97 
of the case,, understands the beings and phenomena of the 
Universe which He governs. 
71. We thus finally perceive that the philosophy which sup- 
ports alike the Mediaeval Pantheism and the modern Anthropo- 
morphism is unwittingly but wholly based on the denial of the 
grounds of conscious moral agency , — its twofold relation to the 
true-always, and to the phenomenal. 
The Responsible Conscious Agent, we again see, ever 
demands a correspondence between himself and his Supreme 
Governor, and cannot be deterred from demanding it by any 
unreal speculations. His own connections with phenomenal 
existences he must have, of the same kind as those which are 
discerned by the Supreme ; otherwise the Supreme would be 
judging one thing while the Finite agent had been acting 
another. If his relation with the true-always is not the same 
as that of the Supreme (though it differ in degree and in- 
tensity) ; he would be judged (we repeat) on ground different 
from that on which he had acted : w T hich is absurd, if the 
Supreme be a Moral Governor (§ 54). And supposing the 
Eleatic ontology, proceeding from the Divine immoveable- 
ness, had a kind of truth in relation to the true- ihe Eieatic 
always, it had none in relation to the phenomenal, premisses must 
It may be that the true-always has no change of b8rejected - 
“ past, present, or future 99 ; but this cannot be with the 
phenomenal which is the sphere of the contingent. We have 
no reasonable alternative but the rejection of the Eleatic 
principle. 
72. All that we have seen as to Contingency must here be 
borne in mind. It must not be admitted pro forma , and then 
laid aside (§ 23). It is irrational to say that in contingent and 
phenomenal matter there is “ no past, or future 99 with God. 
The Divine immutability, and co-existence, is in the relation 
of the Supreme Conscious Being to the true-always ; which is 
doubtless essential. We cannot, on the one hand, deny the 
relation of the Supreme to the phenomenal without denying 
Him to be the Moral Governor Whom we need. Wo cannot, on 
the other, deny His relation to the true-always, without deny- 
ing Him that which pertains to the essence of consciousness, 
whether in the Supreme, or in man, His finite “image.” 
XI. 
73. To proceed : — 
We have found that whether in the schools of old Athens, 
or in the museum of Alexandria, or in the cloisters of 
VOL. IV. h 
