men of letters; Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Positivists,
Freethinkers.

The story is told in his article on "Agnosticism," written in 1889
(_Collected Essays_, v, 237). After describing how it came about that
his mind "steadily gravitated towards the conclusions of Hume and
Kant," so well stated by the latter as follows:--

The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of
pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves
not as an organon for the enlargement (of knowledge), but as
a discipline for its delimitation; and, instead of discovering
truth, has only the modest merit of preventing error--

he proceeds:--

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask
myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a
materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker; I
found that the more I learned and reflected the less ready was
the answer, until, at last, I came to the conclusion that
I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations
except the last. The one thing in which most of these good
people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed
from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain
"gnosis"--had, more or less successfully, solved the problem
of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a
pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself
presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion....