When I had written this down, I felt once again the presence of something else in the discussion:  as a man hears a church bell above the sound of the street.  Something seemed to be saying, “My ideal at least is fixed; for it was fixed before the foundations of the world.  My vision of perfection assuredly cannot be altered; for it is called Eden.  You may alter the place to which you are going; but you cannot alter the place from which you have come.  To the orthodox there must always be a case for revolution; for in the hearts of men God has been put under the feet of Satan.  In the upper world hell once rebelled against heaven.  But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell.  For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration.  At any instant you may strike a blow for the perfection which no man has seen since Adam.  No unchanging custom, no changing evolution can make the original good anything but good.  Man may have had concubines as long as cows have had horns:  still they are not a part of him if they are sinful.  Men may have been under oppression ever since fish were under water; still they ought not to be, if oppression is sinful.  The chain may seem as natural to the slave, or the paint to the harlot, as does the plume to the bird or the burrow to the fox; still they are not, if they are sinful.  I lift my prehistoric legend to defy all your history.  Your vision is not merely a fixture:  it is a fact.”  I paused to note the new coincidence of Christianity:  but I passed on.

I passed on to the next necessity of any ideal of progress.  Some people (as we have said) seem to believe in an automatic and impersonal progress in the nature of things.  But it is clear that no political activity can be encouraged by saying that progress is natural and inevitable; that is not a reason for being active, but rather a reason for being lazy.  If we are bound to improve, we need not trouble to improve.  The pure doctrine of progress is the best of all reasons for not being a progressive.  But it is to none of these obvious comments that I wish primarily to call attention.

The only arresting point is this:  that if we suppose improvement to be natural, it must be fairly simple.  The world might conceivably be working towards one consummation, but hardly towards any particular arrangement of many qualities.  To take our original simile:  Nature by herself may be growing more blue; that is, a process so simple that it might be impersonal.  But Nature cannot be making a careful picture made of many picked colours, unless Nature is personal.  If the end of the world were mere darkness or mere light it might come as slowly and inevitably as dusk or dawn.  But if the end of the world is to be a piece of elaborate and artistic chiaroscuro, then there must be design in it, either human or divine.  The world, through mere time, might grow black like an old picture, or white like an old coat; but if it is turned into a particular piece of black and white art—­then there is an artist.