That brings us to the root of the matter，the serious side of a revolution that in this social consequence is so unspeakably ignoble. This root of the matter is the slow transformation now at work of the whole spiritual basis of thought. Every age is in some sort an age of transition，but our own is characteristically and cardinally an epoch of transition in the very foundations of belief and conduct. The old hopes have grown pale，the old fears dim; strong sanctions are become weak，and once vivid faiths very numb. Religion，whatever destinies may be in store for it，is at least for the present hardly any longer an organic power. It is not that supreme，penetrating，controlling，decisive part of a man's life，which it has been，and will be again. The work of destruction is all the more perturbing to timorous spirits，and more harassing even to doughtier spirits，for being done impalpably，indirectly，almost silently and as if by unseen hands. Those who dwell in the tower of ancient faiths look about them in constant apprehension，misgiving，and wonder，with the hurried uneasy mien of people living amid earthquakes. The air seems to their alarms to be full of missiles，and all is doubt，hesitation，and shivering expectancy. Hence a decisive reluctance to commit one's self. Conscience has lost its strong and on-pressing energy，and the sense of personal responsibility lacks sharpness of edge. The native hue of spiritual resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of distracted，wavering，confused thought. The souls of men have become void. Into the void have entered in triumph the seven devils of Secularity.
And all this hesitancy，this tampering with conviction for fear of its consequences，this want of faithful dealing in the highest matters，is being intensified，aggravated，driven inwards like a fatal disorder toward the vital parts，by the existence of a State Church. While thought stirs and knowledge extends，she remains fast moored by ancient formularies. While the spirit of man expands in search after new light，and feels energetically for new truth，the spirit of the Church is eternally entombed within the four corners of acts of parliament. Her ministers vow almost before they have crossed the threshold of manhood that they will search no more. They virtually swear that they will to the end of their days believe what they believe then，before they have had time either to think or to know the thoughts of others. They take oath，in other words，to lead mutilated lives. If they cannot keep this solemn promise，they have at least every inducement that ordinary human motives can supply，to conceal their breach of it. The same system which begins by making mental indolence a virtue and intellectual narrowness a part of sanctity，ends by putting a premium on something too like hypocrisy. Consider the seriousness of fastening up in these bonds some thousands of the most instructed and intelligent classes in the country，the very men who would otherwise be best fitted from position and opportunities for aiding a little in the long，difficult，and plainly inevitable work of transforming opinion. Consider the waste of intelligence，and what is assuredly not less grave，the positive dead-weight and thick obstruction，by which an official hierarchy so organised must paralyse mental independence in a community.
We know the kind of man whom this system delights to honour. He was described for us five and thirty years ago by a master hand. 'Mistiness is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half a dozen general propositions which escape from destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms; who can hold the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without fulcrum or beam; who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself against being supposed to exclude the contradictory,—who holds that scripture is the only authority，yet that the Church is to be deferred to，that faith only justifies，yet that it does not justify without works，that grace does not depend upon the sacraments，yet is not given without them，that bishops are a divine ordinance，yet that those who have them not are in the same religious condition as those who have,—this is your safe man and the hope of the Church; this is what the Church is said to want，not party men，but sensible，temperate，sober，well-judging persons，to guide it through the channel of no meaning，between the Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No.'[4] The writer then thought that such a type could not endure，and that the Church must become more real. On the contrary，her reality is more phantom-like now than it was then. She is the sovereign pattern and exemplar of management，of the triumph of the political method in spiritual things，and of the subordination of ideas to the status quo.
It is true that all other organised priesthoods are also bodies which move within formularies even more inelastic than those of the Establishment. But then they have not the same immense social power，nor the same temptations to make all sacrifices to preserve it. They affect the intellectual temper of large numbers of people，but the people whom they affect are not so strongly identified with the greater organs of the national life. The State Church is bound up in the minds of the most powerful classes with a given ordering of social arrangements，and the consequence of this is that the teachers of the Church have reflected back upon thorn a sense of responsibility for these arrangements，which obscures their spirituality，clogs their intellectual energy and mental openness，and turns them into a political army of obstruction to new ideas. They feel themselves to a certain extent discharged from the necessity of recognising the tremendous conflict in the region of belief that goes on around them，just as if they were purely civil administrators，concerned only with the maintenance of the present order. None of this is true of the private Churches. Their teachers and members regard belief as something wholly independent of the civil ordering of things. However little enlightened in some respects，however hostile to certain of the ideas by which it is sought to replace their own，they are at least representatives of the momentous principle of our individual responsibility for the truth of our opinions. They may bring their judgments to conclusions that are less in accord with modern tendencies than those of one or two schools that still see their way to subscribing Anglican articles and administering Anglican rites. At any rate，they admit that the use of his judgment is a duty incumbent on the individual，and a duty to be discharged without reference to any external considerations whatever，political or otherwise. This is an elevating，an exhilarating principle，however deficiencies of culture may have narrowed the sphere of its operations. It is because a State Church is by its very conception hostile to such a principle，that we are justified in counting it apart from the private Churches with all their faults，and placing it among the agencies that weaken the vigour of a national conscience and check the free play and access of intellectual light.
Here we may leave the conditions that have made an inquiry as to some of the limits of compromise，which must always be an interesting and important subject，one of especial interest and importance to ourselves at present. Is any renovation of the sacredness of principle a possible remedy for some of these elements of national deterioration? They will not disappear until the world has grown into possession of a new doctrine. When that comes，all other good things will follow. What we have to remember is that the new doctrine itself will never come，except to spirits predisposed to their own liberation. Our day of small calculations and petty utilities must first pass away; our vision of the true expediencies must reach further and deeper; our resolution to search for the highest verities，to give up all and follow them，must first become the supreme part of ourselves.
