i88ij 
Animism versus Hylozoism. 
597 
difference between the “ anima mundi and anima humani ” 
being fundamentally the same, and 44 the question being the 
same.” 
C. N. seems to think that he has caught me on the horns 
of a dilemma, when he observes (p. 525) “ An Infinite Mind 
4 giving existence to finite minds ’ must be limited by its own 
creations, and therefore be at once infinite and finite. Here 
again, I hold the premiss, but deny the conclusion. An 
Infinite Mind must be able to do anything which is not a 
self-contradiction. And if it sees fit to create finite minds, 
and to give them the liberty of even opposing itself, this is not 
parting with infinite power, but only voluntarily holding it 
in abeyance. 
In p. 526 we read 44 If there be an omnipresent Deity, 
nothing else can have any real existence, and he must be 
the noumenon of which the Universe, subjective and 
objective, is the phenomenon.” This is again a 4 non se- 
quitur .’ If God were matter, the admitted axiom that two 
portions of it could not occupy the same space, at the same 
time, would be applicable. But this would be a petitio prin- 
cipii. For what right has the Materialist to assume that no 
Reality exists but what is material ? It is a naked assump- 
tion (contradicted by our own intuitive consciousness), which 
vitiates all his reasoning. And I maintain that it signifies 
everything whether we call the Supreme Reality a 44 God, Force, 
or Matter.” I can hardly imagine a more convincing proof 
of the confusion of thought engendered by Hyiozoism than 
such an absurd dictum. 
I pass over the unintelligible sentence about Egoity and 
subjective Cosmos, to repeat nty denial that the believer in 
an Omnipresent God is logically compelled to Monism — if 
by that term is meant the exclusive existence of one single 
entity, and that entity, Matter. Such an assertion may well 
be left to the common sense of ninety-nine out of every 
hundred readers. But I am no Pantheist. My Omnipresent 
God is a|Being immanent in all things, though in a manner 
wholly inscrutable (not unknown or unthinkable) to our finite 
minds. He is as truly personal as our own minds are, though 
He immeasurably transcends them ; and He has given our 
minds (or souls) the capacity of self-improvement and deve- 
lopment, in order that we may, if we will, become more like 
Himself in goodness and in truth. 
[In accordance with the wishes of many of our readers 
we must decline any continuation of this discussion. — 
Ed. J.S.: 
