, or Howard?

Granting that certain illusions are highly beneficial, it does not
follow that they are to be exempted from criticism. Their effect depends
on the prestige of their truth. That is, they must have reasons on their
side. But a doctrine is not supported by reasons, unless the objections
are stated and answered; not sham objections, but the real difficulties
of an enquiring mind. If the statement of such difficulties is forcibly
suppressed, the rational foundations will sooner or later be sapped.

[FREEDOM ESSENTIAL TO THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.]

If illusions are themselves good, freedom of thought will give us the
best. Why should we protect inferior illusions against the discovery of
the superior? The unfettered march of the intellect may improve the
quality of our illusions as illusions, while also strengthening their
foundations. If religion be a good thing, the best religion is the best
thing; and we cannot be sure of having the best, if men are forbidden to
make a search.

Supposing, then, truth is desirable, the means to the end are desirable.
Now one of the means is perfect liberty to call in question every
opinion whatsoever. This is not all that is necessary; it is not even
the principal condition of the discovery of new truth. It is, however,
an indispensable adjunct, a negative condition. While laborious search
for facts, care in comparing them, genius in detecting deep identities,
are the highways to knowledge,--the permission to promulgate new
doctrines and to counter-argue the old is equally essential. Men cannot
be expected to go through the toil of making discoveries at the hazard
of persecution. If a few have done so, it is their glory and everybody
else's shame.

That the torch of truth should be shaken till it shine, is generally
admitted. Still, exceptions are made; otherwise the present argument
would be superfluous. On certain subjects there is a demand for
protection against innovating views. The implication is that, in these
subjects, truth is better arrived at by delegating the search to a few,
and treating their judgment as final. I need not ask where we should
have been, if this mode of arriving at truth had been followed
universally. The monopoly of enquiry claimed for the higher subjects,
if set up in the lower, would be treated as the empire of darkness.

Second. The subscription to articles, and the enforcement of a creed by
penalties, are nugatory for their own purpose; they