fore he has ever put pen to paper. The second
stage is called _in habitu_; it is compared to the case of a child that
has learned the elements of writing, when the bare possibility is on the
way to be developed, and is seen to be real. In this period of
half-trained reason, it appears as happy conjecture, not yet transformed
into art or science proper. When the power of writing has been
actualized, we have a parallel to the _intellectus in actu_--the way of
science and demonstration is entered. And when writing has been made a
permanent accomplishment, or lasting property of the subject, to be
taken up at will, it corresponds to the _intellectus adeptus_--the
complete mastery of science. The whole process may be compared to the
gradual illumination of a body naturally capable of receiving light.
There are, however, grades of susceptibility to the active intellect,
i.e. in theological language, to communication with God and his angels.
Sometimes the receptivity is so vigorous in its affinity, that without
teaching it rises at one step to the vision of truth, by a certain "holy
force" above ordinary measure. (In this way philosophy tried to account
for the phenomenon of prophecy, one of the ruling ideas of Islam.) But
the active intellect is not merely influential on human souls. It is the
universal giver of forms in the world.

In several points Avicenna endeavoured to give a _rationale_ of
theological dogmas, particularly of prophetic rule, of miracles, divine
providence and immortality. The permanence of individual souls he
supports by arguments borrowed from those of Plato. The existence of a
prophet is shown to be a corollary from a belief in God as a moral
governor, and the phenomena of miracles are required to evidence the
genuineness of the prophetic mission. Thus Avicenna, like his
predecessors, tried to harmonize the abstract forms of philosphy with
the religious faith of his nation. But his arguments are generally
vitiated by the fallacy of assuming what they profess to prove. His
failure is made obvious by the attack of Ghazali on the tendencies and
results of speculation.

Ghazali.

To Ghazali (q.v.) it seemed that the study of secular philosophy had
resulted in a general indifference to religion, and that the scepticism
which concealed itself under a pretence of piety was destroying the life
and purity of the nation. With these views he carried into the fields of
philosophy the aims and spirit of the