the many remarkable coincidences between it and the measurements and positions of these galleries. It would seem that there was some foundation for it, at least, however fanciful.

We may now well ask "whence this wisdom?" We have seen that the designers of the Great Pyramid were in possession of knowledge of which their cotemporaries were entirely ignorant. For there is no other indication of it exhibited in any of the other monuments of this land of wonders. The next Pyramid in size was said to have been built during the reign of the successor of Cheops; but it has no indications of any such knowledge, nor have any other of the scores of mountains of stone, with which the whole land is strewn. Such being the case, is it at all improbable that the Great Pyramid was built under the direct guidance of God, even if we do not accept the prophetic theory? We know that God did direct the building of various structures on earth, for instance, the Ark, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and the Temple at Jerusalem. But if we suppose that this Pyramid was built by divine direction, we must suppose that there was some one whom God inspired and commissioned as his agent. Have we any way of finding out who this agent was? We have no record of the land of the Nile at this time. The earliest history, except the Bible, which we have, is that of Herodotus. But even this "Father of History" did not write for Seventeen Hundred years after the building of the Pyramid. He records the traditions in regard to it as they were given him by the priests and people. According to these it was built by Cheops, king of Egypt, at the persuasion and under the direction of Philition. That it was built in the reign of Cheops, is proved by the fact that his cartouche has been found painted on one of the undressed stones of the Pyramid, in one of the “chambers of construction," which had never been opened since the time of its building, until within the last fifty years. The same traditions say that the Egyptians "commonly call the pyramids after Philition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place." This would seem to imply that this shepherd had a prominent part to perform in connection with its building. He

is, furthermore, said to have invaded the country and to have easily subdued it by his power" without a battle." He gained such influence over the heathen monarch, that he caused all the temples of the idols to be closed, the images to be destroyed, and made it an offence punishable by law to worship their gods in any way. The Egyptians say that during all the time of the building of the Great Pyramid this state of things continued.

How can we account for the fact that this stranger shepherd, belonging to a class of people so much despised by the Egyptians, could in so peaceable a manner obtain so great influence over the ruling sovereign? Has such a thing ever occurred, except when it was brought about by the direct control of God? We know that in later times Joseph, under the providence of God, was made second in rank and power to the king of Egypt. May it not, then, be supposed that Philition went to Egypt at the command of God? He is said to have come from Arabia, and his name is thought to mean simply an inhabitant of Philistia, a name which was then applied to a part of Arabia. We see that Philition must, then, have been inspired; for, if he only made use of the knowledge which the men of his time had, why are there no other indications of such knowledge. We have seen that even those pyramids which were built in imitation of this one, and some of them only a few years later, show that their builders knew nothing of the signification of this "pillar of stone." We must, then, suppose that the architect was directed by God, as Moses was in building the Tabernacle. It would seem strange, however, if there were such a man as this, directly inspired of God, that he should not be. mentioned in the Bible, which was not written till after this time. Is there any character in the Bible which corresponds to this Philition?

A modern writer has this theory in regard to Philition, which is quite an ingenious and interesting one. IIe says that there is reason to believe that Philition and Job are one and the same man. Job was a shepherd prince from Arabia, just as the Egyptian fragments testify respecting Philition. Job's own

account of his greatness, doings, and success, depicted with so much beauty in the 29th chapter of the Book of Job, grandly harmonizes with the account which we have of the strange power of this shepherd prince, obtained "without a battle." He held idolatry to be a crime to be punished by the authorities, just as Cheops was persuaded during the building of the Great Pyramid.

Whether Job be the man or not, it must be conceded that the designer of this mighty and wonderful structure had more than human knowledge; and it is interesting to trace the coincidences between these two men, if indeed they be different.

It must be left for future generations to discover whether its prophetic character will stand the test of time; but we may accept the scientific theory as well now as those who are to come after us. Whatever theory we adopt, or even if we do not adopt any theory in regard to it, still we can but admire the transcendent genius and the almost inconceivable mechanical skill displayed by the builders of this "Miracle in Stone."

進

ESTIMATE OF ARISTOTLE.

