We must therefore recognize the resistance of a change of theologicalopinion, as in great measure salutary. Forms of religion, like forms of government,must be fit for those who live under them; and in the one case as in theother, the form which is fittest is that for which there is an instinctivepreference. As a barbarous race needs a harsh terrestrial rule, and showsattachment to a despotism capable of the necessary rigour; so does such arace need a belief in a celestial rule that is similarly harsh, and showsattachment to such a belief. And as the sudden substitution of free institutionsfor despotic ones, is sure to be followed by a reaction; so, if a creed fullof dreadful ideal penalties is all at once replaced by one presenting idealpenalties that are comparatively gentle, there will inevitably be a returnto some modification of the old belief. The parallelism holds yet further.
During those early stages in which there is extreme incongruity between therelatively best and the absolutely best, both political and religious changes,when at rare intervals they occur, are violent; and they entail violent retrogressions.
But as the incongruity between that which is and that which should be, diminishes,the changes become more moderate, and are succeeded by more moderate counter-movements;until, as these movements and counter-movements decrease in amount and increasein frequency, they merge into an almost continuous growth. This holds trueof religious creeds and forms, as of civil ones. And so we learn that theologicalconservatism, like political conservatism, has an important function. §33. That spirit of toleration which is so marked a trait of moderntimes, has thus a deeper meaning than is supposed. What we commonly regardsimply as a due respect for the right of private judgment, is really a necessarycondition to the balancing of the progressive and conservative tendencies-- is a means of maintaining the adaptation between men's beliefs and theirnatures. It is therefore a spirit to be fostered; and especially by the catholicthinker, who perceives the functions of these conflicting creeds. Doubtlesswhoever feels the greatness of the error his fellows cling to and the greatnessof the truth they reject, will find it hard to show a due patience. It ishard to listen calmly to the futile arguments used in support of irrationaldoctrines, and to the misrepresentations of antagonist doctrines. It is hardto bear the display of that pride of ignorance which so far exceeds the prideof science. Naturally such a one will be indignant when charged with irreligionbecause he declines to accept the carpenter-theory of creation as the mostworthy one. He may think it needless, as it is difficult, to conceal hisrepugnance to a creed which tacitly ascribes to The Unknowable a love ofadulation such as would be despised in a human being. Convinced as he isthat pain, as we see it in the order of nature, is an aid to the averagewelfare, there will perhaps escape from him an angry condemnation of thebelief that punishment is a divine vengeance, and that divine vengeance iseternal. He may be tempted to show his contempt when he is told that actionsinstigated by an unselfish sympathy or by a pure love of rectitude, are intrinsicallysinful; and that conduct is truly good only when it is due to a faith whoseopenly-professed motive is other-worldliness. But he must restrain such feelings.
Though he may be unable to do this during the excitement of controversy,he must yet qualify his antagonism in calmer moments; so that his maturejudgment and resulting conduct may be without bias.
To this end let him bear in mind three cardinal facts -- two of them alreadydwelt on, and one still to be pointed out. The first is that with which wecommenced; namely, the existence of a fundamental verity under all formsof religion, however degraded. In each of them there is a soul of truth.
