4ic, dog as o4 onis , o4 pantheis , or o4 /rianis , or o4 necessity. /nd e2ery one o4 these ;and we will ta0e the one by one< can be shown to be the natural ally o4 oppression. 'n 4act, it is a re ar0able circu stance ;indeed not so 2ery re ar0able when one co es to thin0 o4 it< that ost things are the allies o4 oppression. There is only one thing that can ne2er go past a certain point in its alliance with oppression ?? and that is orthodoxy. ' ay, it is true, twist orthodoxy so as partly to @usti4y a tyrant. %ut ' can easily a0e up a &er an philosophy to @usti4y hi entirely. -ow let us ta0e in order the inno2ations that are the notes o4 the new theology or the odernist church. 6e concluded the last chapter with the disco2ery o4 one o4 the . The 2ery doctrine which is called the ost old?4ashioned was 4ound to be the only sa4eguard o4 the new de ocracies o4 the earth. The doctrine see ingly ost unpopular was 4ound to be the only strength o4 the people. 'n short, we 4ound that the only logical negation o4 oligarchy was in the a44ir ation o4 original sin. ,o it is, ' aintain, in all the other cases. ' ta0e the ost ob2ious instance 4irst, the case o4 iracles. .or so e extraordinary reason, there is a 4ixed notion that it is ore liberal to disbelie2e in iracles than to belie2e in the . 6hy, ' cannot i agine, nor can anybody tell e. .or so e inconcei2able cause a 1broad1 or 1liberal1 clergy an always eans a an who wishes at least to di inish the nu ber o4 iracles5 it ne2er eans a an who wishes to increase that nu ber. 't always eans a an who is 4ree to disbelie2e that +hrist ca e out o4 His gra2e5 it ne2er eans a an who is 4ree to belie2e that his own aunt ca e out o4 her gra2e. 't is co on to 4ind trouble in a parish because the parish priest cannot ad it that ,t. Peter wal0ed on water5 yet how rarely do we 4ind trouble in a parish because the clergy an says that his 4ather wal0ed on the ,erpentine= /nd this is not because ;as the swi4t secularist debater would i ediately retort< iracles cannot be belie2ed in our experience. 't is not because 1 iracles do not happen,1 as in the dog a which 3atthew /rnold recited with si ple 4aith. 3ore supernatural things are /(()&)D to ha2e happened in our ti e than would ha2e been possible eighty years ago. 3en o4 science belie2e in such ar2els uch ore than they didA the ost perplexing, and e2en horrible, prodigies o4 ind and spirit are always being un2eiled in odern psychology. Things that the old science at least would 4ran0ly ha2e re@ected as iracles are hourly being asserted by the new science. The only thing which is still old?

4ashioned enough to re@ect iracles is the -ew Theology. %ut in truth this notion that it is 14ree1 to deny iracles has nothing to do with the e2idence 4or or against the . 't is a li4eless 2erbal pre@udice o4 which the original li4e and beginning was not in the 4reedo o4 thought, but si ply in the dog a, o4 aterialis . The an o4 the nineteenth century did not disbelie2e in the "esurrection because his liberal +hristianity allowed hi to doubt it. He disbelie2ed in it because his 2ery strict aterialis did not allow hi to belie2e it. Tennyson, a 2ery typical nineteenth century an, uttered one o4 the instincti2e truis s o4 his conte poraries when he said that there was 4aith in their honest doubt. There was indeed. Those words ha2e a pro4ound and e2en a horrible truth. 'n their doubt o4 iracles there was a 4aith in a 4ixed and godless 4ate5 a deep and sincere 4aith in the incurable routine o4 the cos os. The doubts o4 the agnostic were only the dog as o4 the onist. !4 the 4act and e2idence o4 the supernatural ' will spea0 a4terwards. Here we are only concerned with this clear point5 that in so 4ar as the liberal idea o4 4reedo can be said to be on either side in the discussion about iracles, it is ob2iously on the side o4 iracles. "e4or or ;in the only tolerable sense< progress eans si ply the gradual control o4 atter by ind. / iracle si ply eans the swi4t control o4 atter by ind. '4 you wish to 4eed the people, you ay thin0 that 4eeding the iraculously in the wilderness is i possible ?? but you cannot thin0 it illiberal. '4 you really want poor children to go to the seaside, you cannot thin0 it illiberal that they should go there on 4lying dragons5 you can only thin0 it unli0ely. / holiday, li0e (iberalis , only eans the liberty o4 an. / iracle only eans the liberty o4 &od. $ou ay conscientiously deny either o4 the , but you cannot call your denial a triu ph o4 the liberal idea. The +atholic +hurch belie2ed that an and &od both had a sort o4 spiritual 4reedo . +al2inis too0 away the 4reedo 4ro an, but le4t it to &od. ,cienti4ic aterialis binds the +reator Hi sel45 it chains up &od as the /pocalypse chained the de2il. 't lea2es nothing 4ree in the uni2erse. /nd those who assist this process are called the 1liberal theologians.1 This, as ' say, is the lightest and ost e2ident case. The assu ption that there is so ething in the doubt o4 iracles a0in to liberality or re4or is literally the opposite o4 the truth. '4 a an cannot belie2e in iracles there is an end o4 the atter5 he is not particularly liberal, but he is per4ectly honourable and logical, which are uch better things. %ut i4 he can belie2e in iracles, he is certainly the ore liberal 4or doing so5 because they ean 4irst, the 4reedo o4 the soul, and secondly, its control o2er the tyranny o4 circu stance. ,o eti es this truth is ignored in a singularly naI2e way, e2en by the ablest en. .or instance, 3r. %ernard ,haw spea0s with hearty old?4ashioned conte pt 4or the idea o4 iracles, as i4 they were a sort o4 breach o4 4aith on the part o4 natureA he see s strangely unconscious that iracles are only the 4inal 4lowers o4 his own 4a2ourite tree, the doctrine o4 the o nipotence o4 will. Bust in the sa e way he calls the desire 4or i ortality a paltry sel4ishness, 4orgetting that he has @ust called the desire 4or

li4e a healthy and heroic sel4ishness. How can it be noble to wish to a0e one7s li4e in4inite and yet ean to wish to a0e it i ortal= -o, i4 it is desirable that an should triu ph o2er the cruelty o4 nature or custo , then iracles are certainly desirable5 we will discuss a4terwards whether they are possible. %ut ' ust pass on to the larger cases o4 this curious error5 the notion that the 1liberalising1 o4 religion in so e way helps the liberation o4 the world. The second exa ple o4 it can be 4ound in the >uestion o4 pantheis ?? or rather o4 a certain odern attitude which is o4ten called i anentis , and which o4ten is %uddhis . %ut this is so uch ore di44icult a atter that ' ust approach it with rather ore preparation. The things said ost con4idently by ad2anced persons to crowded audiences are generally those >uite opposite to the 4act5 it is actually our truis s that are untrue. Here is a case. There is a phrase o4 4acile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parlia ents o4 religionA 1the religions o4 the earth di44er in rites and 4or s, but they are the sa e in what they teach.1 't is 4alse5 it is the opposite o4 the 4act. The religions o4 the earth do not greatly di44er in rites and 4or s5 they do greatly di44er in what they teach. 't is as i4 a an were to say, 1Do not be isled by the 4act that the +H:"+H T'3), and the ."))TH'-*)" loo0 utterly di44erent, that one is painted on 2ellu and the other car2ed on arble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal5 read the and you will see that they say the sa e thing.1 The truth is, o4 course, that they are ali0e in e2erything except in the 4act that they don7t say the sa e thing. /n atheist stoc0bro0er in ,urbiton loo0s exactly li0e a ,wedenborgian stoc0bro0er in 6i bledon. $ou ay wal0 round and round the and sub@ect the to the ost personal and o44ensi2e study without seeing anything ,wedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the u brella. 't is exactly in their souls that they are di2ided. ,o the truth is that the di44iculty o4 all the creeds o4 the earth is not as alleged in this cheap axi A that they agree in eaning, but di44er in achinery. 't is exactly the opposite. They agree in achinery5 al ost e2ery great religion on earth wor0s with the sa e external ethods, with priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special 4easts. They agree in the ode o4 teaching5 what they di44er about is the thing to be taught. Pagan opti ists and )astern pessi ists would both ha2e te ples, @ust as (iberals and Tories would both ha2e newspapers. +reeds that exist to destroy each other both ha2e scriptures, @ust as ar ies that exist to destroy each other both ha2e guns. The great exa ple o4 this alleged identity o4 all hu an religions is the alleged spiritual identity o4 %uddhis and +hristianity. Those who adopt this theory generally a2oid the ethics o4 ost other creeds, except, indeed, +on4ucianis , which they li0e because it is not a creed. %ut they are cautious in their praises o4 3aho edanis , generally con4ining the sel2es to i posing its orality only upon the re4resh ent o4 the lower classes. They seldo suggest the 3aho edan 2iew o4 arriage ;4or which there is a great deal to be said<, and towards Thugs and 4etish worshippers their attitude ay e2en be called cold. %ut in the case o4 the great religion o4 &auta a they 4eel sincerely a

