reans, this substance was supposed to be a fluid, chaotic mass, in which what were relatively spiritual and material elements were confusedly mixed; but, becoming finally separated, the active principle was able to act upon the passive material in the production of the Universe. This was the first, and therefore the most material, of all the ontological theories of the Universe of which we have any knowledge; and although it may now seem to be absurd, because it does not recognize any principle sufficiently intellectual for the generation and preservation of the world, or show any relationship between these opposite elements by which one could be made to operate upon the other, it corresponds more closely than any other with the Mosaic account, which is the most perfect representation of the fact of Creation. It is the only ontological theory, which, while positing only one principle or substance, recognizes in this substance both material for creation and a creative power, distinctly separate; and it has, therefore, proved to be the most popular, as it has been the most practical, of all the theories of creation.

By the Ionian Dynamicists this one infinite substance was supposed to be a kind of fire, or fiery air, possessing an intelligent as well as a material character, and also the power of transmuting or transforming itself into an infinite variety of forms. They therefore concluded, that the universe consists of an eternal procession of phenomena, proceeding from, and returning again to, their source in this one infinite substance; and that imperfection, or evil, is occasioned and is regulated by the distance which separates these phenomena from the infinite perfection from which they spring. As this theory corresponds with the Persian doctrine of the emanation of all things from one infinite substance, and therefore does not recognize matter in its gross or atomistic form as originally subsisting, it is higher in its character than the theories of the Egyptian and Ionian Physiologists; but although representing creation from an infinite substance, as it does not recognize any thing higher than a material substance, however ethereal this may have been conceived to be, it is to be regarded as physiological in character. All these physiological theories, however, are representative of creation by a spiritual or absolute cause; it being reserved for the modern external psychological schools to construct a theory of pure Materialism, in which nothing higher than Sensation is recognized in thought, and nothing higher than Matter is recognized as the cause of the Universe.

The first theory possessing a decidedly spiritualistic character

was realized by the Persians, who posited an infinite spiritual substance, in Light, as the origin and life of all things. They supposed that from this substance proceeded two opposite subordinate substances, one of which corresponded with Light, and the other with Darkness; and that from the combined operation of these the world was created, in which these two opposite things are mixed. Now, the absurdity of this theory consisted in producing two opposite effects from the same cause, or in producing darkness from light; although, having posited an infinite spiritual substance, in light, there was no other way by which they could obtain a ground for the production of mundane things. The most purely spiritualistic of all ontological theories was that put forth by the Eleatic School; and was simply the positing of an infinite spiritual substance, excluding all finite multiplicity, and denying the existence of a phenomenal world. This theory was afterwards revived or re-asserted by the celebrated Bishop Berkeley, who demonstrated from this point of view the non- existence of a material universe. It is more purely rational than any other theory, because the premise upon which it is founded. is the highest that can be conceived, and the conclusion drawn the only rational one possible, from the natural and unitarian point of view to which its originators were confined.

It will be seen that all these theories are strictly Pantheistic in character, and include some palpable absurditiy, which makes them both self-destructive and destructive to the truth. It was to obviate this difficulty, and to escape from the pantheistic condition which belongs to all ontological theories of the universe, that the Church put forth the theory, that God created the Universe from Nothing. The only argument, if it can be called an argument, that has been offered by them in support of this absurd doctrine is, that it is the only way of escape from Pantheism. Thus a late Catholic writer,* in answering the question, “Is not God all things, -the Universe Itself?" says, "Mediante the creative act, yes; otherwise, no: because conceived simply as real, necessary, and eternal Being, he is not conceived as productive; and no universe is or can be asserted. The difference between Philosophy and Pantheism lies precisely in the creative act of God. Pantheism asserts that real being is, and there stops; and, in doing so, asserts God as real and necessary being, and nothing else. Philosophy goes one step further, and asserts real

* "Brownson's Review," January, 1850.

being is Creator, and in doing so asserts the Universe; for existences are nothing but the creative act of God in its terminus, as is asserted in asserting creation out of nothing. To say that God non-mediante the creative act is the Universe, is not true; for then there is no Universe: to say that God mediante the creative act is all things, is the Universe, is true; for then the Universe is not only asserted, but asserted in its true relation to God, as being only from him, by him, and in him, through the creative act bringing it forth from potentiality into actuality. There is no possible bridge from God as real necessary Being to Existence, or from Existence to Him, but his creative act; and therefore we must either rest in Pantheism, or assert creation out of nothing."

