which is the emblem of Spirit, the pyramid is formed by four lines converging to a point, having their foundation in the square, which, as "two and two, one against the other," is the emblem of natural duality and diversity. This preponderance of material and natural ideas in Egyptian thought made them suitable agents in the construction of Ontology from a material point of view, in which Creation was conceived as an evolution from Matter; thereby representing that "production of all things from a finite substance" which is demanded by our science as the first movement of Philosophy in the first sphere of its development.

While the Egyptians, as we have seen, posited a chaotic material principle or substance as the origin of all things, and worshipped Night as the symbol of Deity; the Persians, on the other hand, worshipped Light, or the element of Fire, as representing the original universal principle from which all things are derived: and from this they supposed to have emanated two opposite and subordinate principles or elements, which they symbolized under the names of Light and Darkness; conceiving these to be the causes of good and of evil, without the combination of which this lower world could never have been produced. Brucker, according to Enfield, says, "If authorities be carefully compared, it will appear probable, that Zoroaster, adopting the principle commonly held by the ancients, that, from nothing, nothing can be produced,—conceived Light, or those spiritualsubstances that partake of the active nature of fire, and Darkness, or the impenetrable opaque and passive mass of matter, to be emanations from one eternal Source; that to the derived substances he gave the names already applied by the Magi to the causes of good and evil,- Oromasdes and Arimanius; and that the first fountain of being, or the supreme divinity, he called Mithras. These active and passive principles he conceived to be perpetually at variance; the former tending to produce good; the latter, evil: but, through the mediation or intervention of the Supreme Being, the contest would at last terminate in favor of the good principle."

With regard to the relative position and the characteristics of the Persians, Hegel thus writes: "Asia separates itself into two parts, Hither and Farther Asia; which are essentially different from each other. While the Chinese and Hindoos - the two great nations of Farther Asia already considered- belong to the strictly Asiatic (namely, the Mongolian) race, and consequently possess a quite peculiar character, discrepant from ours; the

nations of Hither Asia belong to the Caucasian, i.e. the European stock. They are related to the West, while the Farther Asiatic peoples are perfectly isolated. The European who goes from Persia to India, observes, therefore, a prodigious contrast. Whereas in the former country he finds himself still somewhat at home, and meets with European dispositions, human virtues, and human passions; as soon as he crosses the Indus (i.e., in the latter region), he encounters the most repellent characteristics pervading every single feature of society.

"The Persians are the first historical people: Persia was the first empire that passed away. While China and India remain stationary, and perpetuate a natural vegetative existence even to the present time, this land has been subject to those developments and revolutions which alone manifest an historical condition. In Persia first arises that Light which shines itself, and illuminates what is around; for Zoroaster's 'Light' belongs to the world of consciousness, to Spirit, as a relation to something distinct from itself. It holds a position of antithesis to Darkness, and this antithetical relation opens out to us the principle of activity and life. The Universal Essence, which we recognized in Brahm, now becomes perceptible to consciousness, - becomes an object, and acquires a positive import for man. Brahm is not worshipped by the Hindoos: he is nothing more than a condition of the individual, a religious feeling, a non-objective existence, a relation, which for concrete vitality is that of annihilation. But, in becoming objective, this Universal Essence acquires a positive nature. This form of Universality we see exhibited in Persia, involving a separation of man from the universal essence; while at the same time the individual recognizes himself as a partaker in that essence. In the Chinese and Indian principle, this distinction was not made: we found only a unit of the Spiritual and the Natural. In the Persian principle, Unity first elevates itself to the distinction from the merely natural. This Unity is manifested as Light, which in this case is not simply light as such, the most universal physical element, but at the same time also spiritual purity, the Good. In contrast with the wretched hebetude of Spirit which we find among the Hindoos, a pure ether—an exhalation of Spirit-meets us in the Persian conception. In it, Spirit emerges from that substantial Unity of Nature, that substantial destitution of import, in which a separation has not yet taken place; in which Spirit has not yet an independent existence in contraposition to its object. This people, namely, attained

to the consciousness, that absolute Truth must have the form of Universality, of Unity. This Universal, Eternal, Infinite Essence is not recognized at first as conditioned in any way: it is Unlimited Identity. This is properly also the character of Brahm. But this Universal Being becomes objective, and their Spirit became the consciousness of this its Essence; while on the contrary, among the Hindoos, this objectivity is only the natural one of the Brahmins, and is recognized as pure Universality only in the destruction of consciousness. Among the Persians, this negative assertion has become a positive one; and man has a relation to Universal Being, of such a kind that he remains positive in sustaining it. This One Universal Being is, indeed, not yet worshipped in Spirit and in Truth,' but is still clothed with a form, — that of Light. But Light directly involves an Opposite,—namely, Darkness; just as Evil is the antithesis of Good. As man could not appreciate Good if Evil were not, and as he can be really good only when he has become acquainted with the contrary; so the Light does not exist without Darkness. Among the Persians, Ormuzd and Ahriman present the antithesis in question. Ormuzd is the Lord of the Kingdom of Light, of Good; Ahriman that of Darkness, — of Evil. But there is a still higher being from which both proceeded, a Universal Being not affected by this antithesis, called Zeruane, Akrene, the Unlimited All." This account is in perfect correspondence with the demand of our science, because it shows that Ontology was constructed by the Persians from a relatively spiritual point of view, in which Creation was conceived as an emanation from Spirit; thereby representing that "production of all things from an infinite substance," which must, according to this science, constitute the second movement of Philosophy in the first sphere of its development.