si ilarity. ,tudents o4 popular science, li0e 3r. %latch4ord, are always insisting that +hristianity and %uddhis are 2ery uch ali0e, especially %uddhis . This is generally belie2ed, and ' belie2ed it ysel4 until ' read a boo0 gi2ing the reasons 4or it. The reasons were o4 two 0indsA rese blances that eant nothing because they were co on to all hu anity, and rese blances which were not rese blances at all. The author sole nly explained that the two creeds were ali0e in things in which all creeds are ali0e, or else he described the as ali0e in so e point in which they are >uite ob2iously di44erent. Thus, as a case o4 the 4irst class, he said that both +hrist and %uddha were called by the di2ine 2oice co ing out o4 the s0y, as i4 you would expect the di2ine 2oice to co e out o4 the coal?cellar. !r, again, it was gra2ely urged that these two )astern teachers, by a singular coincidence, both had to do with the washing o4 4eet. $ou ight as well say that it was a re ar0able coincidence that they both had 4eet to wash. /nd the other class o4 si ilarities were those which si ply were not si ilar. Thus this reconciler o4 the two religions draws earnest attention to the 4act that at certain religious 4easts the robe o4 the (a a is rent in pieces out o4 respect, and the re nants highly 2alued. %ut this is the re2erse o4 a rese blance, 4or the gar ents o4 +hrist were not rent in pieces out o4 respect, but out o4 derision5 and the re nants were not highly 2alued except 4or what they would 4etch in the rag shops. 't is rather li0e alluding to the ob2ious connection between the two cere onies o4 the swordA when it taps a an7s shoulder, and when it cuts o44 his head. 't is not at all si ilar 4or the an. These scraps o4 puerile pedantry would indeed atter little i4 it were not also true that the alleged philosophical rese blances are also o4 these two 0inds, either pro2ing too uch or not pro2ing anything. That %uddhis appro2es o4 ercy or o4 sel4?restraint is not to say that it is specially li0e +hristianity5 it is only to say that it is not utterly unli0e all hu an existence. %uddhists disappro2e in theory o4 cruelty or excess because all sane hu an beings disappro2e in theory o4 cruelty or excess. %ut to say that %uddhis and +hristianity gi2e the sa e philosophy o4 these things is si ply 4alse. /ll hu anity does agree that we are in a net o4 sin. 3ost o4 hu anity agrees that there is so e way out. %ut as to what is the way out, ' do not thin0 that there are two institutions in the uni2erse which contradict each other so 4latly as %uddhis and +hristianity. )2en when ' thought, with ost other well?in4or ed, though unscholarly, people, that %uddhis and +hristianity were ali0e, there was one thing about the that always perplexed e5 ' ean the startling di44erence in their type o4 religious art. ' do not ean in its technical style o4 representation, but in the things that it was ani4estly eant to represent. -o two ideals could be ore opposite than a +hristian saint in a &othic cathedral and a %uddhist saint in a +hinese te ple. The opposition exists at e2ery point5 but perhaps the shortest state ent o4 it is that the %uddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the +hristian saint always has the 2ery wide open. The %uddhist saint has a slee0 and har onious body, but his eyes are hea2y and sealed with sleep. The

ediae2al saint7s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are 4right4ully ali2e. There cannot be any real co unity o4 spirit between 4orces that produced sy bols so di44erent as that. &ranted that both i ages are extra2agances, are per2ersions o4 the pure creed, it ust be a real di2ergence which could produce such opposite extra2agances. The %uddhist is loo0ing with a peculiar intentness inwards. The +hristian is staring with a 4rantic intentness outwards. '4 we 4ollow that clue steadily we shall 4ind so e interesting things. / short ti e ago 3rs. %esant, in an interesting essay, announced that there was only one religion in the world, that all 4aiths were only 2ersions or per2ersions o4 it, and that she was >uite prepared to say what it was. /ccording to 3rs. %esant this uni2ersal +hurch is si ply the uni2ersal sel4. 't is the doctrine that we are really all one person5 that there are no real walls o4 indi2iduality between an and an. '4 ' ay put it so, she does not tell us to lo2e our neighbours5 she tells us to be our neighbours. That is 3rs. %esant7s thought4ul and suggesti2e description o4 the religion in which all en ust 4ind the sel2es in agree ent. /nd ' ne2er heard o4 any suggestion in y li4e with which ' ore 2iolently disagree. ' want to lo2e y neighbour not because he is ', but precisely because he is not '. ' want to adore the world, not as one li0es a loo0ing?glass, because it is one7s sel4, but as one lo2es a wo an, because she is entirely di44erent. '4 souls are separate lo2e is possible. '4 souls are united lo2e is ob2iously i possible. / an ay be said loosely to lo2e hi sel4, but he can hardly 4all in lo2e with hi sel4, or, i4 he does, it ust be a onotonous courtship. '4 the world is 4ull o4 real sel2es, they can be really unsel4ish sel2es. %ut upon 3rs. %esant7s principle the whole cos os is only one enor ously sel4ish person. 't is @ust here that %uddhis is on the side o4 odern pantheis and i anence. /nd it is @ust here that +hristianity is on the side o4 hu anity and liberty and lo2e. (o2e desires personality5 there4ore lo2e desires di2ision. 't is the instinct o4 +hristianity to be glad that &od has bro0en the uni2erse into little pieces, because they are li2ing pieces. 't is her instinct to say 1little children lo2e one another1 rather than to tell one large person to lo2e hi sel4. This is the intellectual abyss between %uddhis and +hristianity5 that 4or the %uddhist or Theosophist personality is the 4all o4 an, 4or the +hristian it is the purpose o4 &od, the whole point o4 his cos ic idea. The world?soul o4 the Theosophists as0s an to lo2e it only in order that an ay throw hi sel4 into it. %ut the di2ine centre o4 +hristianity actually threw an out o4 it in order that he ight lo2e it. The oriental deity is li0e a giant who should ha2e lost his leg or hand and be always see0ing to 4ind it5 but the +hristian power is li0e so e giant who in a strange generosity should cut o44 his right hand, so that it ight o4 its own accord sha0e hands with hi . 6e co e bac0 to the sa e tireless note touching the nature o4 +hristianity5 all odern philosophies are chains which connect and 4etter5 +hristianity is a sword which separates and sets 4ree. -o other philosophy a0es &od actually re@oice in the separation o4 the uni2erse into li2ing souls. %ut

according to orthodox +hristianity this separation between &od and an is sacred, because this is eternal. That a an ay lo2e &od it is necessary that there should be not only a &od to be lo2ed, but a an to lo2e hi . /ll those 2ague theosophical inds 4or who the uni2erse is an i ense elting?pot are exactly the inds which shrin0 instincti2ely 4ro that earth>ua0e saying o4 our &ospels, which declare that the ,on o4 &od ca e not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true e2en considered as what it ob2iously is5 the state ent that any an who preaches real lo2e is bound to beget hate. 't is as true o4 de ocratic 4raternity as a di2ine lo2e5 sha lo2e ends in co pro ise and co on philosophy5 but real lo2e has always ended in bloodshed. $et there is another and yet ore aw4ul truth behind the ob2ious eaning o4 this utterance o4 our (ord. /ccording to Hi sel4 the ,on was a sword separating brother and brother that they should 4or an aeon hate each other. %ut the .ather also was a sword, which in the blac0 beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should lo2e each other at last. This is the eaning o4 that al ost insane happiness in the eyes o4 the ediae2al saint in the picture. This is the eaning o4 the sealed eyes o4 the superb %uddhist i age. The +hristian saint is happy because he has 2erily been cut o44 4ro the world5 he is separate 4ro things and is staring at the in astonish ent. %ut why should the %uddhist saint be astonished at things= ?? since there is really only one thing, and that being i personal can hardly be astonished at itsel4. There ha2e been any pantheist poe s suggesting wonder, but no really success4ul ones. The pantheist cannot wonder, 4or he cannot praise &od or praise anything as really distinct 4ro hi sel4. !ur i ediate business here, howe2er, is with the e44ect o4 this +hristian ad iration ;which stri0es outwards, towards a deity distinct 4ro the worshipper< upon the general need 4or ethical acti2ity and social re4or . /nd surely its e44ect is su44iciently ob2ious. There is no real possibility o4 getting out o4 pantheis , any special i pulse to oral action. .or pantheis i plies in its nature that one thing is as good as another5 whereas action i plies in its nature that one thing is greatly pre4erable to another. ,winburne in the high su er o4 his scepticis tried in 2ain to wrestle with this di44iculty. 'n 1,ongs be4ore ,unrise,1 written under the inspiration o4 &aribaldi and the re2olt o4 'taly he proclai ed the newer religion and the purer &od which should wither up all the priests o4 the worldA 16hat doest thou now (oo0ing &odward to cry ' a ', thou art thou, ' a low, thou art high, ' a thou that thou see0est to 4ind hi , 4ind thou but thysel4, thou art '.1 !4 which the i ediate and e2ident deduction is that tyrants are as uch the sons o4 &od as &aribaldis5 and that *ing %o ba o4 -aples ha2ing, with the ut ost success, 14ound hi sel41 is identical with the ulti ate good in all things. The truth is that

the western energy that dethrones tyrants has been directly due to the western theology that says 1' a ', thou art thou.1 The sa e spiritual separation which loo0ed up and saw a good 0ing in the uni2erse loo0ed up and saw a bad 0ing in -aples. The worshippers o4 %o ba7s god dethroned %o ba. The worshippers o4 ,winburne7s god ha2e co2ered /sia 4or centuries and ha2e ne2er dethroned a tyrant. The 'ndian saint ay reasonably shut his eyes because he is loo0ing at that which is ' and Thou and 6e and They and 't. 't is a rational occupationA but it is not true in theory and not true in 4act that it helps the 'ndian to 0eep an eye on (ord +urzon. That external 2igilance which has always been the ar0 o4 +hristianity ;the co and that we should 6/T+H and pray< has expressed itsel4 both in typical western orthodoxy and in typical western politicsA but both depend on the idea o4 a di2inity transcendent, di44erent 4ro oursel2es, a deity that disappears. +ertainly the ost sagacious creeds ay suggest that we should pursue &od into deeper and deeper rings o4 the labyrinth o4 our own ego. %ut only we o4 +hristendo ha2e said that we should hunt &od li0e an eagle upon the ountainsA and we ha2e 0illed all onsters in the chase. Here again, there4ore, we 4ind that in so 4ar as we 2alue de ocracy and the sel4?renewing energies o4 the west, we are uch ore li0ely to 4ind the in the old theology than the new. '4 we want re4or , we ust adhere to orthodoxyA especially in this atter ;so uch disputed in the counsels o4 3r. ". B. +a pbell<, the atter o4 insisting on the i anent or the transcendent deity. %y insisting specially on the i anence o4 &od we get introspection, sel4?isolation, >uietis , social indi44erence ?? Tibet. %y insisting specially on the transcendence o4 &od we get wonder, curiosity, oral and political ad2enture, righteous indignation ?? +hristendo . 'nsisting that &od is inside an, an is always inside hi sel4. %y insisting that &od transcends an, an has transcended hi sel4. '4 we ta0e any other doctrine that has been called old? 4ashioned we shall 4ind the case the sa e. 't is the sa e, 4or instance, in the deep atter o4 the Trinity. :nitarians ;a sect ne2er to be entioned without a special respect 4or their distinguished intellectual dignity and high intellectual honour< are o4ten re4or ers by the accident that throws so any s all sects into such an attitude. %ut there is nothing in the least liberal or a0in to re4or in the substitution o4 pure onotheis 4or the Trinity. The co plex &od o4 the /thanasian +reed ay be an enig a 4or the intellect5 but He is 4ar less li0ely to gather the ystery and cruelty o4 a ,ultan than the lonely god o4 ! ar or 3aho et. The god who is a ere aw4ul unity is not only a 0ing but an )astern 0ing. The H)/"T o4 hu anity, especially o4 )uropean hu anity, is certainly uch ore satis4ied by the strange hints and sy bols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the i age o4 a council at which ercy pleads as well as @ustice, the conception o4 a sort o4 liberty and 2ariety existing e2en in the in ost cha ber o4 the world. .or 6estern religion has always 4elt 0eenly the idea 1it is not well 4or an to be alone.1 The social instinct asserted itsel4 e2erywhere as when the )astern idea o4 her its was practically expelled by the 6estern idea o4 on0s. ,o e2en

