nner　of　Being　can　attach。　　　　　A　〃Thus〃　is　something　that　attaches　to　everything　in　the　world　of　things：　standing　before　the　indefinable　you　may　name　any　of　these　sequents　but　you　must　say　This　is　none　of　them：　at　most　it　is　to　be　conceived　as　the　total　power　towards　things；　supremely　self…concentred；　being　what　it　wills　to　be　or　rather　projecting　into　existence　what　it　wills；　itself　higher　than　all　will；　will　a　thing　beneath　it。　In　a　word　it　neither　willed　its　own　〃Thus〃…　as　something　to　conform　to…　nor　did　any　other　make　it　〃Thus。〃　　　　　10。　The　upholder　of　Happening　must　be　asked　how　this　false　happening　can　be　supposed　to　have　come　about；　taking　it　that　it　did；　and　haw　the　happening；　then；　is　not　universally　prevalent。　If　there　is　to　be　a　natural　scheme　at　all；　it　must　be　admitted　that　this　happening　does　not　and　cannot　exist：　for　if　we　attribute　to　chance　the　Principle　which　is　to　eliminate　chance　from　all　the　rest；　how　can　there　ever　be　anything　independent　of　chance？　And　this　Nature　does　take　away　the　chanced　from　the　rest；　bringing　in　form　and　limit　and　shape。　In　the　case　of　things　thus　conformed　to　reason　the　cause　cannot　be　identified　with　chance　but　must　lie　in　that　very　reason；　chance　must　be　kept　for　what　occurs　apart　from　choice　and　sequence　and　is　purely　concurrent。　When　we　come　to　the　source　of　all　reason；　order　and　limit；　how　can　we　attribute　the　reality　there　to　chance？　Chance　is　no　doubt　master　of　many　things　but　is　not　master　of　Intellectual…Principle；　of　reason；　of　order；　so　as　to　bring　them　into　being。　How　could　chance；　recognised　as　the　very　opposite　of　reason；　be　its　Author？　And　if　it　does　not　produce　Intellectual…Principle；　then　certainly　not　that　which　precedes　and　surpasses　that　Principle。　Chance；　besides；　has　no　means　of　producing；　has　no　being　at　all；　and；　assuredly；　none　in　the　Eternal。　　　　　Since　there　is　nothing　before　Him　who　is　the　First；　we　must　call　a　halt；　there　is　nothing　to　say；　we　may　enquire　into　the　origin　of　his　sequents　but　not　of　Himself　who　has　no　origin。　　　　　But　perhaps；　never　having　come　to　be　but　being　as　He　is；　He　is　still　not　master　of　his　own　essence：　not　master　of　his　essence　but　being　as　He　is；　not　self…originating　but　acting　out　of　his　nature　as　He　finds　it；　must　He　not　be　of　necessity　what　He　is；　inhibited　from　being　otherwise？　　　　　No：　What　He　is；　He　is　not　because　He　could　not　be　otherwise　but　because　so　is　best。　Not　everything　has　power　to　move　towards　the　better　though　nothing　is　prevented　by　any　external　from　moving　towards　the　worse。　But　that　the　Supreme　has　not　so　moved　is　its　own　doing：　there　has　been　no　inhibition；　it　has　not　moved　simply　because　it　is　That　which　does　not　move；　in　this　stability　the　inability　to　degenerate　is　not　powerlessness；　here　permanence　is　very　Act；　a　self…determination。　This　absence　of　declination　comports　the　fulness　of　power；　it　is　not　the　yielding　of　a　being　held　and　controlled　but　the　Act　of　one　who　is　necessity；　law；　to　all。　　　　　Does　this　indicate　a　Necessity　which　has　brought　itself　into　existence？　No：　there　has　been　no　coming　into　being　in　any　degree；　This　is　that　by　which　being　is　brought　to　all　the　rest；　its　sequents。　Above　all　origins；　This　can　owe　being　neither　to　an　extern　nor　to　itself。　　　　　11。　But　this　Unoriginating；　what　is　it？　　　　　We　can　but　withdraw；　silent；　hopeless；　and　search　no　further。　What　can　we　look　for　when　we　have　reached　the　furthest？　Every　enquiry　aims　at　a　first　and；　that　attained；　rests。　　　　　Besides；　we　must　remember　that　all　questioning　deals　with　the　nature　of　a　thing；　its　quality；　its　cause　or　its　essential　being。　In　this　case　the　being…　in　so　far　as　we　can　use　the　word…　is　knowable　only　by　its　sequents：　the　question　as　to　cause　asks　for　a　principle　beyond；　but　the　principle　of　all　has　no　principle；　the　question　as　to　quality　would　be　looking　for　an　attribute　in　that　which　has　none：　the　question　as　to　nature　shows　only　that　we　must　ask　nothing　about　it　but　merely　take　it　into　the　mind　if　we　may；　with　the　knowledge　gained　that　nothing　can　be　permissibly　connected　with　it。　　　　　