90 
54. To say this is by no means to assert equality in all moral 
respects among beings of a moral nature j for we recognize, in 
fact, very wide differences among responsible beings ; in some a 
high degree of perfection, in others great imperfection ; but 
the higher are still in some correspondence with the lower, 
and they may take cognizance of each other, and each have 
and therefore relation to the ideal perfect (§ 29). And thus, 
i reme h0 Moral though there can be no limit to the Perfection of 
Governor °and the Supreme, there seems no reason why He Who 
the governed. - g { n g n ff e should not use the forms of the finite, 
nor anything to hinder us, who are finite, from leaning on the 
infinite (§ 30). Our Deontology demands that the Supreme 
Governor should really deal with us, and we with Him : and 
Religion asks no more. 
55. It is quite conceivable, it may be even probable, that the 
character and dealings of the Supreme Ruler of moral agents 
may be partly withdrawn from the scrutiny of some, if not of 
all who are governed. The reality of His relations with us is 
Th 0 reality n °f overthrown, however, by any intellectual diffi- 
of the Supreme Cll ^y amon g us in apprehending them; enough 
Governor with being known to sustain in us the conviction, that 
the governed, “the Judge of all the earth will do right.” But 
there is great ethical danger in allowing speculations, or illogi- 
cal attempts to understand this subject, to pass unquestioned ; 
because every moral agent practically assumes for himself a 
philosophy of some kind, and is soon injured in his responsible 
action by taking an erroneous and plausible theory. And, 
indeed, speculations concerning the Supreme are also facts of 
our moral history, of too wide a kind to be left unexamined by 
us, who profess to be ascertaining “ facts of human nature.” 
They are not, as too often supposed, merely wilful 
concerning 0113 efforts of wayward thinkers: these inquiries, and 
disprove°it not ^ ese resulting theories, remind us that a reasonable 
and responsible being aims to see both his reason- 
ableness and his responsibility. 
56. The speculations as to the character and dealings of the 
Supreme Governor, or God, with us whom He governs, natu- 
rally range themselves in two groups, according as they 
belong to our relations to the “ true-always,” or to our relations 
Two classes w ^h “ phenomena.” The former are commonly 
fatioiw 1 specu ' s P°k en °f as Pantheistic, the latter as Humanitarian, 
if we may take the description of either from the 
opponents. 
On the one hand it has been doubted, whether we can have 
any real knowledge at all of the Supreme Governor, — know- 
ledge not being predicable univoce of God and man. On the 