asceticis beca e brotherly5 and the Trappists were sociable e2en when they were silent. '4 this lo2e o4 a li2ing co plexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to ha2e the Trinitarian religion than the :nitarian. .or to us Trinitarians ;i4 ' ay say it with re2erence< ?? to us &od Hi sel4 is a society. 't is indeed a 4atho less ystery o4 theology, and e2en i4 ' were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be rele2ant to do so here. ,u44ice it to say here that this triple enig a is as co 4orting as wine and open as an )nglish 4ireside5 that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly >uiets the heartA but out o4 the desert, 4ro the dry places and, the dread4ul suns, co e the cruel children o4 the lonely &od5 the real :nitarians who with sci itar in hand ha2e laid waste the world. .or it is not well 4or &od to be alone. /gain, the sa e is true o4 that di44icult atter o4 the danger o4 the soul, which has unsettled so any @ust inds. To hope 4or all souls is i perati2e5 and it is >uite tenable that their sal2ation is ine2itable. 't is tenable, but it is not specially 4a2ourable to acti2ity or progress. !ur 4ighting and creati2e society ought rather to insist on the danger o4 e2erybody, on the 4act that e2ery an is hanging by a thread or clinging to a precipice. To say that all will be well anyhow is a co prehensible re ar0A but it cannot be called the blast o4 a tru pet. )urope ought rather to e phasize possible perdition5 and )urope always has e phasized it. Here its highest religion is at one with all its cheapest ro ances. To the %uddhist or the eastern 4atalist existence is a science or a plan, which ust end up in a certain way. %ut to a +hristian existence is a ,T!"$, which ay end up in any way. 'n a thrilling no2el ;that purely +hristian product< the hero is not eaten by cannibals5 but it is essential to the existence o4 the thrill that he 3'&HT be eaten by cannibals. The hero ust ;so to spea0< be an eatable hero. ,o +hristian orals ha2e always said to the an, not that he would lose his soul, but that he ust ta0e care that he didn7t. 'n +hristian orals, in short, it is wic0ed to call a an 1da ned1A but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call hi da nable. /ll +hristianity concentrates on the an at the cross?roads. The 2ast and shallow philosophies, the huge syntheses o4 hu bug, all tal0 about ages and e2olution and ulti ate de2elop ents. The true philosophy is concerned with the instant. 6ill a an ta0e this road or that= ?? that is the only thing to thin0 about, i4 you en@oy thin0ing. The aeons are easy enough to thin0 about, any one can thin0 about the . The instant is really aw4ulA and it is because our religion has intensely 4elt the instant, that it has in literature dealt uch with battle and in theology dealt uch with hell. 't is 4ull o4 D/-&)", li0e a boy7s boo0A it is at an i ortal crisis. There is a great deal o4 real si ilarity between popular 4iction and the religion o4 the western people. '4 you say that popular 4iction is 2ulgar and tawdry, you only say what the dreary and well?in4or ed say also about the i ages in the +atholic churches. (i4e ;according to the 4aith< is 2ery li0e a serial story in a agazineA li4e ends with the pro ise ;or enace< 1to be continued in our next.1 /lso, with a noble 2ulgarity, li4e i itates the serial and lea2es o44 at the exciting o ent. .or

death is distinctly an exciting o ent. %ut the point is that a story is exciting because it has in it so strong an ele ent o4 will, o4 what theology calls 4ree?will. $ou cannot 4inish a su how you li0e. %ut you can 4inish a story how you li0e. 6hen so ebody disco2ered the Di44erential +alculus there was only one Di44erential +alculus he could disco2er. %ut when ,ha0espeare 0illed "o eo he ight ha2e arried hi to Buliet7s old nurse i4 he had 4elt inclined. /nd +hristendo has excelled in the narrati2e ro ance exactly because it has insisted on the theological 4ree?will. 't is a large atter and too uch to one side o4 the road to be discussed ade>uately here5 but this is the real ob@ection to that torrent o4 odern tal0 about treating cri e as disease, about a0ing a prison erely a hygienic en2iron ent li0e a hospital, o4 healing sin by slow scienti4ic ethods. The 4allacy o4 the whole thing is that e2il is a atter o4 acti2e choice whereas disease is not. '4 you say that you are going to cure a pro4ligate as you cure an asth atic, y cheap and ob2ious answer is, 1Produce the people who want to be asth atics as any people want to be pro4ligates.1 / an ay lie still and be cured o4 a alady. %ut he ust not lie still i4 he wants to be cured o4 a sin5 on the contrary, he ust get up and @u p about 2iolently. The whole point indeed is per4ectly expressed in the 2ery word which we use 4or a an in hospital5 1patient1 is in the passi2e ood5 1sinner1 is in the acti2e. '4 a an is to be sa2ed 4ro in4luenza, he ay be a patient. %ut i4 he is to be sa2ed 4ro 4orging, he ust be not a patient but an '3P/T')-T. He ust be personally i patient with 4orgery. /ll oral re4or ust start in the acti2e not the passi2e will. Here again we reach the sa e substantial conclusion. 'n so 4ar as we desire the de4inite reconstructions and the dangerous re2olutions which ha2e distinguished )uropean ci2ilization, we shall not discourage the thought o4 possible ruin5 we shall rather encourage it. '4 we want, li0e the )astern saints, erely to conte plate how right things are, o4 course we shall only say that they ust go right. %ut i4 we particularly want to 3/*) the go right, we ust insist that they ay go wrong. (astly, this truth is yet again true in the case o4 the co on odern atte pts to di inish or to explain away the di2inity o4 +hrist. The thing ay be true or not5 that ' shall deal with be4ore ' end. %ut i4 the di2inity is true it is certainly terribly re2olutionary. That a good an ay ha2e his bac0 to the wall is no ore than we 0new already5 but that &od could ha2e his bac0 to the wall is a boast 4or all insurgents 4or e2er. +hristianity is the only religion on earth that has 4elt that o nipotence ade &od inco plete. +hristianity alone has 4elt that &od, to be wholly &od, ust ha2e been a rebel as well as a 0ing. /lone o4 all creeds, +hristianity has added courage to the 2irtues o4 the +reator. .or the only courage worth calling courage ust necessarily ean that the soul passes a brea0ing point and does not brea0. 'n this indeed ' approach a atter ore dar0 and aw4ul than it is easy to discuss5 and ' apologise in ad2ance i4 any o4 y phrases 4all wrong or see irre2erent touching a atter which the greatest saints and thin0ers ha2e @ustly 4eared to approach. %ut in that terri4ic tale o4 the Passion there is a distinct

e otional suggestion that the author o4 all things ;in so e unthin0able way< went not only through agony, but through doubt. 't is written, 1Thou shalt not te pt the (ord thy &od.1 -o5 but the (ord thy &od ay te pt Hi sel45 and it see s as i4 this was what happened in &ethse ane. 'n a garden ,atan te pted anA and in a garden &od te pted &od. He passed in so e superhu an anner through our hu an horror o4 pessi is . 6hen the world shoo0 and the sun was wiped out o4 hea2en, it was not at the cruci4ixion, but at the cry 4ro the crossA the cry which con4essed that &od was 4orsa0en o4 &od. /nd now let the re2olutionists choose a creed 4ro all the creeds and a god 4ro all the gods o4 the world, care4ully weighing all the gods o4 ine2itable recurrence and o4 unalterable power. They will not 4ind another god who has hi sel4 been in re2olt. -ay, ;the atter grows too di44icult 4or hu an speech,< but let the atheists the sel2es choose a god. They will 4ind only one di2inity who e2er uttered their isolation5 only one religion in which &od see ed 4or an instant to be an atheist. These can be called the essentials o4 the old orthodoxy, o4 which the chie4 erit is that it is the natural 4ountain o4 re2olution and re4or 5 and o4 which the chie4 de4ect is that it is ob2iously only an abstract assertion. 'ts ain ad2antage is that it is the ost ad2enturous and anly o4 all theologies. 'ts chie4 disad2antage is si ply that it is a theology. 't can always be urged against it that it is in its nature arbitrary and in the air. %ut it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole li2es in shooting arrows at it ?? yes, and their last arrows5 there are en who will ruin the sel2es and ruin their ci2ilization i4 they ay ruin also this old 4antastic tale. This is the last and ost astounding 4act about this 4aith5 that its ene ies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own 4ingers, and the 4irebrands that burn their own ho es. 3en who begin to 4ight the +hurch 4or the sa0e o4 4reedo and hu anity end by 4linging away 4reedo and hu anity i4 only they ay 4ight the +hurch. This is no exaggeration5 ' could 4ill a boo0 with the instances o4 it. 3r. %latch4ord set out, as an ordinary %ible? s asher, to pro2e that /da was guiltless o4 sin against &od5 in anoeu2ring so as to aintain this he ad itted, as a ere side issue, that all the tyrants, 4ro -ero to *ing (eopold, were guiltless o4 any sin against hu anity. ' 0now a an who has such a passion 4or pro2ing that he will ha2e no personal existence a4ter death that he 4alls bac0 on the position that he has no personal existence now. He in2o0es %uddhis and says that all souls 4ade into each other5 in order to pro2e that he cannot go to hea2en he pro2es that he cannot go to Hartle?pool. ' ha2e 0nown people who protested against religious education with argu ents against any education, saying that the child7s ind ust grow 4reely or that the old ust not teach the young. ' ha2e 0nown people who showed that there could be no di2ine @udg ent by showing that there can be no hu an @udg ent, e2en 4or practical purposes. They burned their own corn to set 4ire to the church5 they s ashed their own tools to s ash it5 any stic0 was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stic0 o4 their own dis e bered 4urniture. 6e do not ad ire, we hardly excuse, the 4anatic who wrec0s this world 4or lo2e o4 the other. %ut what are we to say o4 the 4anatic