HERE are some minds which we admire for their brilliancy and quick appreciation of whatever may be presented to them, others for their power of memory and faculty of eliciting truth by multifarious and deep research, and shaping and moulding, as it were, means to the desired end; but a degree of admiration altogether surpassing that which we accord to mere soundness of mind and correctness of reasoning, must be reserved for those grand intellects that, disdaining the narrow bounds of their predecessors, strike boldly out into the unexplorel regions of thought, and hold up before an admiring world truths that have lain hidden for centuries. Such was the mind of Aristotle. In forming a somewhat rude estimate of his mind and character, I shall have no occasion to descant on his demerits; for though Aristotle himself was not infallible, yet such a course would not,

at the present day, be tolerated even in an experienced critic. Much more ludicrous and absurd, then, would be the spectacle of a schoolboy finding fault with the greatest of the ancients!

It is, therefore, of Aristotle, preeminently the philosopher of an age in which philosophy was widely known and zealously cultivated, of the sage whose greatness of intellect and enlarged views are so universally acknowledged, that we would speak. In his youth, being connected with the court of Macedonia through his father, he had, in his early studies, all the advantages which wealth could afford, and, later in life, he was enriched by the munificence of Alexander. But riches, which ordinarily prove such an obstacle to encrgetic effort, seem, by affording him the means of carrying out his plans, only to have increased his ardor in his chosen pursuits. Athens being at that time the centre of learning, the philosopher naturally turned his steps thither. Both his first stay at that celebrated place, where Plato used to call him the "intellect" of his school, and his subsequent sojourn there, when his esoteric lectures at the Lyceum were attended by distinguished men from all nations, must have been especially gratifying to his own feelings, and improving to the Athenians. But that restless spirit of envy and fickleness of mind which ever characacterized the democracy of Athens, and which had before condemned Socrates and so many other eminent men, did not fail to persecute Aristotle, and compelled him to die an exile from the home of his choice.

For profound thought and new and original ideas, Aristotle has had few, if any, equals. The admission of Kant and Hegel, that since Aristotle's time, to their day, logic had made no advance, serves to show how much he was in advance of the age in which he lived. It was not alone while grappling with the most abstruse points in science and philosophy, that this wonderful genius showed his greatness. He was equally at home in inventing terms for the technichologies of various sciences and in a learned discussion. The The many words and phrases differing from those previously employed and always arising in the commencement or in the sudden progress

of a science at the rise of a great genius, he invented, and the modus operandi was of his own devising. Who that has formed any conception, however inadequate, of the difficulties to be surmounted in such an undertaking, but can sympathize with his efforts and admire his success. It is evident that he went at his self-imposed task with much care and diligence, and his example alone is sufficient to show the utter falsity of that too general belief that genius is flighty and careless, not to be restrained by set limits nor hampered by rules.

The writings of Aristotle are characteristic of the author. Unlike his contemporaries, who spent their time in idle and unprofitable discussions, and whose sole aim was to display their rhetoric and to triumph over their rivals, he theorized with care, and was ready to accept truth for its own sake. His premises were carefully stated, and his conclusions cautiously drawn. He founded his investigations on experience, and did not begin with an imaginary principle, so obscured in the expression as to render it, if not absurd and contradictory, at least fanciful and ambiguous, a practice much in vogue among the so-called philosophers of his day. For instance, Heraclitus took as the basis of his investigations, "Fire is the substance of everything," and "Everything flows." Pythagoras said: "The numerical proportions are the real substance." Thus, by assuming something which it would have been utterly impossible to establish, they were led into numberless errors, and their philosophy degenerated into specious emptiness and vain attempts to discriminate where no distinction could be proved. Aristotle justly thought that the conclusion which will be obtained is necessarily uncertain to him that is striving to ascertain the truth. Aristotle talked with his fellow-man, looked with delight upon the beautiful skies of Greece, scented the sweet roses of Attica, felt its bracing air, and recognized the existence of a Creator, the maker of so excellent a world. We give his cosmological argument for the existence of a God, both because it is a fine specimen of logical reasoning, and because it embodies the intelligent man's idea and defense of that conception, so scoffed at by certain individuals as unintel