Apologetics; Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith), 1874-1936; Christianity -- Essence, genius, nature
And if we took the third chance instance, it would be the same; the view
that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and
simply discover that they don't. Those countries in Europe which are
still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is
still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air.
Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of
a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the
pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat
grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall
round the cliff's edge they could fling themselves into every frantic
game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were
knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not
fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled
in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.
Thus these three facts of experience, such facts as go to make an
agnostic, are, in this view, turned totally round. I am left saying,
"Give me an explanation, first, of the towering eccentricity of man
among the brutes; second, of the vast human tradition of some ancient
happiness; third, of the partial perpetuation of such pagan joy in the
countries of the Catholic Church." One explanation, at any rate, covers
all three: the theory that twice was the natural order interrupted by
some explosion or revelation such as people now call "psychic." Once
Heaven came upon the earth with a power or seal called the image of God,
whereby man took command of Nature; and once again (when in empire after
empire men had been found wanting) Heaven came to save mankind in the
awful shape of a man. This would explain why the mass of men always look
backwards; and why the only corner where they in any sense look forwards
is the little continent where Christ has His Church. I know it will be
said that Japan has become progressive. But how can this be an answer
when even in saying "Japan has become progressive," we really only mean,
"Japan has become European"? But I wish here not so much to insist on my
own explanation as to insist on my original remark. I agree with the
ordinary unbelieving man in the street in being guided by three or four
odd facts all pointing to something; only when I came to look at the
facts I always found they pointed to something else.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account