who wrec0s this world out o4 hatred o4 the other= He sacri4ices the 2ery existence o4 hu anity to the non?existence o4 &od. He o44ers his 2icti s not to the altar, but erely to assert the idleness o4 the altar and the e ptiness o4 the throne. He is ready to ruin e2en that pri ary ethic by which all things li2e, 4or his strange and eternal 2engeance upon so e one who ne2er li2ed at all. /nd yet the thing hangs in the hea2ens unhurt. 'ts opponents only succeed in destroying all that they the sel2es @ustly hold dear. They do not destroy orthodoxy5 they only destroy political and co on courage sense. They do not pro2e that /da was not responsible to &od5 how could they pro2e it= They only pro2e ;4ro their pre ises< that the +zar is not responsible to "ussia. They do not pro2e that /da should not ha2e been punished by &od5 they only pro2e that the nearest sweater should not be punished by en. 6ith their oriental doubts about personality they do not a0e certain that we shall ha2e no personal li4e herea4ter5 they only a0e certain that we shall not ha2e a 2ery @olly or co plete one here. 6ith their paralysing hints o4 all conclusions co ing out wrong they do not tear the boo0 o4 the "ecording /ngel5 they only a0e it a little harder to 0eep the boo0s o4 3arshall J ,nelgro2e. -ot only is the 4aith the other o4 all worldly energies, but its 4oes are the 4athers o4 all worldly con4usion. The secularists ha2e not wrec0ed di2ine things5 but the secularists ha2e wrec0ed secular things, i4 that is any co 4ort to the . The Titans did not scale hea2en5 but they laid waste the world. '#9/:TH!"'T$ /-D TH) /D8)-T:")" TH) last chapter has been concerned with the contention that orthodoxy is not only ;as is o4ten urged< the only sa4e guardian o4 orality or order, but is also the only logical guardian o4 liberty, inno2ation and ad2ance. '4 we wish to pull down the prosperous oppressor we cannot do it with the new doctrine o4 hu an per4ectibility5 we can do it with the old doctrine o4 !riginal ,in. '4 we want to uproot inherent cruelties or li4t up lost populations we cannot do it with the scienti4ic theory that atter precedes ind5 we can do it with the supernatural theory that ind precedes atter. '4 we wish specially to awa0en people to social 2igilance and tireless pursuit o4 practise, we cannot help it uch by insisting on the ' anent &od and the 'nner (ightA 4or these are at best reasons 4or content ent5 we can help it uch by insisting on the transcendent &od and the 4lying and escaping glea 5 4or that eans di2ine discontent. '4 we wish particularly to assert the idea o4 a generous balance against that o4 a dread4ul autocracy we shall instincti2ely be Trinitarian rather than :nitarian. '4 we desire )uropean ci2ilization to be a raid and a rescue, we shall insist rather that souls are in real peril than that their peril is ulti ately unreal. /nd i4 we wish to exalt the outcast and the cruci4ied, we shall rather wish to thin0 that a 2eritable &od was cruci4ied, rather than a ere sage or hero. /bo2e all, i4 we wish to protect the poor we shall be in 4a2our o4 4ixed rules and clear dog as. The ":(), o4 a club are

occasionally in 4a2our o4 the poor e ber. The dri4t o4 a club is always in 4a2our o4 the rich one. /nd now we co e to the crucial >uestion which truly concludes the whole atter. / reasonable agnostic, i4 he has happened to agree with e so 4ar, ay @ustly turn round and say, 1$ou ha2e 4ound a practical philosophy in the doctrine o4 the .all5 2ery well. $ou ha2e 4ound a side o4 de ocracy now dangerously neglected wisely asserted in !riginal ,in5 all right. $ou ha2e 4ound a truth in the doctrine o4 hell5 ' congratulate you. $ou are con2inced that worshippers o4 a personal &od loo0 outwards and are progressi2e5 ' congratulate the . %ut e2en supposing that those doctrines do include those truths, why cannot you ta0e the truths and lea2e the doctrines= &ranted that all odern society is trusting the rich too uch because it does not allow 4or hu an wea0ness5 granted that orthodox ages ha2e had a great ad2antage because ;belie2ing in the .all< they did allow 4or hu an wea0ness, why cannot you si ply allow 4or hu an wea0ness without belie2ing in the .all= '4 you ha2e disco2ered that the idea o4 da nation represents a healthy idea o4 danger, why can you not si ply ta0e the idea o4 danger and lea2e the idea o4 da nation= '4 you see clearly the 0ernel o4 co on?sense in the nut o4 +hristian orthodoxy, why cannot you si ply ta0e the 0ernel and lea2e the nut= 6hy cannot you ;to use that cant phrase o4 the newspapers which ', as a highly scholarly agnostic, a a little asha ed o4 using< why cannot you si ply ta0e what is good in +hristianity, what you can de4ine as 2aluable, what you can co prehend, and lea2e all the rest, all the absolute dog as that are in their nature inco prehensible=1 This is the real >uestion5 this is the last >uestion5 and it is a pleasure to try to answer it. The 4irst answer is si ply to say that ' a a rationalist. ' li0e to ha2e so e intellectual @usti4ication 4or y intuitions. '4 ' a treating an as a 4allen being it is an intellectual con2enience to e to belie2e that he 4ell5 and ' 4ind, 4or so e odd psychological reason, that ' can deal better with a an7s exercise o4 4reewill i4 ' belie2e that he has got it. %ut ' a in this atter yet ore de4initely a rationalist. ' do not propose to turn this boo0 into one o4 ordinary +hristian apologetics5 ' should be glad to eet at any other ti e the ene ies o4 +hristianity in that ore ob2ious arena. Here ' a only gi2ing an account o4 y own growth in spiritual certainty. %ut ' ay pause to re ar0 that the ore ' saw o4 the erely abstract argu ents against the +hristian cos ology the less ' thought o4 the . ' ean that ha2ing 4ound the oral at osphere o4 the 'ncarnation to be co on sense, ' then loo0ed at the established intellectual argu ents against the 'ncarnation and 4ound the to be co on nonsense. 'n case the argu ent should be thought to su44er 4ro the absence o4 the ordinary apologetic ' will here 2ery brie4ly su arise y own argu ents and conclusions on the purely ob@ecti2e or scienti4ic truth o4 the atter. '4 ' a as0ed, as a purely intellectual >uestion, why ' belie2e in +hristianity, ' can only answer, 1.or the sa e reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelie2es in +hristianity.1 ' belie2e in it >uite rationally upon the e2idence %ut the e2idence in y case, as in that o4 the intelligent agnostic, is not really

in this or that alleged de onstration5 it is in an enor ous accu ulation o4 s all but unani ous 4acts. The secularist is not to be bla ed because his ob@ections to +hristianity are iscellaneous and e2en scrappy5 it is precisely such scrappy e2idence that does con2ince the ind. ' ean that a an ay well be less con2inced o4 a philosophy 4ro 4our boo0s, than 4ro one boo0, one battle, one landscape, and one old 4riend. The 2ery 4act that the things are o4 di44erent 0inds increases the i portance o4 the 4act that they all point to one conclusion. -ow, the non? +hristianity o4 the a2erage educated an to?day is al ost always, to do hi @ustice, ade up o4 these loose but li2ing experiences. ' can only say that y e2idences 4or +hristianity are o4 the sa e 2i2id but 2aried 0ind as his e2idences against it. .or when ' loo0 at these 2arious anti?+hristian truths, ' si ply disco2er that none o4 the are true. ' disco2er that the true tide and 4orce o4 all the 4acts 4lows the other way. (et us ta0e cases. 3any a sensible odern an ust ha2e abandoned +hristianity under the pressure o4 three such con2erging con2ictions as theseA 4irst, that en, with their shape, structure, and sexuality, are, a4ter all, 2ery uch li0e beasts, a ere 2ariety o4 the ani al 0ingdo 5 second, that pri e2al religion arose in ignorance and 4ear5 third, that priests ha2e blighted societies with bitterness and gloo . Those three anti?+hristian argu ents are 2ery di44erent5 but they are all >uite logical and legiti ate5 and they all con2erge. The only ob@ection to the ;' disco2er< is that they are all untrue. '4 you lea2e o44 loo0ing at boo0s about beasts and en, i4 you begin to loo0 at beasts and en then ;i4 you ha2e any hu our or i agination, any sense o4 the 4rantic or the 4arcical< you will obser2e that the startling thing is not how li0e an is to the brutes, but how unli0e he is. 't is the onstrous scale o4 his di2ergence that re>uires an explanation. That an and brute are li0e is, in a sense, a truis 5 but that being so li0e they should then be so insanely unli0e, that is the shoc0 and the enig a. That an ape has hands is 4ar less interesting to the philosopher than the 4act that ha2ing hands he does next to nothing with the 5 does not play 0nuc0le?bones or the 2iolin5 does not car2e arble or car2e utton. People tal0 o4 barbaric architecture and debased art. %ut elephants do not build colossal te ples o4 i2ory e2en in a roccoco style5 ca els do not paint e2en bad pictures, though e>uipped with the aterial o4 any ca el7s?hair brushes. +ertain odern drea ers say that ants and bees ha2e a society superior to ours. They ha2e, indeed, a ci2ilization5 but that 2ery truth only re inds us that it is an in4erior ci2ilization. 6ho e2er 4ound an ant?hill decorated with the statues o4 celebrated ants= 6ho has seen a bee?hi2e car2ed with the i ages o4 gorgeous >ueens o4 old= -o5 the chas between an and other creatures ay ha2e a natural explanation, but it is a chas . 6e tal0 o4 wild ani als5 but an is the only wild ani al. 't is an that has bro0en out. /ll other ani als are ta e ani als5 4ollowing the rugged respectability o4 the tribe or type. /ll other ani als are do estic ani als5 an alone is e2er undo estic, either as a pro4ligate or a on0. ,o that this 4irst super4icial reason 4or aterialis is, i4 anything, a reason 4or its opposite5 it is exactly where biology lea2es o44 that all religion begins.

