115 
“ If the Supreme be Infinite, how can the Infinite have movement 1 ” 
But there are two conceptions of movement, physical and moral. The 
movements of the physical universe differ toto ccelo from those of my mind. It is 
misleading and a misapplication of terms to apply the word “ movement ” to 
mental and, above all, to moral phenomena. It is bringing down the mind 
of man to the level of the pure physical creation ; but it does not need argu- 
ment to show that the movements of the mind of man differ toto codo from 
the movements of the physical creation. The third paragraph in the same 
page is exceedingly admirable. Dr. Irons says : — 
“ In these speculations it would almost seem that there is no escape from 
a denial of Him whom we have to recognize as Supreme moral Governor ! 
The Supreme has no past, no future, no retrospect, no prospect, no thought, 
no deed ! ” 
The result is inevitable, assuming the principles stated in the paper. If you 
once lay down that there is nothing but an eternal “ am ” of the Creator, 
these things follow as a matter of course, and you arrive at a false philosophy 
based upon false principles. But the real thing to be done is to get out of 
these false principles. It is evident that it is impossible to conceive of the 
Creator without assigning to Him a personality ; and if we assign to Him a 
personality, that personality must be imaged by the human personality, and 
must involve the application to Him, freed from their imperfections, of our 
various human moral attributes. That does not involve any contradiction at 
all. In the latter part of the same paragraph Dr. Irons says : — 
“ The Eleatic philosophy assumes (what nothing but an exhaustive analysis 
of such ideas as ‘ being,’ ‘ thought,’ and ‘ volition ’ would justify) that the 
finite limitations of those ideas are essential to them.” 
Of course the whole of these conceptions have an essential existence quite 
apart from their finite character, and are capable of being applied to the 
Creator Himself. Again, Dr. Irons says : — 
“ A consciousness transcending the phenomenal is the great fact on which 
our whole investigation rests.” 
Now it is in this that I think the paper is so very valuable, because it persists 
in going back to the facts of our inward spiritual consciousness, of which we 
are more certain, perhaps, than of any other species of knowledge whatever. 
I feel that I have a firmer ground of knowing certain facts of my inner con- 
sciousness than I can have of any facts of external nature, and Dr. Irons is 
worthy of much commendation on this point for persisting in going back to 
these, in spite of all metaphysical theorizing. In the same paragraph of the 
same page he says : — 
“ If we are conscious at all, we are as conscious that the phenomena and 
ourselves are not the same, as we are of our own being.” 
That is a most important assertion : in fact, when I reflect upon it, it affords 
