At first, however, the end itself is as yet immediate, formal; its first determination consists in this that what is thus determined in itself should, in reference to reality, be for itself, should exist independently, and realise itself in it as something offering resistance to it. It is thus at first a finite end, and the relation between things expressed by it is a relation of the understanding, and the religion which is founded on such a basis is a religion of the understanding.
In the religion of the One we have already had an end somewhat of this sort, and something which had a close resemblance to this religion of the understanding. The religion of the One is also a religion of the understanding in so far as this One maintains itself as end as against reality of every kind, and the Jewish religion is on this account the religion of the understanding in its most rigid and lifeless form. This end consisting, as it does, in the glorification of the name of God, is formal, it has no absolutely definite character, but is only abstract manifestation. The people of God, it is true, represent a more definite end as an individual people; but this is a kind of end which it is wholly impossible to form a conception of, and is an end only in the sense in which the servant is an end for his Lord. It does not represent the nature of God Himself; it is not His end; it is not divine determinateness.
When we say that God is the Power which works in accordance with ends, and in accordance with the ends of wisdom, we are speaking in a sense different from that which at first attaches to this characterisation as applied to the stage of the development of the Notion at which we have arrived. What we mean is that those ends are undoubtedly also limited, finite ends, but that they are essentially ends of wisdom in general, and ends of one wisdom, i.e., ends of the Good in and for itself, ends which have reference to one supreme final end. These ends are consequently subordinate simply to one