't would be the sa e i4 ' exa ined the second o4 the three chance rationalist argu ents5 the argu ent that all that we call di2ine began in so e dar0ness and terror. 6hen ' did atte pt to exa ine the 4oundations o4 this odern idea ' si ply 4ound that there were none. ,cience 0nows nothing whate2er about pre?historic an5 4or the excellent reason that he is pre?historic. / 4ew pro4essors choose to con@ecture that such things as hu an sacri4ice were once innocent and general and that they gradually dwindled5 but there is no direct e2idence o4 it, and the s all a ount o4 indirect e2idence is 2ery uch the other way. 'n the earliest legends we ha2e, such as the tales o4 'saac and o4 'phigenia, hu an sacri4ice is not introduced as so ething old, but rather as so ething new5 as a strange and 4right4ul exception dar0ly de anded by the gods. History says nothing5 and legends all say that the earth was 0inder in its earliest ti e. There is no tradition o4 progress5 but the whole hu an race has a tradition o4 the .all. / usingly enough, indeed, the 2ery disse ination o4 this idea is used against its authenticity. (earned en literally say that this pre?historic cala ity cannot be true because e2ery race o4 an0ind re e bers it. ' cannot 0eep pace with these paradoxes. /nd i4 we too0 the third chance instance, it would be the sa e5 the 2iew that priests dar0en and e bitter the world. ' loo0 at the world and si ply disco2er that they don7t. Those countries in )urope which are still in4luenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open?air. +atholic doctrine and discipline ay be walls5 but they are the walls o4 a playground. +hristianity is the only 4ra e which has preser2ed the pleasure o4 Paganis . 6e ight 4ancy so e children playing on the 4lat grassy top o4 so e tall island in the sea. ,o long as there was a wall round the cli447s edge they could 4ling the sel2es into e2ery 4rantic ga e and a0e the place the noisiest o4 nurseries. %ut the walls were 0noc0ed down, lea2ing the na0ed peril o4 the precipice. They did not 4all o2er5 but when their 4riends returned to the they were all huddled in terror in the centre o4 the island5 and their song had ceased. Thus these three 4acts o4 experience, such 4acts as go to a0e an agnostic, are, in this 2iew, turned totally round. ' a le4t saying, 1&i2e e an explanation, 4irst, o4 the towering eccentricity o4 an a ong the brutes5 second, o4 the 2ast hu an tradition o4 so e ancient happiness5 third, o4 the partial perpetuation o4 such pagan @oy in the countries o4 the +atholic +hurch.1 !ne explanation, at any rate, co2ers all threeA the theory that twice was the natural order interrupted by so e explosion or re2elation such as people now call 1psychic.1 !nce Hea2en ca e upon the earth with a power or seal called the i age o4 &od, whereby an too0 co and o4 -ature5 and once again ;when in e pire a4ter e pire en had been 4ound wanting< Hea2en ca e to sa2e an0ind in the aw4ul shape o4 a an. This would explain why the ass o4 en always loo0 bac0wards5 and why the only corner where they in any sense loo0 4orwards is the little continent where +hrist has His +hurch. ' 0now it will be said that Bapan has beco e progressi2e. %ut how can this be an answer when e2en in saying 1Bapan has beco e progressi2e,1 we really only ean, 1Bapan

has beco e )uropean1= %ut ' wish here not so uch to insist on y own explanation as to insist on y original re ar0. ' agree with the ordinary unbelie2ing an in the street in being guided by three or 4our odd 4acts all pointing to so ething5 only when ' ca e to loo0 at the 4acts ' always 4ound they pointed to so ething else. ' ha2e gi2en an i aginary triad o4 such ordinary anti? +hristian argu ents5 i4 that be too narrow a basis ' will gi2e on the spur o4 the o ent another. These are the 0ind o4 thoughts which in co bination create the i pression that +hristianity is so ething wea0 and diseased. .irst, 4or instance, that Besus was a gentle creature, sheepish and unworldly, a ere ine44ectual appeal to the world5 second, that +hristianity arose and 4lourished in the dar0 ages o4 ignorance, and that to these the +hurch would drag us bac05 third, that the people still strongly religious or ;i4 you will< superstitious ?? such people as the 'rish ?? are wea0, unpractical, and behind the ti es. ' only ention these ideas to a44ir the sa e thingA that when ' loo0ed into the independently ' 4ound, not that the conclusions were unphilosophical, but si ply that the 4acts were not 4acts. 'nstead o4 loo0ing at boo0s and pictures about the -ew Testa ent ' loo0ed at the -ew Testa ent. There ' 4ound an account, not in the least o4 a person with his hair parted in the iddle or his hands clasped in appeal, but o4 an extraordinary being with lips o4 thunder and acts o4 lurid decision, 4linging down tables, casting out de2ils, passing with the wild secrecy o4 the wind 4ro ountain isolation to a sort o4 dread4ul de agogy5 a being who o4ten acted li0e an angry god ?? and always li0e a god. +hrist had e2en a literary style o4 his own, not to be 4ound, ' thin0, elsewhere5 it consists o4 an al ost 4urious use o4 the / .!"T'!"'. His 1how uch ore1 is piled one upon another li0e castle upon castle in the clouds. The diction used /%!:T +hrist has been, and perhaps wisely, sweet and sub issi2e. %ut the diction used by +hrist is >uite curiously gigantes>ue5 it is 4ull o4 ca els leaping through needles and ountains hurled into the sea. 3orally it is e>ually terri4ic5 he called hi sel4 a sword o4 slaughter, and told en to buy swords i4 they sold their coats 4or the . That he used other e2en wilder words on the side o4 non?resistance greatly increases the ystery5 but it also, i4 anything, rather increases the 2iolence. 6e cannot e2en explain it by calling such a being insane5 4or insanity is usually along one consistent channel. The aniac is generally a ono aniac. Here we ust re e ber the di44icult de4inition o4 +hristianity already gi2en5 +hristianity is a superhu an paradox whereby two opposite passions ay blaze beside each other. The one explanation o4 the &ospel language that does explain it, is that it is the sur2ey o4 one who 4ro so e supernatural height beholds so e ore startling synthesis. ' ta0e in order the next instance o44eredA the idea that +hristianity belongs to the Dar0 /ges. Here ' did not satis4y ysel4 with reading odern generalisations5 ' read a little history. /nd in history ' 4ound that +hristianity, so 4ar 4ro belonging to the Dar0 /ges, was the one path across the Dar0 /ges that was not dar0. 't was a shining bridge connecting two shining

ci2ilizations. '4 any one says that the 4aith arose in ignorance and sa2agery the answer is si pleA it didn7t. 't arose in the 3editerranean ci2ilization in the 4ull su er o4 the "o an ) pire. The world was swar ing with sceptics, and pantheis was as plain as the sun, when +onstantine nailed the cross to the ast. 't is per4ectly true that a4terwards the ship san05 but it is 4ar ore extraordinary that the ship ca e up againA repainted and glittering, with the cross still at the top. This is the a azing thing the religion didA it turned a sun0en ship into a sub arine. The ar0 li2ed under the load o4 waters5 a4ter being buried under the debris o4 dynasties and clans, we arose and re e bered "o e. '4 our 4aith had been a ere 4ad o4 the 4ading e pire, 4ad would ha2e 4ollowed 4ad in the twilight, and i4 the ci2ilization e2er re?e erged ;and any such ha2e ne2er re?e erged< it would ha2e been under so e new barbaric 4lag. %ut the +hristian +hurch was the last li4e o4 the old society and was also the 4irst li4e o4 the new. ,he too0 the people who were 4orgetting how to a0e an arch and she taught the to in2ent the &othic arch. 'n a word, the ost absurd thing that could be said o4 the +hurch is the thing we ha2e all heard said o4 it. How can we say that the +hurch wishes to bring us bac0 into the Dar0 /ges= The +hurch was the only thing that e2er brought us out o4 the . ' added in this second trinity o4 ob@ections an idle instance ta0en 4ro those who 4eel such people as the 'rish to be wea0ened or ade stagnant by superstition. ' only added it because this is a peculiar case o4 a state ent o4 4act that turns out to be a state ent o4 4alsehood. 't is constantly said o4 the 'rish that they are i practical. %ut i4 we re4rain 4or a o ent 4ro loo0ing at what is said about the and loo0 at what is D!-) about the , we shall see that the 'rish are not only practical, but >uite pain4ully success4ul. The po2erty o4 their country, the inority o4 their e bers are si ply the conditions under which they were as0ed to wor05 but no other group in the %ritish ) pire has done so uch with such conditions. The -ationalists were the only inority that e2er succeeded in twisting the whole %ritish Parlia ent sharply out o4 its path. The 'rish peasants are the only poor en in these islands who ha2e 4orced their asters to disgorge. These people, who we call priest?ridden, are the only %ritons who will not be s>uire?ridden. /nd when ' ca e to loo0 at the actual 'rish character, the case was the sa e. 'rish en are best at the specially H/"D pro4essions ?? the trades o4 iron, the lawyer, and the soldier. 'n all these cases, there4ore, ' ca e bac0 to the sa e conclusionA the sceptic was >uite right to go by the 4acts, only he had not loo0ed at the 4acts. The sceptic is too credulous5 he belie2es in newspapers or e2en in encyclopedias. /gain the three >uestions le4t e with three 2ery antagonistic >uestions. The a2erage sceptic wanted to 0now how ' explained the na by?pa by note in the &ospel, the connection o4 the creed with ediae2al dar0ness and the political i practicability o4 the +eltic +hristians. %ut ' wanted to as0, and to as0 with an earnestness a ounting to urgency, 16hat is this inco parable energy which appears 4irst in one wal0ing the earth li0e a li2ing @udg ent and this energy which can die with a dying ci2ilization and yet 4orce it to a resurrection 4ro the dead5 this energy

