may be partly erroneous, even if we be right in the main. Moreover, we
are all liable to prejudices, and he who has no means of distinguishing
such from sober truths may admit into his creed many errors. The
lesson of history is very instructive upon this point. The fact is
that a man's religious notions reflect the position which he occupies
in the development of civilization very much as do his ethical notions.

Again. Even supposing that a man has enlightened notions and is living
a religious life that the most instructed must approve; if he has never
reflected, and has never tried to make clear to himself just what he
really does believe and upon what grounds he believes it, how will it
be with him when his position is attacked by another? Men are, as I
have said, not at one in these matters, and there are few or none of
the doctrines put forward as religions that have not been attacked
again and again.

Now, those who depend only upon an instinctive feeling may be placed in
the very painful position of seeing no answer to the objections brought
against them. What is said may seem plausible; it may even seem true,
and is it right for a man to oppose what appears to be the truth? One
may be shocked and pained, and may feel that he who makes the assault
_cannot_ be right, and yet may be forced to admit that a relentless
logic, or what presents itself as such, has every appearance of
establishing the repellent truth that robs one of one's dearest
possession. The situation is an unendurable one; it is that of the man
who guards a treasure and recognizes that there is no lock on the door.

Surely, if there is error mixed with truth in our religious beliefs, it
is desirable that we should have some way of distinguishing between the
truth and the error. And if our beliefs really have a foundation, it