ct；　the　first　or　highest；　has　self…disposal　to　the　point　that　its　operation　is　utterly　independent；　it　turns　wholly　upon　itself；　its　very　action　is　itself；　at　rest　in　its　good　it　is　without　need；　complete；　and　may　be　said　to　live　to　its　will；　there　the　will　is　intellection：　it　is　called　will　because　it　expresses　the　Intellectual…Principle　in　the　willing…phase　and；　besides；　what　we　know　as　will　imitates　this　operation　taking　place　within　the　Intellectual…Principle。　Will　strives　towards　the　good　which　the　act　of　Intellectual…Principle　realizes。　Thus　that　principle　holds　what　will　seeks；　that　good　whose　attainment　makes　will　identical　with　Intellection。　　　　　But　if　self…disposal　is　founded　thus　on　the　will　aiming　at　the　good；　how　can　it　possibly　be　denied　to　that　principle　permanently　possessing　the　good；　sole　object　of　the　aim？　　　　　Any　one　scrupulous　about　setting　self…disposal　so　high　may　find　some　loftier　word。　　　　　7。　Soul　becomes　free　when　it　moves；　through　Intellectual…Principle；　towards　The　Good；　what　it　does　in　that　spirit　is　its　free　act；　Intellectual…Principle　is　free　in　its　own　right。　That　principle　of　Good　is　the　sole　object　of　desire　and　the　source　of　self…disposal　to　the　rest；　to　soul　when　it　fully　attains；　to　Intellectual…Principle　by　connate　possession。　　　　　How　then　can　the　sovereign　of　all　that　august　sequence…　the　first　in　place；　that　to　which　all　else　strives　to　mount；　all　dependent　upon　it　and　taking　from　it　their　powers　even　to　this　power　of　self…disposal…　how　can　This　be　brought　under　the　freedom　belonging　to　you　and　me；　a　conception　applicable　only　by　violence　to　Intellectual…Principle　itself？　　　　　It　is　rash　thinking　drawn　from　another　order　that　would　imagine　a　First　Principle　to　be　chance…　made　what　it　is；　controlled　by　a　manner　of　being　imposed　from　without；　void　therefore　of　freedom　or　self…disposal；　acting　or　refraining　under　compulsion。　Such　a　statement　is　untrue　to　its　subject　and　introduces　much　difficulty；　it　utterly　annuls　the　principle　of　freewill　with　the　very　conception　of　our　own　voluntary　action；　so　that　there　is　no　longer　any　sense　in　discussion　upon　these　terms；　empty　names　for　the　non…existent。　Anyone　upholding　this　opinion　would　be　obliged　to　say　not　merely　that　free　act　exists　nowhere　but　that　the　very　word　conveys　nothing　to　him。　To　admit　understanding　the　word　is　to　be　easily　brought　to　confess　that　the　conception　of　freedom　does　apply　where　it　is　denied。　No　doubt　a　concept　leaves　the　reality　untouched　and　unappropriated；　for　nothing　can　produce　itself；　bring　itself　into　being；　but　thought　insists　upon　distinguishing　between　what　is　subject　to　others　and　what　is　independent；　bound　under　no　allegiance；　lord　of　its　own　act。　　　　　This　state　of　freedom　belongs　in　the　absolute　degree　to　the　Eternals　in　right　of　that　eternity　and　to　other　beings　in　so　far　as　without　hindrance　they　possess　or　pursue　The　Good　which；　standing　above　them　all；　must　manifestly　be　the　only　good　they　can　reasonably　seek。　　　　　To　say　that　The　Good　exists　by　chance　must　be　false；　chance　belongs　to　the　later；　to　the　multiple；　since　the　First　has　never　come　to　be；　we　cannot　speak　of　it　either　as　coming　by　chance　into　being　or　as　not　master　of　its　being。　Absurd　also　the　objection　that　it　acts　in　accordance　with　its　being　if　this　is　to　suggest　that　freedom　demands　act　or　other　expression　against　the　nature。　Neither　does　its　nature　as　the　unique　annul　its　freedom　when　this　is　the　result　of　no　compulsion　but　means　only　that　The　Good　is　no　other　than　itself；　is　self…complete　and　has　no　higher。　　　　　The　objection　would　imply　that　where　there　is　most　good　there　is　least　freedom。　If　this　is　absurd；　still　more　absurd　to　deny　freedom　to　The　Good　on　the　ground　that　it　is　good　and　self…concentred；　not　needing　to　lean　upon　anything　else　but　actually　being　the　Term　to　which　all　tends；　itself　moving　to　none。　　　　　Where…　since　we　must　use　such　words…　the　essential　act　is　identical　with　the　being…　and　this　identity　must　obtain　in　The　Good　since　it　holds　even　in　Intellectual…Principle…　there　the　act　is　no　more　determined　by　the　Being　than　the　Being　by　the　Act。　Thus　〃acting　according　to　its　nature〃　does　not　apply；　the　Act；　the　Life；　so　to　speak；　cannot　be　held　to　issue　from　the　Being；　the　Being　accompanies　the　Act　in　an　eternal　association：　from　the　two　＇Being　and　Act＇　it　forms　itself　into　The　Good；　self…springing　and　unspringing。　　　　　8。　But　it　is　not；　in　our　view；　as　an　attribute　that　this　freedom　is　present　in　the　First。　