————————————————————
[1] See below，ch. iii.
[2] System of Logic，bk. vi. ch. xi.
[3] Bagehot.
[4] Dr. J.H. Newman's Essays Critical and Historical，vol. i. p. 301.
CHAPTER II OF THE POSSIBLE UTILITY OF ERROR
Das Wahre f rdert; aus dem Irrthum entwickelt sich nichts，er verwickeltuns nur.
GOETHE.
At the outset of an inquiry how far existing facts ought to be allowed to overrule ideas and principles that are at variance with them，a preliminary question lies in our way，about which it may be well to say something. This is the question of a dual doctrine. In plainer words，the question whether it is expedient that the more enlightened classes in a community should upon system not only possess their light in silence，but whether they should openly encourage a doctrine for the less enlightened classes which they do not believe to be true for themselves，while they regard it as indispensably useful in the case of less fortunate people. An eminent teacher tells us how after he had once succeeded in presenting the principle of Necessity to his own mind in a shape which seemed to bring with it all the advantages of the principle of Free Will，he 'no longer suffered under the burden so heavy to one who aims at being a reformer in opinions，of thinking one doctrine true，and the contrary doctrine morally beneficial.'[1] The discrepancy which this writer thought a heavy burden has struck others as the basis of a satisfactory solution.
Nil dulcius est bene quam munita tenere
Edita doctrina sapientum templa serena,
Despicere unde queas alios passimque videre
Errare atque viam palantes quaerere vitae.
The learned are to hold the true doctrine; the unlearned are to be taught its morally beneficial contrary. 'Let the Church,' it has been said，'admit two descriptions of believers，those who are for the letter，and those who hold by the spirit. At a certain point in rational culture，belief in the supernatural becomes for many an impossibility; do not force such persons to wear a cowl of lead. Do not you meddle with what we teach or write，and then we will not dispute the common people with you; do not contest our place in the school and the academy，and then we will surrender to your hands the country school.'[2] This is only a very courageous and definite way of saying what a great many less accomplished persons than M. Renan have silently in their hearts，and in England quite as extensively as in France. They do not believe in hell，for instance，but they think hell a useful fiction for the lower classes. They would deeply regret any change in the spirit or the machinery of public instruction which would release the lower classes from so wholesome an error. And as with hell，so with other articles of the supernatural system; the existence of a Being who will distribute rewards and penalties in a future state，the permanent sentience of each human personality，the vigilant supervision of our conduct，as well as our inmost thoughts and desires，by the heavenly powers; and so forth.
Let us discuss this matter impersonally，without reference to our own opinions and without reference to the evidence for or against their truth. I am not speaking now of those who hold all these ideas to be certainly true，or highly probable，and who at the same time incidentally insist on the great usefulness of such ideas in confirming morality and producing virtuous types of character. With such persons，of course，there is no question of a dual doctrine. They entertain certain convictions themselves，and naturally desire to have their influence extended over others. The proposition which we have to consider is of another kind. It expresses the notions of those who— to take the most important kind of illustration —think untrue the popular ideas of supernatural interference in our obscure human affairs; who think untrue the notion of the prolongation of our existence after death to fulfil the purpose of the supernatural powers; or at least who think them so extremely improbable that no reasonable man or woman，once awakened to a conviction of this improbability，would thenceforth be capable of receiving effective check or guidance from beliefs，that would have sunk slowly down to the level of doubtful guesses. We have now to deal with those who while taking this view of certain doctrines，still declare them to be indispensable for restraining from anti-social conduct all who are not acute or instructed enough to see through them. In other words，they think error useful，and that it may be the best thing for society that masses of men should cheat and deceive themselves in their most fervent aspirations and their deepest assurances. This is the furthest extreme to which the empire of existing facts over principles can well be imagined to go. It lies at the root of every discussion upon the limits which separate lawful compromise or accommodation from palpable hypocrisy.
It will probably be said that according to the theory of the school of which M. Renan is the most eloquent representative，the common people are not really cheating themselves or being cheated. Indeed M. Renan himself has expatiated on the charm of seeing figures of the ideal in the cottages of the poor，images representing no reality，and so forth. 'What a delight,' he cries，'for the man who is borne down by six days of toil to come on the seventh to rest upon his knees，to contemplate the tall columns，a vault，arches，an altar; to listen to the chanting，to hear moral and consoling words!'[3] The dogmas which criticism attacks are not for these poor people 'the object of an explicit affirmation,' and therefore there is no harm in them; 'it is the privilege of pure sentiment to be invulnerable，and to play with poison without being hurt by it.' In other words，the dogmas are false，but the liturgy，as a performance stirring the senses of awe，reverence，susceptibility to beauty of various kinds，appeals to and satisfies a sentiment that is both true and indispensable in the human mind. More than this，in the two or three supreme moments of life to which men look forward and on which they look back，—at birth，at the passing of the threshold into fulness of life，at marriage，at death，—the Church is present to invest the hour with a certain solemn and dignified charm. That is the way in which the instructed are to look at the services of a Church，after they have themselves ceased to believe its faith，us a true account of various matters which it professes to account for truly.
It will be perceived that this is not exactly the ground of those who think a number of what they confess to be untruths，wholesome for the common people for reasons of police，and who would maintain churches on the same principle on which they maintain the county constabulary. It is a psychological，not a political ground. It is on the whole a more true，as well as a far more exalted position. The human soul，they say，has these lovely and elevating aspirations; not to satisfy them is to leave man a dwarfed creature. Why quarrel with a system that leaves you to satisfy them in the true way，and does much to satisfy thorn in a false but not very harmful way among those who unfortunately have to sit in the darkness of the outer court?
