101 
creative acts — for tliat would be to regard creation . The confu- 
as co -eternal with the Supreme agent, which is a scious agent 
contradiction ; but some act of the interior being nomena 6 ph is 
of the Supreme would needs be “as with Him.” atheistic. 
Any other conclusion seems a negation of His existence 
( Prov . viii. 30). 
80. How a finite agent sooner or later reaches the limit of 
his capacity. “ My goodness reaches not to Thee,” Finitude 
is his natural language towards the Infinite, or the suggests im- 
Supreme. First our consciousness is limited ; and i jerlectlon - 
next all our relations with the phenomenal are limited. 
Hence we are soon conscious of what we call “ imper- 
fection.” (But imperfection attaches in this case to the limit, 
and not necessarily to the quality of the act so limited, which 
may be conceived as entirely good as far as it goes.) (§ 63.) 
If it be said that we cannot conceive of any finite goodness, 
apart from its limitations, still we can mark the limitations, 
and perceive that they are no integral part of the idea of good. 
The goodness of character, or of action, is not the Buttheidea 
same as the circumstances in which we find it. In- of the good is 
deed, the same character of good may be found in tiSTof the°ii! 
different circumstances; the same relation of good mit (p- 36 ). 
may exist with diversity of particulars ; and like acts of good 
may proceed from various agents. The particulars of action 
elucidate the goodness, but the goodness has a reality of 
its own. 
81. And from this it again follows, that to attribute the 
same moral nature to the Supreme as to the finite conscious 
agent, is not to attribute imperfections found co-existing with 
finite goodness or powers. And also, on the other hand, our 
finite power may even be exerted in imitating a good- 
ness higher than our own; and the Supreme may reason- 
ably direct us to be “ perfect, as our Father in T 
heaven is perfect,” — “ holy, as He is holy,” — of the supreme 
“ righteous, as He is righteous,” — “ merciful, as finite f to h the 
as He is merciful.” He deals with us as conscious un U touchedby 
beings in relation, more or less perfectly, with the differences, 
the ever-good — the true-always — and having to take cogni- 
zance of it in all our dealings with the phenomenal. 
The Divine relation to the true-always, we have said, is 
essential , and never began to be. But our relation to the 
true-always is also essential, pertaining to consciousness, but 
with this difference, that it began to be; it is limited also, 
and not perfect. But the relation of the Supreme Relation of 
to the phenomenal must not be confounded with the Supreme to 
His relation to the true-always : for that would be phenome ' 
