already thought out and devised to our hand. What we pass by as rubbish, because we are so familiar with it, was, in its first revelation, a divine spark which enlightened the irrational darkness of man's original nature, and bespoke the presence of a reasoning and reflective mind. This consideration may serve to explain how the conception of being should appear to us to be at once the shallowest, and yet should be, in itself, the most fundamental and essential of all the conceptions of reason. But there is this also to be considered. There is this question to be asked: How far does the philosophy which sets up Being as the universal principle, how far does it tally with our definition of Philosophy; the definition which declares that philosophy is the pursuit and attainment of truth as it is for all, and not merely as it is for some intelligence? I conceive that this philosophy of Parmenides corresponds, if not adequately, at any rate largely, with our definition. Being is not the truth of the universe for our minds, or for any minds in particular; but it is the truth of the universe for all minds. Being is a necessary conception, a conception valid for all reason. An intelligence which had no conception of Being could not be an intelligence at all. Attempt to explain to an intelligence with no such senses as ours—attempt to explain to him the sensible universe, the universe as it appears to the senses, and he would not understand you. But tell him that the universe is, that it has Being, and to the extent of that conception he
