experience leads me to be tolerably certain that, when 

 the propositions I have just placed before you are acces- 

 sible to public comment and criticism, they will be con- 

 demned by many zealous persons, and perhaps by some 

 few of the wise and thoughtful. I should not wonder if 

 "gross and brutal materialism" were the mildest phrase 

 applied to them in certain quarters. And most un- 

 doubtedly the terms of the propositions are distinctly 

 materialistic. Nevertheless, two things are certain : the 

 one, that I hold the statements to be substantially true ; 

 the other, that I, individually, am no materialist, but, on 

 the contrary, believe materialism to involve grave philo- 

 sophical 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 dis- 

 course, it appeared to me to be a fitting opportunity to 

 explain how such an union is not only consistent with, 

 but necessitated by sound logic. I purposed to lead you 

 through the territory of vital phenomena to the mate- 

 rialistic 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 address " On the 

 Limits of Philosophical Inquiry," which a distinguished 

 prelate of the English Church delivered before the mem- 

 bers of the Philosophical Institution on the previous 

 day. My argKment, also, turns upon this very point of 



