viz.] dfa psirai asis 0f fife. 139 



certain : the one, that I hold the statements to be sub- 

 stantially true; the other, that I, individually, am no 

 materialist, but, on the contrary, believe materialism to 

 involve grave philosophical error. 



This union of materialistic terminology with the repu- 

 diation of materialistic philosophy I share with some of 

 the most thoughtful men with whom I am acquainted. 

 And, when I first undertook to deliver the present 

 discourse, it appeared to me to be a fitting opportunity 

 to explain how such a union is not only consistent with, 

 but necessitated by, sound logic. I purposed to lead you 

 through the territory of vital phsenomena to the material-; 

 istic slough in which you find yourselves now plunged, 

 and then to point out to you the sole path by which, in 

 my judgment, extrication is possible. 



An occurrence of which I was unaware until my 

 arrival here last night renders this line of argument 

 singularly opportune. I found in your papers the 

 eloquent adolress "On the Limits of Philosophical 

 Inquiry ," which a distinguished prelate of the English 

 Church delivered before the members of the Philoso- 

 phical Institution on the previous day. My argument, 

 also, turns upon this very point of the limits of philo- 

 sophical inquiry ; and I cannot bring out my own views 

 better than by contrasting them with those so plainly 

 and, in the main, fairly stated by the Archbishop of 

 York. 



But I may be permitted to make a preliminary con- 

 ment upon an occurrence that greatly astonished me. 

 Applying the name of the "New Philosophy" to that 

 estimate of the limits of philosophical inquiry which I, 

 in common with many other men of science, hold to be 

 just, the Archbishop opens his address by identifying 

 this "New Philosophy" with the Positive Philosophy of 

 M. Comte (of whom he speaks as its "founder"); and 