which last o4 all can in4la e a ban0rupt peasantry with so 4ixed a 4aith in @ustice that they get what they as0, while others go e pty away5 so that the ost helpless island o4 the ) pire can actually help itsel4=1 There is an answerA it is an answer to say that the energy is truly 4ro outside the world5 that it is psychic, or at least one o4 the results o4 a real psychical disturbance. The highest gratitude and respect are due to the great hu an ci2ilizations such as the old )gyptian or the existing +hinese. -e2ertheless it is no in@ustice 4or the to say that only odern )urope has exhibited incessantly a power o4 sel4?renewal recurring o4ten at the shortest inter2als and descending to the s allest 4acts o4 building or costu e. /ll other societies die 4inally and with dignity. 6e die daily. 6e are always being born again with al ost indecent obstetrics. 't is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is in historic +hristendo a sort o4 unnatural li4eA it could be explained as a supernatural li4e. 't could be explained as an aw4ul gal2anic li4e wor0ing in what would ha2e been a corpse. .or our ci2ilization !:&HT to ha2e died, by all parallels, by all sociological probability, in the "agnora0 o4 the end o4 "o e. That is the weird inspiration o4 our estateA you and ' ha2e no business to be here at all. 6e are all ")8)-/-T,5 all li2ing +hristians are dead pagans wal0ing about. Bust as )urope was about to be gathered in silence to /ssyria and %abylon, so ething entered into its body. /nd )urope has had a strange li4e ?? it is not too uch to say that it has had the B:3P, ?? e2er since. ' ha2e dealt at length with such typical triads o4 doubt in order to con2ey the ain contention ?? that y own case 4or +hristianity is rational5 but it is not si ple. 't is an accu ulation o4 2aried 4acts, li0e the attitude o4 the ordinary agnostic. %ut the ordinary agnostic has got his 4acts all wrong. He is a non?belie2er 4or a ultitude o4 reasons5 but they are untrue reasons. He doubts because the 3iddle /ges were barbaric, but they weren7t5 because Darwinis is de onstrated, but it isn7t5 because iracles do not happen, but they do5 because on0s were lazy, but they were 2ery industrious5 because nuns are unhappy, but they are particularly cheer4ul5 because +hristian art was sad and pale, but it was pic0ed out in peculiarly bright colours and gay with gold5 because odern science is o2ing away 4ro the supernatural, but it isn7t, it is o2ing towards the supernatural with the rapidity o4 a railway train. %ut a ong these illion 4acts all 4lowing one way there is, o4 course, one >uestion su44iciently solid and separate to be treated brie4ly, but by itsel45 ' ean the ob@ecti2e occurrence o4 the supernatural. 'n another chapter ' ha2e indicated the 4allacy o4 the ordinary supposition that the world ust be i personal because it is orderly. / person is @ust as li0ely to desire an orderly thing as a disorderly thing. %ut y own positi2e con2iction that personal creation is ore concei2able than aterial 4ate, is, ' ad it, in a sense, undiscussable. ' will not call it a 4aith or an intuition, 4or those words are ixed up with ere e otion, it is strictly an intellectual con2iction5 but it is a P"'3/"$ intellectual con2iction li0e the certainty o4 sel4 o4 the good o4 li2ing. /ny one who li0es, there4ore, ay call y

belie4 in &od erely ystical5 the phrase is not worth 4ighting about. %ut y belie4 that iracles ha2e happened in hu an history is not a ystical belie4 at all5 ' belie2e in the upon hu an e2idences as ' do in the disco2ery o4 / erica. :pon this point there is a si ple logical 4act that only re>uires to be stated and cleared up. ,o ehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelie2ers in iracles consider the coldly and 4airly, while belie2ers in iracles accept the only in connection with so e dog a. The 4act is >uite the other way. The belie2ers in iracles accept the ;rightly or wrongly< because they ha2e e2idence 4or the . The disbelie2ers in iracles deny the ;rightly or wrongly< because they ha2e a doctrine against the . The open, ob2ious, de ocratic thing is to belie2e an old apple?wo an when she bears testi ony to a iracle, @ust as you belie2e an old apple?wo an when she bears testi ony to a urder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant7s word about the ghost exactly as 4ar as you trust the peasant7s word about the landlord. %eing a peasant he will probably ha2e a great deal o4 healthy agnosticis about both. ,till you could 4ill the %ritish 3useu with e2idence uttered by the peasant, and gi2en in 4a2our o4 the ghost. '4 it co es to hu an testi ony there is a cho0ing cataract o4 hu an testi ony in 4a2our o4 the supernatural. '4 you re@ect it, you can only ean one o4 two things. $ou re@ect the peasant7s story about the ghost either because the an is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the ain principle o4 de ocracy, or you a44ir the ain principle o4 aterialis ?? the abstract i possibility o4 iracle. $ou ha2e a per4ect right to do so5 but in that case you are the dog atist. 't is we +hristians who accept all actual e2idence ?? it is you rationalists who re4use actual e2idence being constrained to do so by your creed. %ut ' a not constrained by any creed in the atter, and loo0ing i partially into certain iracles o4 ediae2al and odern ti es, ' ha2e co e to the conclusion that they occurred. /ll argu ent against these plain 4acts is always argu ent in a circle. '4 ' say, 13ediae2al docu ents attest certain iracles as uch as they attest certain battles,1 they answer, 1%ut ediae2als were superstitious15 i4 ' want to 0now in what they were superstitious, the only ulti ate answer is that they belie2ed in the iracles. '4 ' say 1a peasant saw a ghost,1 ' a told, 1%ut peasants are so credulous.1 '4 ' as0, 16hy credulous=1 the only answer is ?? that they see ghosts. 'celand is i possible because only stupid sailors ha2e seen it5 and the sailors are only stupid because they say they ha2e seen 'celand. 't is only 4air to add that there is another argu ent that the unbelie2er ay rationally use against iracles, though he hi sel4 generally 4orgets to use it. He ay say that there has been in any iraculous stories a notion o4 spiritual preparation and acceptanceA in short, that the iracle could only co e to hi who belie2ed in it. 't ay be so, and i4 it is so how are we to test it= '4 we are in>uiring whether certain results 4ollow 4aith, it is useless to repeat wearily that ;i4 they happen< they do 4ollow 4aith. '4 4aith is one o4 the conditions, those without 4aith ha2e a ost healthy right to laugh. %ut they ha2e no right to @udge. %eing a belie2er ay be,

i4 you li0e, as bad as being drun05 still i4 we were extracting psychological 4acts 4ro drun0ards, it would be absurd to be always taunting the with ha2ing been drun0. ,uppose we were in2estigating whether angry en really saw a red ist be4ore their eyes. ,uppose sixty excellent householders swore that when angry they had seen this cri son cloudA surely it would be absurd to answer 1!h, but you ad it you were angry at the ti e.1 They ight reasonably re@oin ;in a stentorian chorus<, 1How the blazes could we disco2er, without being angry, whether angry people see red=1 ,o the saints and ascetics ight rationally reply, 1,uppose that the >uestion is whether belie2ers can see 2isions ?? e2en then, i4 you are interested in 2isions it is no point to ob@ect to belie2ers.1 $ou are still arguing in a circle ?? in that old ad circle with which this boo0 began. The >uestion o4 whether iracles e2er occur is a >uestion o4 co on sense and o4 ordinary historical i aginationA not o4 any 4inal physical experi ent. !ne ay here surely dis iss that >uite brainless piece o4 pedantry which tal0s about the need 4or 1scienti4ic conditions1 in connection with alleged spiritual pheno ena. '4 we are as0ing whether a dead soul can co unicate with a li2ing it is ludicrous to insist that it shall be under conditions in which no two li2ing souls in their senses would seriously co unicate with each other. The 4act that ghosts pre4er dar0ness no ore dispro2es the existence o4 ghosts than the 4act that lo2ers pre4er dar0ness dispro2es the existence o4 lo2e. '4 you choose to say, 1' will belie2e that 3iss %rown called her 4iancK a periwin0le or, any other endearing ter , i4 she will repeat the word be4ore se2enteen psychologists,1 then ' shall reply, 18ery well, i4 those are your conditions, you will ne2er get the truth, 4or she certainly will not say it.1 't is @ust as unscienti4ic as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsy pathetic at osphere certain extraordinary sy pathies do not arise. 't is as i4 ' said that ' could not tell i4 there was a 4og because the air was not clear enough5 or as i4 ' insisted on per4ect sunlight in order to see a solar eclipse. /s a co on?sense conclusion, such as those to which we co e about sex or about idnight ;well 0nowing that any details ust in their own nature be concealed< ' conclude that iracles do happen. ' a 4orced to it by a conspiracy o4 4actsA the 4act that the en who encounter el2es or angels are not the ystics and the orbid drea ers, but 4isher en, 4ar ers, and all en at once coarse and cautious5 the 4act that we all 0now en who testi4y to spiritualistic incidents but are not spiritualists, the 4act that science itsel4 ad its such things ore and ore e2ery day. ,cience will e2en ad it the /scension i4 you call it (e2itation, and will 2ery li0ely ad it the "esurrection when it has thought o4 another word 4or it. ' suggest the "egal2anisation. %ut the strongest o4 all is the dile a abo2e entioned, that these supernatural things are ne2er denied except on the basis either o4 anti?de ocracy or o4 aterialist dog atis ?? ' ay say aterialist ysticis . The sceptic always ta0es one o4 the two positions5 either an ordinary an need not be belie2ed, or an extraordinary e2ent ust not be belie2ed. .or ' hope we ay dis iss the argu ent against wonders atte pted in the ere recapitulation o4 4rauds, o4 swindling

