252 REV. H. J. CLARKE. 
tion,* destructive to reason. But, as presupposing mobility 
in an all-pervading essence, it has an important significance ; 
it suggests incessant movement and activity, the uncontrollable 
restlessness of a ubiquitous energy, in presence of which there 
is no possibility of an existing state, nowhere permission to 
enjoy one moment’s absolute repose, and no condition can be 
named as that which 7s. The term, indeed, is one that science 
cannot recognise ; and philosophy knows it no more, but it 
may remind us that the doctrine which adopted it gave promi- 
nence to the truth that all nature is, as it were, an ever-flowing 
stream, or, as we might represent it, a perpetually dissolving 
view. Heracleitus, however, in his philosophical contempla- 
tion of the changing scene, could not but discern more than 
can at any time be the object of sensuous perception ; could 
not but perceive that Being must somehow underlie Becoming ; 
Order, endless strife ; and Harmony, the seeming coincidence 
of incompatibilities. Imagining an ever-living Fire, he was 
under the impression he had now discovered the object of his 
search; and this, regarded as containing potentially all those 
orderly developments and activities which, as he believed, 
constitute the universe, he named the Logos.t 
But obviously the name, as thus applied, denotes no property 
or function which belongs to intellect; nor can it signify 
an individual subject to which intellect may be ascribed. 
Rather, it indicates a materialistic conception of the source of 
intellectual energy, an inability to perceive that the nature 
and attributes of Mind of necessity transcend the conditions 
of existence to which all such things are subject as have 
extension in space. In this point of view the Logos of 
Heracleitus claims attention as being a very ancient import 
into a species of philosophy not yet antiquated, but still held 
in considerable repute, whose cardinal doctrine has found 
memorable expression in the following words :—‘‘ Matter may 
be regarded as a form of thought; thought may be regarded 
as a property of matter. Hach statement has a certain 
relative truth ; but, with a view to the progress of science, 
the materialistic terminology is in every way to be preferred.”’} 
Here I am forcibly reminded of the cosmogony of Heracleitus, 
* Fragm. apud Stobeum, Floril. 5, 120, Vid. Zeller, ‘“ Pre-Socratic 
Philosophy,” vol. i. p. 81. 
+ Sextus adv. Mathemat., vii. 182. Vid. Heinze, “Die Lehre vom 
Logos,” p. 9 
{ Huxley, “Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,” p. 160. 
