friends of mine, there are those who speak of the
Materialism of Buechner and his school, with a contempt certainly not
less than that felt by Mr. Martineau. To show how anti-materialistic my
own view is, I may, perhaps, without impropriety, quote some out of many
passages which I have written on the question elsewhere:

"Hence though of the two it seems easier to translate so-called
Matter into so-called Spirit, than to translate so-called Spirit
into so-called Matter (which latter is, indeed, wholly
impossible); yet no translation can carry us beyond our
symbols."[39]

And again:

"See then our predicament. We can think of Matter only in terms of
Mind. We can think of Mind only in terms of Matter. When we have
pushed our explorations of the first to the uttermost limit, we are
referred to the second for a final answer; and, when we have got
the final answer of the second, we are referred back to the first
for an interpretation of it. We find the value of _x_ in terms of
_y_; then we find the value of _y_ in terms of _x_; and so on we
may continue forever without coming nearer to a solution. The
antithesis of subject and object, never to be transcended while
consciousness lasts, renders impossible all knowledge of that
Ultimate Reality in which subject and object are united."[40]

It is thus, I think, manifest that the difference between Mr.
Martineau's view and the view he opposes is by no means so wide as he
makes it appear; and further, it seems to me that such difference as
exists is rather the reverse of that indicated by his exposition.
Briefly expressed, the difference is that, where he thinks there is no
mystery, the doctrine he combats recognizes a mystery. Speaking for
myself only, I may say that, agreeing entirely with Mr. Martineau in
repudiating the materialistic interpretation as utterly futile, I differ
from him simply in this, that while he says he has found another
interpretation, I confess that I cannot find any interpretation; while
he holds that he can understand the Power which is manifested in things,
I feel obliged to admit, after many failures, that I cannot understand
it. So that, in presence of the transcendent problem which the universe
presents, Mr. Martineau regards the human intellect as capable, and I as
incapable. This contrast does not appear to me of the kind which his
Essay tacitly asserts. If there is