ediu s or tric0 iracles. That is not an argu ent at all, good or bad. / 4alse ghost dispro2es the reality o4 ghosts exactly as uch as a 4orged ban0note dispro2es the existence o4 the %an0 o4 )ngland ?? i4 anything, it pro2es its existence. &i2en this con2iction that the spiritual pheno ena do occur ; y e2idence 4or which is co plex but rational<, we then collide with one o4 the worst ental e2ils o4 the age. The greatest disaster o4 the nineteenth century was thisA that en began to use the word 1spiritual1 as the sa e as the word 1good.1 They thought that to grow in re4ine ent and uncorporeality was to grow in 2irtue. 6hen scienti4ic e2olution was announced, so e 4eared that it would encourage ere ani ality. 't did worseA it encouraged ere spirituality. 't taught en to thin0 that so long as they were passing 4ro the ape they were going to the angel. %ut you can pass 4ro the ape and go to the de2il. / an o4 genius, 2ery typical o4 that ti e o4 bewilder ent, expressed it per4ectly. %en@a in Disraeli was right when he said he was on the side o4 the angels. He was indeed5 he was on the side o4 the 4allen angels. He was not on the side o4 any ere appetite or ani al brutality5 but he was on the side o4 all the i perialis o4 the princes o4 the abyss5 he was on the side o4 arrogance and ystery, and conte pt o4 all ob2ious good. %etween this sun0en pride and the towering hu ilities o4 hea2en there are, one ust suppose, spirits o4 shapes and sizes. 3an, in encountering the , ust a0e uch the sa e ista0es that he a0es in encountering any other 2aried types in any other distant continent. 't ust be hard at 4irst to 0now who is supre e and who is subordinate. '4 a shade arose 4ro the under world, and stared at Piccadilly, that shade would not >uite understand the idea o4 an ordinary closed carriage. He would suppose that the coach an on the box was a triu phant con>ueror, dragging behind hi a 0ic0ing and i prisoned capti2e. ,o, i4 we see spiritual 4acts 4or the 4irst ti e, we ay ista0e who is upper ost. 't is not enough to 4ind the gods5 they are ob2ious5 we ust 4ind &od, the real chie4 o4 the gods. 6e ust ha2e a long historic experience in supernatural pheno ena ?? in order to disco2er which are really natural. 'n this light ' 4ind the history o4 +hristianity, and e2en o4 its Hebrew origins, >uite practical and clear. 't does not trouble e to be told that the Hebrew god was one a ong any. ' 0now he was, without any research to tell e so. Beho2ah and %aal loo0ed e>ually i portant, @ust as the sun and the oon loo0ed the sa e size. 't is only slowly that we learn that the sun is i easurably our aster, and the s all oon only our satellite. %elie2ing that there is a world o4 spirits, ' shall wal0 in it as ' do in the world o4 en, loo0ing 4or the thing that ' li0e and thin0 good. Bust as ' should see0 in a desert 4or clean water, or toil at the -orth Pole to a0e a co 4ortable 4ire, so ' shall search the land o4 2oid and 2ision until ' 4ind so ething 4resh li0e water, and co 4orting li0e 4ire5 until ' 4ind so e place in eternity, where ' a literally at ho e. /nd there is only one such place to be 4ound. ' ha2e now said enough to show ;to any one to who such an explanation is essential< that ' ha2e in the ordinary arena o4 apologetics, a ground o4 belie4. 'n pure records o4 experi ent ;i4 these be ta0en de ocratically without conte pt or 4a2our< there is

e2idence 4irst, that iracles happen, and second that the nobler iracles belong to our tradition. %ut ' will not pretend that this curt discussion is y real reason 4or accepting +hristianity instead o4 ta0ing the oral good o4 +hristianity as ' should ta0e it out o4 +on4ucianis . ' ha2e another 4ar ore solid and central ground 4or sub itting to it as a 4aith, instead o4 erely pic0ing up hints 4ro it as a sche e. /nd that is thisA that the +hristian +hurch in its practical relation to y soul is a li2ing teacher, not a dead one. 't not only certainly taught e yesterday, but will al ost certainly teach e to? orrow. !nce ' saw suddenly the eaning o4 the shape o4 the cross5 so e day ' ay see suddenly the eaning o4 the shape o4 the itre. !ne 4ree orning ' saw why windows were pointed5 so e 4ine orning ' ay see why priests were sha2en. Plato has told you a truth5 but Plato is dead. ,ha0espeare has startled you with an i age5 but ,ha0espeare will not startle you with any ore. %ut i agine what it would be to li2e with such en still li2ing, to 0now that Plato ight brea0 out with an original lecture to? orrow, or that at any o ent ,ha0espeare ight shatter e2erything with a single song. The an who li2es in contact with what he belie2es to be a li2ing +hurch is a an always expecting to eet Plato and ,ha0espeare to? orrow at brea04ast. He is always expecting to see so e truth that he has ne2er seen be4ore. There is one only other parallel to this position5 and that is the parallel o4 the li4e in which we all began. 6hen your 4ather told you, wal0ing about the garden, that bees stung or that roses s elt sweet, you did not tal0 o4 ta0ing the best out o4 his philosophy. 6hen the bees stung you, you did not call it an entertaining coincidence. 6hen the rose s elt sweet you did not say 13y 4ather is a rude, barbaric sy bol, enshrining ;perhaps unconsciously< the deep delicate truths that 4lowers s ell.1 -oA you belie2ed your 4ather, because you had 4ound hi to be a li2ing 4ountain o4 4acts, a thing that really 0new ore than you5 a thing that would tell you truth to? orrow, as well as to? day. /nd i4 this was true o4 your 4ather, it was e2en truer o4 your other5 at least it was true o4 ine, to who this boo0 is dedicated. -ow, when society is in a rather 4utile 4uss about the sub@ection o4 wo en, will no one say how uch e2ery an owes to the tyranny and pri2ilege o4 wo en, to the 4act that they alone rule education until education beco es 4utileA 4or a boy is only sent to be taught at school when it is too late to teach hi anything. The real thing has been done already, and than0 &od it is nearly always done by wo en. )2ery an is wo anised, erely by being born. They tal0 o4 the asculine wo an5 but e2ery an is a 4e inised an. /nd i4 e2er en wal0 to 6est inster to protest against this 4e ale pri2ilege, ' shall not @oin their procession. .or ' re e ber with certainty this 4ixed psychological 4act5 that the 2ery ti e when ' was ost under a wo an7s authority, ' was ost 4ull o4 4la e and ad2enture. )xactly because when y other said that ants bit they did bite, and because snow did co e in winter ;as she said<5 there4ore the whole world was to e a 4airyland o4 wonder4ul 4ul4il ents, and it was li0e li2ing in so e Hebraic age, when prophecy a4ter prophecy ca e true. ' went out as a child into the garden, and it was a terrible place to e,

precisely because ' had a clue to itA i4 ' had held no clue it would not ha2e been terrible, but ta e. / ere un eaning wilderness is not e2en i pressi2e. %ut the garden o4 childhood was 4ascinating, exactly because e2erything had a 4ixed eaning which could be 4ound out in its turn. 'nch by inch ' ight disco2er what was the ob@ect o4 the ugly shape called a ra0e5 or 4or so e shadowy con@ecture as to why y parents 0ept a cat. ,o, since ' ha2e accepted +hristendo as a other and not erely as a chance exa ple, ' ha2e 4ound )urope and the world once ore li0e the little garden where ' stared at the sy bolic shapes o4 cat and ra0e5 ' loo0 at e2erything with the old el2ish ignorance and expectancy. This or that rite or doctrine ay loo0 as ugly and extraordinary as a ra0e5 but ' ha2e 4ound by experience that such things end so ehow in grass and 4lowers. / clergy an ay be apparently as useless as a cat, but he is also as 4ascinating, 4or there ust be so e strange reason 4or his existence. ' gi2e one instance out o4 a hundred5 ' ha2e not ysel4 any instincti2e 0inship with that enthusias 4or physical 2irginity, which has certainly been a note o4 historic +hristianity. %ut when ' loo0 not at ysel4 but at the world, ' percei2e that this enthusias is not only a note o4 +hristianity, but a note o4 Paganis , a note o4 high hu an nature in any spheres. The &ree0s 4elt 2irginity when they car2ed /rte is, the "o ans when they robed the 2estals, the worst and wildest o4 the great )lizabethan playwrights clung to the literal purity o4 a wo an as to the central pillar o4 the world. /bo2e all, the odern world ;e2en while oc0ing sexual innocence< has 4lung itsel4 into a generous idolatry o4 sexual innocence ?? the great odern worship o4 children. .or any an who lo2es children will agree that their peculiar beauty is hurt by a hint o4 physical sex. 6ith all this hu an experience, allied with the +hristian authority, ' si ply conclude that ' a wrong, and the church right5 or rather that ' a de4ecti2e, while the church is uni2ersal. 't ta0es all sorts to a0e a church5 she does not as0 e to be celibate. %ut the 4act that ' ha2e no appreciation o4 the celibates, ' accept li0e the 4act that ' ha2e no ear 4or usic. The best hu an experience is against e, as it is on the sub@ect o4 %ach. +elibacy is one 4lower in y 4ather7s garden, o4 which ' ha2e not been told the sweet or terrible na e. %ut ' ay be told it any day. This, there4ore, is, in conclusion, y reason 4or accepting the religion and not erely the scattered and secular truths out o4 the religion. ' do it because the thing has not erely told this truth or that truth, but has re2ealed itsel4 as a truth? telling thing. /ll other philosophies say the things that plainly see to be true5 only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not see to be true, but is true. /lone o4 all creeds it is con2incing where it is not attracti2e5 it turns out to be right, li0e y 4ather in the garden. Theosophists 4or instance will preach an ob2iously attracti2e idea li0e re? incarnation5 but i4 we wait 4or its logical results, they are spiritual superciliousness and the cruelty o4 caste. .or i4 a an is a beggar by his own pre?natal sins, people will tend to despise the beggar. %ut +hristianity preaches an ob2iously unattracti2e

