AS REGARDS PROTOPLASM, ETC. 73 



external system of things. To attempt to crush all this into 

 the water-drop in the hollow of an Arab boy's hand, or, what is 

 about the same thing, into the point of consciousness, and leave 

 it there, is but supererogatory delusion, and the trick of a word. 

 But, so, we have a demonstration at once of the nullity of Mr 

 Huxley's " extrication " and of the reality of his materialism. 

 Doubt is always an unusual substitute for certainty ; but doubt 

 in regard to causality, or substantiality, or externality, is 

 gratuitous and unfounded. We must decline, then, the safe- 

 guard of scepticism with which Mr Huxley would make believe 

 to protect us from materialism ; and even hint, but as gently as 

 possible, that he who, at the hour that now is, would seriously 

 proffer us (the two fingers gravely crossed over the pea !) 

 any such doctrines, is, philosophically, as late, as he was, 

 physiologically, precipitate. Perhaps that he is late in the one 

 case is the why he was precipitate in the other. But, all that 

 being so, at the same time that he would express all phenomena 

 in terms of matter would explain mind itself by the "disposi- 

 tion of mere material molecules," I cannot see that Mr Huxley 

 is possessed of any the very smallest reason for refusing for 

 himself the name of materialist. When he has placed materialism 

 as an entire system of knowledge over or on his right hand, he 

 cannot expect much confidence from us in what may be the 

 sneer that points to ignorance, and the word idealism, profanely 

 to say it, over the left. Would Mr Huxley but really take refuge 

 in the principle of Descartes self-consciousness ! Is philosophy 

 are the philosophers, Plato," Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, 

 Descartes, Spinosa, Locke, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, 

 Hegel these, and all the rest, with their enormous writings 

 are they only there to say, We know nothing but successive 

 phenomena in consciousness ? Knowing that, are we dispensed 

 from the labour of the region ? Knowing that, and saying that, 

 are we, while we work only for science, and in matter, perfectly 

 cultivated, enlightened minds in the centre who hold the balance 

 even ? That is in one word the position of Mr Huxley ; but is 

 it likely that the vast, heaven-scaling mountain of philosophy 

 has yielded only such a drowned mouse of a result? And can 

 we claim to be philosophers by knowing no more ? It is quite 

 certain, however, that Messrs Mill and Bain write enormous 

 books and for no other result After all, then, Mr Huxley may 

 have his own excuse ! It is for us to know, nevertheless, that 

 the position is wrong that philosophy, perhaps, only begins 

 where Mr Huxley ends ; for the problem of said phenomena is 

 to it what they are, not simply that they are. But into this, 

 plainly, we cannot enter at present. 



