94 ( 22 ) 



been allowed to constitute us all. But materialism ^has 

 not on that account been the irresistible result. Atten- 

 tion hitherto and surely excusably, or even laudably in 

 such a case has been given not so much to the dust as 

 to the "potter," and the "artifice" by which he could 

 so transform, or, as Mr. Huxley will have it, modify it. 

 To ask us to say, instead of dust, clay, or even proto- 

 plasm, is not to ask us for much, then, seeing that even 

 to Mr. Huxley there still remain both the "potter" and 

 his "artifice." 



But to return : To Mr. Huxley, when he says all 

 bricks, being made of clay, are the same thing, we an- 

 swer, Yes, undoubtedly, if they are made of the same 

 clay. That is, the bricks are identical if the clay is 

 identical ; but, on the other hand, by as much as the 

 clay differs will the bricks differ. And, similarly, all 

 organisms can be identified only if their composing pro- 

 toplasm can be identified. To this stake is the argu- 

 ment of Mr. Huxley bound. 



This argument itself takes, as we have seen, a three- 

 fold course : Mr. Huxley will prove his position in this 

 place by reference, firstly, to unity of faculty ; secondly, 

 to unity of form ; and thirdly, to unity of substance. It 

 is this course of proof, then, which we have now to fol- 

 low, but taking the question of substance, as simplest, 

 first, and the others later. 



By substance, Mr. Huxley understands the internal 

 or chemical composition ; and, with a mere reference to 

 the action of reagents, he asserts the protoplasm of all 

 living beings to be an identical combination of carbon, 

 hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is for us to ask, 

 then, Are all samples of protoplasm identical, first, in 

 their chemical composition, and, second, under the ac- 

 tion of the various reagents ? 