idea, such as original sin5 but when we wait 4or its results, they are pathos and brotherhood, and a thunder o4 laughter and pity5 4or only with original sin we can at once pity the beggar and distrust the 0ing. 3en o4 science o44er us health, an ob2ious bene4it5 it is only a4terwards that we disco2er that by health, they ean bodily sla2ery and spiritual tediu . !rthodoxy a0es us @u p by the sudden brin0 o4 hell5 it is only a4terwards that we realise that @u ping was an athletic exercise highly bene4icial to our health. 't is only a4terwards that we realise that this danger is the root o4 all dra a and ro ance. The strongest argu ent 4or the di2ine grace is si ply its ungraciousness. The unpopular parts o4 +hristianity turn out when exa ined to be the 2ery props o4 the people. The outer ring o4 +hristianity is a rigid guard o4 ethical abnegations and pro4essional priests5 but inside that inhu an guard you will 4ind the old hu an li4e dancing li0e children, and drin0ing wine li0e en5 4or +hristianity is the only 4ra e 4or pagan 4reedo . %ut in the odern philosophy the case is opposite5 it is its outer ring that is ob2iously artistic and e ancipated5 its despair is within. /nd its despair is this, that it does not really belie2e that there is any eaning in the uni2erse5 there4ore it cannot hope to 4ind any ro ance5 its ro ances will ha2e no plots. / an cannot expect any ad2entures in the land o4 anarchy. %ut a an can expect any nu ber o4 ad2entures i4 he goes tra2elling in the land o4 authority. !ne can 4ind no eanings in a @ungle o4 scepticis 5 but the an will 4ind ore and ore eanings who wal0s through a 4orest o4 doctrine and design. Here e2erything has a story tied to its tail, li0e the tools or pictures in y 4ather7s house5 4or it is y 4ather7s house. ' end where ' began ?? at the right end. ' ha2e entered at least the gate o4 all good philosophy. ' ha2e co e into y second childhood. %ut this larger and ore ad2enturous +hristian uni2erse has one 4inal ar0 di44icult to express5 yet as a conclusion o4 the whole atter ' will atte pt to express it. /ll the real argu ent about religion turns on the >uestion o4 whether a an who was born upside down can tell when he co es right way up. The pri ary paradox o4 +hristianity is that the ordinary condition o4 an is not his sane or sensible condition5 that the nor al itsel4 is an abnor ality. That is the in ost philosophy o4 the .all. 'n ,ir !li2er (odge7s interesting new +atechis , the 4irst two >uestions wereA 16hat are you=1 and 16hat, then, is the eaning o4 the .all o4 3an=1 ' re e ber a using ysel4 by writing y own answers to the >uestions5 but ' soon 4ound that they were 2ery bro0en and agnostic answers. To the >uestion, 16hat are you=1 ' could only answer, 1&od 0nows.1 /nd to the >uestion, 16hat is eant by the .all=1 ' could answer with co plete sincerity, 1That whate2er ' a , ' a not ysel4.1 This is the pri e paradox o4 our religion5 so ething that we ha2e ne2er in any 4ull sense 0nown, is not only better than oursel2es, but e2en ore natural to us than oursel2es. /nd there is really no test o4 this except the erely experi ental one with which these pages began, the test o4 the padded cell and the open door. 't is only since ' ha2e 0nown orthodoxy that ' ha2e 0nown ental e ancipation. %ut, in conclusion, it has one special application to the ulti ate idea o4 @oy.

't is said that Paganis is a religion o4 @oy and +hristianity o4 sorrow5 it would be @ust as easy to pro2e that Paganis is pure sorrow and +hristianity pure @oy. ,uch con4licts ean nothing and lead nowhere. )2erything hu an ust ha2e in it both @oy and sorrow5 the only atter o4 interest is the anner in which the two things are balanced or di2ided. /nd the really interesting thing is this, that the pagan was ;in the ain< happier and happier as he approached the earth, but sadder and sadder as he approached the hea2ens. The gaiety o4 the best Paganis , as in the play4ulness o4 +atullus or Theocritus, is, indeed, an eternal gaiety ne2er to be 4orgotten by a grate4ul hu anity. %ut it is all a gaiety about the 4acts o4 li4e, not about its origin. To the pagan the s all things are as sweet as the s all broo0s brea0ing out o4 the ountain5 but the broad things are as bitter as the sea. 6hen the pagan loo0s at the 2ery core o4 the cos os he is struc0 cold. %ehind the gods, who are erely despotic, sit the 4ates, who are deadly. -ay, the 4ates are worse than deadly5 they are dead. /nd when rationalists say that the ancient world was ore enlightened than the +hristian, 4ro their point o4 2iew they are right. .or when they say 1enlightened1 they ean dar0ened with incurable despair. 't is pro4oundly true that the ancient world was ore odern than the +hristian. The co on bond is in the 4act that ancients and oderns ha2e both been iserable about existence, about e2erything, while ediae2als were happy about that at least. ' 4reely grant that the pagans, li0e the oderns, were only iserable about e2erything ?? they were >uite @olly about e2erything else. ' concede that the +hristians o4 the 3iddle /ges were only at peace about e2erything ?? they were at war about e2erything else. %ut i4 the >uestion turn on the pri ary pi2ot o4 the cos os, then there was ore cos ic content ent in the narrow and bloody streets o4 .lorence than in the theatre o4 /thens or the open garden o4 )picurus. &iotto li2ed in a gloo ier town than )uripides, but he li2ed in a gayer uni2erse. The ass o4 en ha2e been 4orced to be gay about the little things, but sad about the big ones. -e2ertheless ;' o44er y last dog a de4iantly< it is not nati2e to an to be so. 3an is ore hi sel4, an is ore anli0e, when @oy is the 4unda ental thing in hi , and grie4 the super4icial. 3elancholy should be an innocent interlude, a tender and 4ugiti2e 4ra e o4 ind5 praise should be the per anent pulsation o4 the soul. Pessi is is at best an e otional hal4?holiday5 @oy is the uproarious labour by which all things li2e. $et, according to the apparent estate o4 an as seen by the pagan or the agnostic, this pri ary need o4 hu an nature can ne2er be 4ul4illed. Boy ought to be expansi2e5 but 4or the agnostic it ust be contracted, it ust cling to one co er o4 the world. &rie4 ought to be a concentration5 but 4or the agnostic its desolation is spread through an unthin0able eternity. This is what ' call being born upside down. The sceptic ay truly be said to be topsy?tur2y5 4or his 4eet are dancing upwards in idle ecstacies, while his brain is in the abyss. To the odern an the hea2ens are actually below the earth. The explanation is si ple5 he is standing on his head5 which is a 2ery wea0 pedestal to stand on. %ut when he has 4ound his 4eet again he 0nows it. +hristianity

satis4ies suddenly and per4ectly an7s ancestral instinct 4or being the right way up5 satis4ies it supre ely in this5 that by its creed @oy beco es so ething gigantic and sadness so ething special and s all. The 2ault abo2e us is not dea4 because the uni2erse is an idiot5 the silence is not the heartless silence o4 an endless and ai less world. "ather the silence around us is a s all and piti4ul stillness li0e the pro pt stillness in a sic0? roo . 6e are perhaps per itted tragedy as a sort o4 erci4ul co edyA because the 4rantic energy o4 di2ine things would 0noc0 us down li0e a drun0en 4arce. 6e can ta0e our own tears ore lightly than we could ta0e the tre endous le2ities o4 the angels. ,o we sit perhaps in a starry cha ber o4 silence, while the laughter o4 the hea2ens is too loud 4or us to hear. Boy, which was the s all publicity o4 the pagan, is the gigantic secret o4 the +hristian. /nd as ' close this chaotic 2olu e ' open again the strange s all boo0 4ro which all +hristianity ca e5 and ' a again haunted by a 0ind o4 con4ir ation. The tre endous 4igure which 4ills the &ospels towers in this respect, as in e2ery other, abo2e all the thin0ers who e2er thought the sel2es tall. His pathos was natural, al ost casual. The ,toics, ancient and odern, were proud o4 concealing their tears. He ne2er concealed His tears5 He showed the plainly on His open 4ace at any daily sight, such as the 4ar sight o4 His nati2e city. $et He concealed so ething. ,ole n super en and i perial diplo atists are proud o4 restraining their anger. He ne2er restrained His anger. He 4lung 4urniture down the 4ront steps o4 the Te ple, and as0ed en how they expected to escape the da nation o4 Hell. $et He restrained so ething. ' say it with re2erence5 there was in that shattering personality a thread that ust be called shyness. There was so ething that He hid 4ro all en when He went up a ountain to pray. There was so ething that He co2ered constantly by abrupt silence or i petuous isolation. There was so e one thing that was too great 4or &od to show us when He wal0ed upon our earth5 and ' ha2e so eti es 4ancied that it was His irth.