478 
ON THE TRIPLET OF TERMS, 
root is Matter ; the solid physical trunk which supports the whole fabric is 
Body; while Substance, which is partly metaphysical, but partly also physical, 
lies intermediate between the two, and constitutes the step of transition by 
which the lower passes into the higher form. 
Having premised so much, we can now pass on to the consideration of the 
three terms in question :— 
1. Matter {materia prima, ydos-) is a purely negative and metaphysical idea, 
and we can only say of it, that it is absolutely negative, absolutely passive, and 
absolutely unlimited. Positive knowledge respecting it we have none, nor can 
have ; not because of the difficulty of the task, but because the subject is, by 
its nature, unknowable. If it were not that it sounds like a pun, the best 
definition of Matter would be, M = nothing ; since that out of which all things 
are made, must itself be no thing ;* yet, like the cypher of arithmetic, though 
nothing in itself, with a potentiality of becoming all things. In brief, we have 
no choice but to regard Matter as the passive and negative, and therefore infi¬ 
nitely plastic element of creation ;f 
“The womb of Nature, and perchance her grave.” 
2. Substance. I assume, as every chemist must assume, the two anti-poles—• 
the A and the £2 of physics—Matter and Force, which are diametrically opposed, 
as negative and positive, passive and active; neither of which, however, enters 
within the sphere of the science, though both are indispensable postulates of its 
existence; i. e., they do not rank among its constitutive terms, but are only 
regulative and limiting ideas. Substance, then, is conceived as generated by 
Force upon Matter ; and in this view, borrowing the chemical notation to illus¬ 
trate rny meaning, and denoting Matter by M, would be symbolized by FM. 
Now, an infinite force or activity, operating in space upon infinite passivity, 
results in infinite limitation ; and infinite limitation in space, i. e., infinite 
smallness, is precisely atomicity. But we cannot ascribe to this atomic Substance 
any physical properties. 
Whether this Substance is, as seems more consonant with reason, homogeneous, 
or whether it is heterogeneous, we have no means of knowing. But the view wc 
have taken of its constitution seems effectually to dispose of a problem which 
has often been mooted, viz., whether all bodies hitherto considered simple may 
not be capable of being reduced to some one ultimate and still more simple 
element, which underlies them all. For, if this Substance which we are dis¬ 
cussing be the one element common to all bodies, then, since it does not subsist 
isolated, and is not cognizable through human senses, to be able to resolvo 
bodies into this element would be, practically, and as far as men are concerned, 
to be able to annihilate them ; which is a reductio ad absurdum. 
It is from , but not with Substance, considered as a congeries of atoms, that 
the science of chemistry begins. Substance, thus constituted, it is compelled 
to assume as its materia prima, and, starting with an atomic theory, it pro¬ 
ceeds to construct its molecules, which are the first cognizable elements in the 
science. 
3. Body. In touching upon Body, wm tread at last upon firm ground. Its 
symbol, in harmony with the two preceding cases, would be F"M, where 
the co-efficient (*) denotes the multiplicity and variety of the transmuted 
forces that give rise to the manifestations which we term the properties and 
qualities of the innumerable bodies which constitute our system. The abso¬ 
lute simplicity of Matter, and the comparative simplicity of Substance have now 
* Thus reversing the old maxim, “ De nihilo quoniam fieri nil posse videmus.” 
f To compare great things with small, Matter may he figured, adopting chemical phraseo¬ 
logy, as the neutral base of creation. 
