235 
statements on authority, he has himself been a blind worshipper 
of authority, taking on trust as much at least as Christians 
do ; but with this difference, that the authority to which he 
defers is, by his own admission, merely human ; theirs, on the 
other hand, they maintain to be Divine. In a word, I demurred 
to the material part of sceptical logic. 
The historical view of Scepticism I have endeavoured 
briefly to unfold in writing of its Varying Tactics. I have 
tried to show how it has shifted ground : becoming, it may 
be, fi om time to time more astute, but not necessarily more 
truly scientific ; availing itself of, and seeking to direct or 
rhveit, the currents of popular thought, but never taking up 
any definite and intelligible position which should vindicate 
foi it the reputation of being something more than a per- 
tinacious denial of truths which wise and good men have 
prized and struggled for, even to the very death. To these 
logical and historical discussions of Scepticism, I venture to 
add a few words on its metaphysical aspect : I propose to 
look at it psychologically. Having suggested that its history 
is not ennobling, nor even respectable, and that its logic is 
materially and formally fallacious, I now proceed to inquire 
whether it responds to the requirements of man’s higher being, 
and satisfies its needs and its laws any better than it does the 
needs and laws of the ratiocinative intellect. 
. 1 entitle my paper the “ Sorrows of Scepticism.” There 
is no sorrow produced directly by an historical shortcoming 
or a logical failure. We may be disappointed in a character 
of brilliant promise, we may feel dissatisfied if detected in 
a fallacy or unable to establish a projected conclusion ; but these 
vexations are, in logical language, accidental, and not of 
the essence of history or logic; whereas a metaphysical failure, 
a coming short of the attainment of that which the very nature 
of the man yearned after, is in itself a pain to that higher 
nature which experiences it. 
I have been led to employ this term, Sorrows of Scepticism, 
10m an observation of the physiognomies of sceptics. I have 
never, or scarcely ever, looked at the faces or photographs of 
those wdio cherished doubts about revealed religion, without 
being struck with the expression of pain which they exhibit. It 
would be invidious and undesirable to particularize in this 
matter • but I may say without hesitation that this appearance 
of pain, disquiet, disappointment, unrest, is to be seen in nine- 
tenths of confessed unbelievers. No doubt it may be said that 
they, like Heraclitus, are weeping over the folly of mankind, 
though one would wonder why a Democritus did not now and 
s 2 
