MEANING AND HISTORY OF THE LOGOS OF PHILOSOPHY. 257 
designated vAn. In this nondescript stuff or substratum 
the several specific things which are to arise out of it exist in 
the way of dtvauic, that is potentially, until their respective 
cién, namely, their constitutive principles, which in them- 
selves are purely intelligible forms, develop actnal forms 
(uoppat) ; and then, to the extent to which this change or 
movement has proceeded, they exist in the way of évépyea; 
that is to say, they have an effectual existence; and, in so 
far as anything has passed from the stage of the potential, 
which was one of privation (orépnorc), to that of the actual, 
the change which has taken place is its évreAéxaa. Tor 
thus it has its due completion, (ré évredéc), it has attained the 
end (70 réXoc) with a view to which it was designed. ‘'he 
originating intellect (vote), which has determined the réXoc, 
and whose purpose, therefore, is the Final Cause, finds its 
sphere of operation in the formative process alone: it is not 
the author of the material in which it works. 
Now this intellectual system, which, as we perceive, has 
been ingrafted on a defective theism, is without doubt 
ingeniously elaborate, its most conspicuous feature being a 
terminology which, like that of legal documents, shows a mind 
habituated to punctilious exactness in specification. Yet, 
after all, it does but represent a certain way of looking upon 
the phenomena of nature ; it is the profound analysis of a 
superficial speculation ; it accounts for nothing. And for a 
still more cogent reason it cannot be accepted, for it is com- 
mitted to an assumption void of meaning. Manifestations 
which presuppose space are to be accounted for. If, then, it 
is to be assumed that suitable material exists, this must needs 
be conceived as occupying space; otherwise, the assumption 
is plainly gratuitous; the supposed material possesses no 
relevant property, and is in effect undistinguishable from the 
essence of the purely intelligible forms. But has it limits in 
space? ‘The answer is, and of course must be, in the negative ; 
otherwise, it contradicts the assertion that the material is 
absolutely formless. Again, if we propose to consider by 
what contrivance a boundless space-occupying medium may 
be so disintegrated as to allow mobility within itself, or how, 
even on the supposition that movement is possible, the system 
happens to have been so constituted as to prove available for 
the production of all natural phenomena,—a definition which, 
virtually excluding from the thing defined all indications of 
design, precludes the discussion, moves, in fact, the previous 
question; and then we learn that we are asked to yield 
assent to the unthinkable hypothesis that there is a kind of 
