“Professor Huxley speaks of a ‘verbal fog by which the question at issue may be hidden’; is there no verbal fog in the statement that _the ætiology of crayfishes resolves itself into a gradual evolution in the course of the mesosoic and subsequent epochs of the world’s history of these animals from a primitive astacomorphous form_? Would it be fog or light that would envelop the history of man if we said that the existence of man was explained by the hypothesis of his gradual evolution from a primitive anthropomorphous form? I should call this fog, not light.” {180} Especially let him mistrust those who are holding forth about protoplasm, and maintaining that this is the only living substance. Protoplasm may be, and perhaps is, the _most_ living part of an organism, as the most capable of retaining vibrations, but this is the utmost that can be claimed for it. Having mentioned protoplasm, I may ask the reader to note the breakdown of that school of philosophy which divided the _ego_ from the _non ego_. The protoplasmists, on the one hand, are whittling away at the _ego_, till they have reduced it to a little jelly in certain parts of the body, and they will whittle away this too presently, if they go on as they are doing now. Others, again, are so unifying the _ego_ and the _non ego_, that with them there will soon be as little of the _non ego_ left as there is of the _ego_ with their opponents. Both, however, are so far agreed as that we know not where to draw the line between the two, and this renders nugatory any system which is founded upon a distinction between them. The truth is, that all classification whatever, when we examine its _raison d’être_ closely, is found to be arbitrary—to depend on our sense of our own convenience, and not on any inherent distinction in the nature of the things themselves. Strictly speaking, there is only one thing and one action. The universe, or God, and the action of the universe as a whole.