creed identical in one important particular though its substance may vary in every respect.  In subjects unconnected with sentiment, the freest inquiry and the fullest deliberation are required before it is thought decorous to form a final opinion; but wherever sentiment is involved, and especially in questions of religious dogma, about which there is more sentiment and more difference of opinion among wise, virtuous, and truth-seeking men than about any other subject whatever, free inquiry is peremptorily discouraged.  The religious instructor in every creed is one who makes it his profession to saturate his pupils with prejudice.  A vast and perpetual clamour arises from the pulpits of endless proselytising sects throughout this great empire, the priests of all of them crying with one consent, “This is the way, shut your ears to the words of those who teach differently; don’t look at their books, do not even mention their names except to scoff at them; they are damnable.  Have faith in what I tell you, and save your souls!” In which of these conflicting doctrines are we to place our faith if we are not to hear all sides, and to rely upon our own judgment in the end?  Are we to understand that it is the duty of man to be credulous in accepting whatever the priest in whose neighbourhood he happens to reside may say?  Is it to believe whatever his parents may have lovingly taught him?  There are a vast number of foolish men and women in the world who marry and have children, and because they deal lovingly with their children it does not at all follow that they can instruct them wisely.  Or is it to have faith in what the wisest men of all ages have found peace in believing?  The Catholic phrase, “quod semper quod ubique quod omnibus”—­“that which has been believed at all times, in all places, and by all men”—­has indeed a fine rolling sound, but where is the dogma that satisfies its requirements?  Or is it, such and such really good and wise men with whom you are acquainted, and whom, it may be, you have the privilege of knowing, have lived consistent lives through the guidance of these dogmas, how can you who are many grades their inferior in good works, in capacity and in experience, presume to set up your opinion against theirs?  The reply is, that it is a matter of history and notoriety that other very good, capable, and inexperienced men have led and are leading consistent lives under the guidance of totally different dogmas, and that some of them a few generations back would have probably burned your modern hero as a heretic if he had lived in their times and they could have got hold of him.  Also, that men, however eminent in goodness, intellect, and experience, may be deeply prejudiced, and that their judgment in matters where their prejudices are involved cannot thenceforward be trusted.  Watches, as electricians know to their cost, are liable to have their steel work accidentally magnetised, and the best chronometer under those conditions can never again be trusted to keep correct time.