In the _former_ case, it should be treated as a case of ignorance, by illustrating the evidence, and urging it on the attention of those who have hitherto been blind to its force; reminding them that their _not seeing_ it is no proof that it does not exist, and that _doubt_ itself on such a question, so nearly affecting their duty and welfare, involves a solemn obligation to patient, candid, and dispassionate inquiry.
"A skeptic in religion," says Bishop Earle, "is one that hangs in the balance with all sorts of opinions, whereof not one but stirs him, and none sways him.

A man guiltier of credulity than he is taken to be; for it is out of his belief of everything that he fully believes nothing.
Each religion scares him from its contrary, none persuades him to itself....

He finds reason in all opinions, truth in none; indeed, the least reason perplexes him, and the best will not satisfy him....

He finds doubts and scruples better than resolves them, and is always _too hard for himself_....

In sum, his whole life is a question, and his salvation a greater, which death only concludes, and then he--is resolved."[240] This second phase or form of Skepticism, which we have designated as _Partial_ or _Religious Skepticism_, admits the possible certitude of human knowledge in other respects, and especially in regard to secular and scientific pursuits, but holds that religious truth is either altogether inaccessible to man with his present faculties, or that its certainty cannot be evinced by any legitimate process of reasoning.
These two positions are in some respects widely different, although they are often combined, and always conducive to the same result,--the practical negation of Religion.