The next demand of Absolute Science is, that an eclectical development of Philosophy shall be realized, as "a higher third," in which the two opposite sides of human thought contained in the opposite ontological systems to which we have now alluded shall be combined, and which shall realize a form representative of Spiritual Truth, which includes Marriage, or the union of opposites through the sacrifice of the life of the individual principle; and that Creation should be conceived, not simply from the point of infinite or of finite substance, but as the production of a Tri-Personal God, in whom both infinite and finite are united, who is Jehovah; the Alpha and Omega; the First and the Last;

and besides whom there is no God,- this Creation being realized, not from his own substance, but from chaotic material substances subsisting outside of his own personality. This development we find to have been realized by the Hebrews, a people prepared and inspired by God to represent by means of historical phenomena, and of symbolic correspondences in a form of Art, this great idea of Marriage, or union of opposites through Sacrifice, - a sacrifice and union that we shall show to have been realized in the sphere of Absolute Existence, and to constitute a type and a prophecy of that which is to be realized in the soul as the condition of its salvation, and resurrection to Spiritual Life; to effect which, God became incarnated, and appeared in this atmosphere in the form of a man; and to aid in the preparation for which is the great design of Art, of Philosophy, and of the Church.

-

The reason why the eclectical element in Philosophy could not be developed, except through a direct communication from God, was this: although the Egyptian and Persian philosophies, by being founded in legitimate correspondences, were able to represent from partial and opposite points of view the manner in which mundane things were produced, — the dualistic and discordant conditions in which they existed; and also the opposition that existed between Creation and the Creator, they could not represent the reconciliation and union of these opposite things, because, until after the Incarnation of God, the realization of a divine-human principle, and the construction of a supernatural sphere representative of this, there could not have existed any medium through which the idea of Marriage could be consciously represented to the mind. It was therefore only by direct inspiration from God that this idea could have been represented to man; and this communication could have been made only to minds specially prepared for this purpose, and only then by means of symbolic correspondences realized outside of the individual consciousness. The reason for this is obvious; because it must have been communicated through a natural sphere of life to a corresponding consciousness in man, both of which were antagonistic to the supernatural as the representative of spiritual life through Marriage. These inspirations were communicated to the Hebrews, who may be seen to have been a suitable medium for supernatural representation, because the Hebrew organization was a theocratic one, in which the natural principles were subject to the supernatural; and therefore Hebrew society has always

been a theocracy. These communications are contained in the records of the Old Testament, constituting the external form in which is represented to the mind the fact of Christianity or Divine Humanity, which is Spiritual Life through Marriage, or the union of opposites through the voluntary sacrifice of Individual Life. We may therefore see, that although the philosophy of the East is enveloped in much obscurity, owing to the symbolic form in which even its natural ontological systems appeared, and the imperfect accounts which have come down to us, the general idea that we are able to obtain corresponds most perfectly with what was stated at the commencement as the demand of Absolute Science.

Of the development of Philosophy in Greece, although so much more diversified than that of the East on account of the individual character that must belong to its psychological development, we have the most full and reliable accounts. It is true that much dispute has arisen with regard to what were the precise doctrines taught by these philosophies, owing to the individual and consequent heterogeneous and discordant character that must attend such a development, and also to the obscurity in which the theories of philosophers were enveloped for the purpose of concealing their anti-religious character, or that nonconformity with the popular superstitions which made their promulgation dangerous. But as we are able to conceive the course of philosophical development in this sphere, and have a guide which aids us in the classification of systems, this will not prevent our coming to the most accurate conclusions with regard to the general character of these theories; and this is all that it is necessary now to establish.

That Philosophy took its departure from the Church, in commencing its development in this sphere, may be seen, because, at the earliest period of Grecian civilization of which we have any reliable account, we find that Orpheus, who was the founder of the Eleusinian and Panathenæan mysteries and other religious institutions, and Musæus, who continued and improved the rites of Religion which Orpheus established, were also the teachers of Philosophy. The first independent school of philosophy established in Greece, and by which, therefore, the development of philosophy in this sphere was commenced, was that of the Ionic sect, founded by Thales. By this school were realized two distinct and opposite developments or systems, which will be seen to be perfectly analogous to the opposite Egyptian and Persian