APPENDIX. ARCHETYPAL FORMS AND TELIC FIGURATIONS.' "My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."-PSALM CXXXIX. 15, 16. Thesis. THE theme we propose to establish is this: All natural structures are Telic Figurations from Archetypal Forms. Distinguish Form and Figure. At the outset, then, it is needful that we distinguish carefully between Form and Figure: not that the distinction is to be found in the books, although it seems to me it ought to be. Form, in the large, philosophical sense of the term, is not so much shape or visible outline as that prior, ideal Something which constitutes a given thing what it is—which is the essentiality of it. The Form is the Idea existing independently of Matter. The figure is the Form actualized in the sphere of Matter—the Idea materialized. Thus the Form is the essential: the figure 1 The substance of this Lecture was delivered some years ago before the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. The author adds it to the preceding series because it is pertinent to the general scope of the Creative Week, considered as a Precreative Plan. It is but just to add that the subject-matter was suggested to him many years ago in reading "Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation," by Professors M'Cosh and Dickie. : an incidental. The Form is invariable: the figure variable. The Form is common to a class: the figure is an individual of that class. The Form is the invisible, ideal Plan the figure is a visible, more or less close copy from that Plan. The Form is the precedent Idea: the figure is the Form as it appears when it comes within the range of our senses. Let me illustrate. A caterpillar passes from the state of the larva into the state of the butterfly: it is an instance of transfiguration, not of transformation. True, we speak of the change as a "metamorphosis;" but the metamorphosis is only phenomenal—a change in figure: it is not radical, or a change of Form or identity. The Form, which no mortal eye has seen or can see, is common to the caterpillar and the butterfly: the caterpillar and the butterfly are different figurations from the one invisible Form. Were it possible for the caterpillar to be changed from an articulate into a mollusk or a vertebrate: i. e., were it possible for the caterpillar to undergo "transformation of species:" the change would in that case be more than a transfiguration: it would be a transformation, or metamorphosis in the strict sense of the term. The recognized in Script ure. ure. E. g.: This distinction between Form and Distinction Figure seems to be recognized in Script"Be not configured to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind;" i. e., undergo more than transfiguration-undergo transformation (Rom. xii. 2). Again: Christ Jesus, "being in the Form of God," was "found in figure as a man ;" i. e., the Pre-incarnate Son was in the Form, the primal, essential Form of God: the Incarnate Son appeared in the figure-the assumed, incidental figure of a man: in other words, the Logos Incarnate was, so to speak, a visible figuration from the invisible Form of the Logos Pre-incarnate (Phil. ii. 5-8). Once more: "Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His Glory" (Phil. iii. 21). Human identity lies not in the visible, incidental, variable figure: it lies in the invisible, essential, archetypal Form. Accordingly, the Resurrection, or Spiritual Body, is not a reemergence of the figure, but a new and nobler figuration from the Archetypal Form. That Archetypal Form, as in the case of the caterpillar and butterfly just cited, is common to the present figure, or natural body, and the coming figure, or spiritual body. It is in that Archetypal Form that the identity consists. The Resurrection, then, will be a transfiguration, not a transformation. The same thing may be said of the New Heavens and Earth. The present heavens and the present earth are to be destroyed, not in the sense of annihilation, but of transfiguration (2 Peter iii. 10-13). The fashion, figure, oxua, of this world is passing away (1 Cor. vii. 31): but the Form, μopoń, of it is abiding. In the Palingenesis, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His Glory (Matt. xix. 28), the new Cosmos will be identical in Form with the present, but it will be a new figuration. In like manner, as we saw in the Tenth Lecture, Jesus Christ Himself, in creating man on the Sixth Day, was the Archetypal Man. Foreknowing all things from the beginning, foreseeing that as Incarnate He would add to His eternal Godhead a human spirit and soul and body: the Creative Word of God (John i. 1-3), even the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8), speaking, as it would seem, in the imperial plural, makes solemn annunciation: "We will make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness " (Gen. i. 26). In the order of time, the Son of God made Himself like to man: in the order of purpose, the Son of |