250 
sorrow in the lace of a Christian and that in the face of a sceptic. The 
sorrow in the face of a Christian seems to prepare him for something better, 
that in the face of a sceptic does not. Mr. Row mentioned “ the Man oi 
Sorrows,” but I think he woidd scarcely have done so if he had remembered, 
as I have no doubt he has by this time, that the grief of the Man of Sorrows 
was not His own, but that of others. (Cheers.) We must always bear in 
mind that He had no reason of His own to be sorry. I have not pointed out 
how that incompleteness which causes sorrow may be remedied, because 1 
do not think that this is the place in which it should be done. It is too 
distinctly religious a question for a scientific institution like ours. That is 
the reason why I did not give, as I should have liked to do, a longer quota- 
tion from St. Bernard, to show the true remedy for sorrow. But 1 want to be 
thoroughly understood. The object of my paper is not to abuse those who 
differ from me ; nor is it to point out how the aspirations of men can be 
thoroughly satisfied. That is the office of the Christian preacher, and not 
of the writer of a semi-scientific paper ; but I wanted to urge that there is an 
antecedent probability against scepticism, because it does not supply man 
with that which he hungers and thirsts after. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
Note by Dr. Thornton. — By the Editor’s kindness I am permitted to 
add a note to complete my somewhat inadequate reply. I have, I hope, 
made it plain : (1) that there is a great difference — and one which Lavater 
would recognize — between the lines of thought, care, penitence, which a 
Christian’s face may exhibit, and the peculiar restless, unsatisfied, unhappy 
expression of the unbeliever, that testifies to the aching void within ; and 
(2) that Charity is of persons, not of doctrines or acts, so that one may 
abominate and denounce infidelity, and yet feel most tenderly for the 
Infidel, and give him credit for the best motives and the utmost honesty. 
But I omitted to point out clearly the distinction between Philosophical, 
Historical, and Religious Scepticism. The first declines to assent to a con- 
clusion without knowing the premises, and weighing their correctness and 
cogency. It is praiseworthy and valuable ; for philosophy is of knowledge, 
not of faith. Our Institute is in this sense extremely sceptical : we 
doubt all science that opposes revelation. Historical scepticism refuses to 
accept a statement of fact without examining the evidence and finding 
it adequate, and is an absolute necessity for those who have to deal with 
facts. Of this kind is the scepticism which led Mr. Row to reject the 
alleged French miracles. Religious scepticism is a refusal to believe 
what Christians do now receive, and have from the first put faith in, as 
belonging to a higher and Supreme Intellect. This is the scepticism against 
which we protest, since religion is not of knowledge, but of faith ; and 
yet the Sceptic asks for such proofs as shall lead to knowledge. I have 
touched on the subject in my remarks on the Cartesian doubt (p. 237), and 
dealt with it more fully in my paper on the Credulity of Scepticism. 