Now, in the first place, the issue between Pantheism and what this writer calls philosophy is not correctly stated. It is not true that "Pantheism asserts that real being is, and there stops." With the exception of the Eleatic philosophers, all the ancient ontologists recognized either an active spiritual principle, or an active spiritual substance, that was creative, and creative in the same sense that is here asserted; that is, from itself; "bringing the Universe forth from potentiality into actuality:" so that the only difference between their theories and this modern device is, that theirs are legitimate and honest pantheistic statements, which are the best conceptions possible from a natural point of view; while this is an illegitimate statement that was made simply to conceal the fact of pantheism. In the next place, this theory is liable not only to all the objections which may be brought against these other theories of creation, but to others still greater. Creation from nothing is a palpable absurdity and a mathematical impossibility: but even were it possible for the Infinite God to create the Universe from nothing, if we allow him to be a God of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, we cannot conceive Him as willing all the imperfection and evil which we find existing in the world. All previous theories of Creation avoided this, by conceiving Evil to originate either in the material substance from which the Universe is created, in some form of created existence, or in distance from God in the process of emanation; but this theory, by being cut off from these evasions, and not being able to recognize any thing as intervening to thwart the designs of the Creator, or prevent the fulfilment of all his conceptions, must of course refer all imperfection and evil immediately to God. It will be seen, however, that all these ontological

systems of philosophy are governed by the natural law of Unity, and are therefore substantially the same; that they are all equally pantheistic, and include an unqualified necessity that leads to fatalism, and thus to the destruction of all moral differences; and that all, except the Eleatic theory, include the gross absurdity of referring all natural imperfection to Absolute Perfection, and all natural evil to Absolute Good, as its Cause; which, if really admitted without any qualification, must destroy in us all hope of ever comprehending any thing, because it would destroy in our minds every boundary between truth and falsehood, as well as every distinction between good and evil.

As Psychology has heretofore been simply a generalization of the natural facts of the human consciousness,-for all supernatural or religious phenomena have been excluded in its construction,— as two classes of facts are here presented, one relating to truth and the other to good; and as all natural things come under the law of Duality, as "two and two, one against the other," - the establishment of the psychological method has always been followed by the realization, first of internal and external Moral schools, and next of internal and external Intellectual schools. As both these internal and external and these intellectual and moral elements are realized in discordant antagonism, and as these natural phenomena are confessedly the most diversified and discordant of all things, all psychological systems of philosophy necessarily become realized through the application of the law of Unity in Diversity in showing the nature of things, and of the law of Tri-Unity in individualizing and classifying phenomena; and this is necessary, because it is not possible that these discordant phenomena should, from a natural point of view, be individualized or brought into any scientific form under any other law. It will therefore be seen that psychology must always, in a natural sphere of consciousness, prove to be a destructive element in philosophy, and thus, in a particular manner, destructive to the truth, through the operation of these unitarian laws. The naturalistic and destructive character of psychology is made clearly evident, not only because its systems are realized in discordant antagonism, and the phenomena of which they are composed are realized in the greatest diversity and discord, but because it has always been productive of Sensualism upon the one hand, and Materialism upon the other, as the moral or as the intellectual element has prevailed; consequences which followed close upon its establishment by Socrates in ancient, and by Lord Bacon in modern times.

As psychology exists in so much diversity, and is so obviously governed by these destructive laws by which opposites are confounded and truth is destroyed, its particular forms need not here be enumerated.

In the eclectical systems of philosophy, the attempt has always been made to unite the conflicting elements which are contained in these ontological and psychological systems, but particularly to unite the opposite ideas and laws which it has always been necessary to recognize, but which have always appeared to exclude each other; these being recognized as Spirit and Matter, Infinite and Finite, Absolute and Phenomenal, Unity and Multiplicity, Subject and Object, &c. How they succeeded in this, we have already seen. We have seen that Emanuel Kant, the greatest of all the eclectical philosophers, after having exhausted all expedients in attempting to state and to produce the union of these opposites, abandoned the attempt, and came to the conclusion that nothing could be known of the supra-sensible; which, if true, would confine philosophy to the region of Sensation, and reduce it to a science of physical appearances, by which it would be destroyed; a result that has since been realized in the atheistic school founded by Comte under the name of "Positive Science." We have seen that the followers of Kant, not being able to believe that so little could be known, projected system after system, in the hope of effecting this separation and union; but that they all finally came to the conclusion, that there was no opposition to recognize,-that subject and object, being and non-being, were one and the same, and that God first arrives at a definite self

consciousness in Man.

We see, then, that the history of Philosophy is simply the history of Unitarianism,—that this is founded, as its name denotes, upon the idea that every thing either emanates or is developed from One Substance or Cause, - and that it has therefore been obliged to affirm that there is really but one sphere of Existence; so that no separation could be made by it between Absolute and Phenomenal, between Spiritual and Natural, or between Divine and Infernal: for we see that this separation is first introduced by positing Opposite Universal Laws as the ground of Existence, which Philosophy has never been able to do; and as Creation represents in its forms and manifestations this universal opposition, when Philosophy comes with her Unitarian Formula to investigate phenomena, nothing can be explained by it, and so nothing can be understood.