If there be such a Schema—and this can only become evident through its immediate being, seeing that it is immediate—it can only be because God is; and, so surely as God is, it cannot but be. It is, however, by no means to be conceived of as a work of God, effected by some particular act, whereby a change is wrought in himself; but it is to be conceived of as an immediate consequence of his Being. It is absolutely, according to the Form of his Being, just as he himself is absolutely; although it is not he himself, but his Schema.
Again:—Out of God there can be nothing whatever but this;—no Being that is essentially independent, for that he alone is;—only his Schema can there be out of him, and thus a Being out of God signifies merely his Schema;—the two expressions mean precisely the same thing.
II.
Further:—Since it cannot be overlooked by the Doctrine of Knowledge that Actual Knowledge does by no means present itself as a Unity, such as is assumed above, but as a Multiplicity, there is consequently a second task imposed upon it,—that of setting forth the ground of this apparent Multiplicity. It is of course understood that this ground is not to be derived from any outward source, but must be shown to be contained in the essential Nature of Knowledge itself as such;—and that therefore this problem, although apparently two-fold, is yet but one and the same,—namely, to set forth the essential Nature of Knowledge.
III.
This Being out of God cannot, by any means, be a limited, completed, and inert Being, since God himself