In　the　light　of　free　acts；　from　which　we　eliminate　the　contraries；　we　recognise　There　self…determination；　self…directed　and；　failing　more　suitable　terms；　we　apply　to　it　the　lesser　terms　brought　over　from　lesser　things　and　so　tell　it　as　best　we　may：　no　words　could　ever　be　adequate　or　even　applicable　to　that　from　which　all　else…　the　noble；　the　august…　is　derived。　For　This　is　principle　of　all；　or；　more　strictly；　unrelated　to　all　and；　in　this　consideration；　cannot　be　made　to　possess　such　laters　as　even　freedom　and　self…disposal；　which　in　fact　indicate　manifestation　upon　the　extern…　unhindered　but　implying　the　existence　of　other　beings　whose　opposition　proves　ineffective。　　　　　We　cannot　think　of　the　First　as　moving　towards　any　other；　He　holds　his　own　manner　of　being　before　any　other　was；　even　Being　we　withhold　and　therefore　all　relation　to　beings。　　　　　Nor　may　we　speak　of　any　〃conforming　to　the　nature〃；　this　again　is　of　the　later；　if　the　term　be　applicable　at　all　in　that　realm　it　applies　only　to　the　secondaries…　primally　to　Essential　Existence　as　next　to　this　First。　And　if　a　〃nature〃　belongs　only　to　things　of　time；　this　conformity　to　nature　does　not　apply　even　to　Essential　Existence。　On　the　other　hand；　we　are　not　to　deny　that　it　is　derived　from　Essential　Existence　for　that　would　be　to　take　away　its　existence　and　would　imply　derivation　from　something　else。　　　　　Does　this　mean　that　the　First　is　to　be　described　as　happening　to　be？　　　　　No；　that　would　be　just　as　false；　nothing　〃happens〃　to　the　First；　it　stands　in　no　such　relationship；　happening　belongs　only　to　the　multiple　where；　first；　existence　is　given　and　then　something　is　added。　And　how　could　the　Source　〃happen　to　be〃？　There　has　been　no　coming　so　that　you　can　put　it　to　the　question　〃How　does　this　come　to　be？　What　chance　brought　it　here；　gave　it　being？〃　Chance　did　not　yet　exist；　there　was　no　〃automatic　action〃：　these　imply　something　before　themselves　and　occur　in　the　realm　of　process。　　　　　9。　If　we　cannot　but　speak　of　Happening　we　must　not　halt　at　the　word　but　look　to　the　intention。　And　what　is　that？　That　the　Supreme　by　possession　of　a　certain　nature　and　power　is　the　Principle。　Obviously　if　its　nature　were　other　it　would　be　that　other　and　if　the　difference　were　for　the　worse　it　would　manifest　itself　as　that　lesser　being。　But　we　must　add　in　correction　that；　as　Principle　of　All；　it　could　not　be　some　chance　product；　it　is　not　enough　to　say　that　it　could　not　be　inferior；　it　could　not　even　be　in　some　way　good；　for　instance　in　some　less　perfect　degree；　the　Principle　of　All　must　be　of　higher　quality　than　anything　that　follows　it。　It　is　therefore　in　a　sense　determined…　determined；　I　mean；　by　its　uniqueness　and　not　in　any　sense　of　being　under　compulsion；　compulsion　did　not　co…exist　with　the　Supreme　but　has　place　only　among　secondaries　and　even　there　can　exercise　no　tyranny；　this　uniqueness　is　not　from　outside。　　　　　This；　then；　it　is；　This　and　no　other；　simply　what　it　must　be；　it　has　not　〃happened〃　but　is　what　by　a　necessity　prior　to　all　necessities　it　must　be。　We　cannot　think　of　it　as　a　chance　existence；　it　is　not　what　it　chanced　to　be　but　what　it　must　be…　and　yet　without　a　〃Must。〃　　　　　All　the　rest　waits　for　the　appearing　of　the　king　to　hail　him　for　himself；　not　a　being　of　accident　and　happening　but　authentically　king；　authentically　Principle；　The　Good　authentically；　not　a　being　that　acts　in　conformity　with　goodness…　and　so；　recognisably；　a　secondary…　but　the　total　unity　that　he　is；　no　moulding　upon　goodness　but　the　very　Good　itself。　　　　　Even　Being　is　exempt　from　happening：　of　course；　anything　happening　happens　to　Being；　but　Being　itself　has　not　happened　nor　is　the　manner　of　its　Being　a　thing　of　happening；　of　derivation；　it　is　the　very　nature　of　Being　to　be；　how　then　can　we　think　that　this　happening　can　attach　to　the　Transcendent　of　Being；　That　in　whose　power　lay　the　very　engendering　of　Being？　　　　　Certainly　this　Transcendent　never　happened　to　be　what　it　is；　it　is　so；　just　as　Being　exists　in　complete　identity　with　its　own　essential　nature　and　that　of　Intellectual…Principle。　Certainly　that　which　has　never　passed　outside　of　its　own　orbit；　unbendingly　what　it　is；　its　own　unchangeably；　is　that　which　may　most　strictly　be　said　to　possess　its　own　being：　what　then　are　we　to　say　when　we　mount　and　contemplate　that　which　stands　yet　higher；　can　we　conceivably　say　〃Thus；　as　we　see　it；　thus　has　it　happened　to　be〃？　Neither　thus　nor　in　any　mode　did　it　happen　to　be；　there　is　no　happening；　there　is　only　a　〃Thus　and　No　Otherwise　than　Thus。〃　And　even　〃Thus〃　is　false；　it　would　imply　limit；　a　defined　form：　to　know　This　is　to　be　able　to　reject　both　the　〃Thus〃　and　the　〃Not…Thus；〃　either　of　which　classes　among　Beings　to　which　alone　Manner　of　Being　can　attach。　　　　　A　〃Thus〃　is　something　that　attaches　to　everything　in　the　world　of　thin