354 
tlie true-always : it is to identify consciousness and per- 
ception : and (which is more to our present argument), it is 
to deny real contingency in the phenomenal, which is at the 
basis of all our Deontology. 
This is not the place to pursue the matter further, but the 
supposition of the certainty of the phenomenal future is ex- 
posed by Origen against Celsus with much sagacity of obser- 
vation (lib. ii., in fine) from a moral point of view. The 
philosophy of the subject is dealt with by Maimonides. ( Mishne 
Torah , First Book, v. 5.) 
140. While thus our principles oblige our rejection of all a 
priori dogmatics inconsistent with them, (such as 
s those of Predestination,) it will be also seen that 
difficulties. they must hinder our acceptance of any a posteriori 
claims of dogma, or solutions of difficulties, which 
at any time are in collision with primary Deontology; — and 
this will remove controversies of another class. 
The difficulties of many kinds in subjects submitted to our 
Faith, as well as those which encumber the theory and the 
fact of our accountability, have never, as we have pointed out 
(§ 13), at all set aside the fact itself. But the attempts to 
meet those difficulties have not unfrequently been inter- 
ferences inconsistent with the grounds of all Deontology. Cer- 
tain political and social interferences with Human 
Fallacy of Responsibility already glanced at (& 40) may of 
Faith and course remedy much; but also create much or the 
Obedffince ^ 6 tyranny of others over ourselves as responsible 
persons. The defect of such interference is, that 
at best it is legal, and not moral. A similar objection must 
no doubt be taken to all supposed interference of a merely 
positive, or authoritative kind, even on the part of Revelation 
itself ; whether for the furtherance of a doctrine or asserted 
truth, or for the inculcation of a supposed duty. 
141 . To say that a moral being ought to believe anything “ on 
authority only/” or to do anything “ on obedience only ” is a 
contradiction. There can be no “ ought,” where the conscious 
agent is forbidden to examine his consciousness of the true- 
always ; and where even his knowledge of the phenomenal is 
wholly subordinated to other agents. 
While admitting that Revelation is to exhibit authority for 
its message, still it is inevitable for a moral being to require 
that his consciousness be appealed to and respected. If 
Duty be denied. Faith is impossible. We can no more 
devolve our accountability on an alleged Religious 
Union of An- Authority, than on Society, or on the State : for 
Convict i on . an accountability would then cease to be moral, and 