The　difficulty　this　Principle　presents　to　our　mind　in　so　far　as　we　can　approach　to　conception　of　it　may　be　exhibited　thus：　　　　　We　begin　by　posing　space；　a　place；　a　Chaos；　into　this　existing　container；　real　or　fancied；　we　introduce　God　and　proceed　to　enquire：　we　ask；　for　example；　whence　and　how　He　comes　to　be　there：　we　investigate　the　presence　and　quality　of　this　new…comer　projected　into　the　midst　of　things　here　from　some　height　or　depth。　But　the　difficulty　disappears　if　we　eliminate　all　space　before　we　attempt　to　conceive　God：　He　must　not　be　set　in　anything　either　as　enthroned　in　eternal　immanence　or　as　having　made　some　entry　into　things：　He　is　to　be　conceived　as　existing　alone；　in　that　existence　which　the　necessity　of　discussion　forces　us　to　attribute　to　Him；　with　space　and　all　the　rest　as　later　than　Him…　space　latest　of　all。　Thus　we　conceive　as　far　as　we　may；　the　spaceless；　we　abolish　the　notion　of　any　environment：　we　circumscribe　Him　within　no　limit；　we　attribute　no　extension　to　Him；　He　has　no　quality　since　no　shape；　even　shape　Intellectual；　He　holds　no　relationship　but　exists　in　and　for　Himself　before　anything　is。　　　　　How　can　we　think　any　longer　of　that　〃Thus　He　happened　to　be〃？　How　make　this　one　assertion　of　Him　of　whom　all　other　assertion　can　be　no　more　than　negation？　It　is　on　the　contrary　nearer　the　truth　to　say　〃Thus　He　has　happened　not　to　be〃：　that　contains　at　least　the　utter　denial　of　his　happening。　　　　　12。　Yet；　is　not　God　what　He　is？　Can　He；　then；　be　master　of　being　what　He　is　or　master　to　stand　above　Being？　The　mind　utterly　reluctant　returns　to　its　doubt：　some　further　considerations；　therefore；　must　be　offered：　　　　　In　us　the　individual；　viewed　as　body；　is　far　from　reality；　by　soul　which　especially　constitutes　the　being　we　participate　in　reality；　are　in　some　degree　real。　This　is　a　compound　state；　a　mingling　of　Reality　and　Difference；　not；　therefore　reality　in　the　strictest　sense；　not　reality　pure。　Thus　far　we　are　not　masters　of　our　being；　in　some　sense　the　reality　in　us　is　one　thing　and　we　another。　We　are　not　masters　of　our　being；　the　real　in　us　is　the　master；　since　that　is　the　principle　establishing　our　characteristic　difference；　yet　we　are　again　in　some　sense　that　which　is　sovereign　in　us　and　so　even　on　this　level　might　in　spite　of　all　be　described　as　self…disposing。　　　　　But　in　That　which　is　wholly　what　it　is…　self…existing　reality；　without　distinction　between　the　total　thing　and　its　essence…　the　being　is　a　unit　and　is　sovereign　over　itself；　neither　the　being　nor　the　essence　is　to　be　referred　to　any　extern。　Besides；　the　very　question　as　to　self。　disposal　falls　in　the　case　of　what　is　First　in　reality；　if　it　can　be　raised　at　all；　we　must　declare　that　there　can　be　no　subjection　whatever　in　That　to　which　reality　owes　its　freedom；　That　in　whose　nature　the　conferring　of　freedom　must　clearly　be　vested；　preeminently　to　be　known　as　the　liberator。　　　　　Still；　is　not　this　Principle　subject　to　its　essential　Being？　On　the　contrary；　it　is　the　source　of　freedom　to　Being。　　　　　Even　if　there　be　Act　in　the　Supreme…　an　Act　with　which　it　is　to　be　identified…　this　is　not　enough　to　set　up　a　duality　within　it　and　prevent　it　being　entirely　master　of　that　self　from　which　the　Act　springs；　for　the　Act　is　not　distinct　from　that　self。　If　we　utterly　deny　Act　in　it…　holding　that　Act　begins　with　others　moving　about　it…　we　are　all　the　less　able　to　allow　either　self…mastery　or　subjection　in　it：　even　self…mastery　is　absent　here；　not　that　anything　else　is　master　over　it　but　that　self…mastery　begins　with　Being　while　the　Supreme　is　to　be　set　in　a　higher　order。　　　　　But　what　can　there　be　higher　than　that　which　is　its　own　master？　　　　　Where　we　speak　of　self…mastery　there　is　a　certain　duality；　Act　against　essence；　from　the　exercise　of　the　Act　arises　the　conception　of　the　mastering　principle…　though　one　identical　with　the　essence…　hence　arises　the　separate　idea　of　mastery；　and　the　being　concerned　is　said　to　possess　self…mastery。　Where　there　is　no　such　duality　joining　to　unity　but　solely　a　unity　pure…　either　because　the　Act　is　the　whole　being　or　because　there　is　no　Act　at　all…　then　we　cannot　strictly　say　that　the　being　has　this　mastery　of　self。　　　　　13。　Our　enquiry　obliges　us　to　use　terms　not　strictly　applicable：　we　insist；　once　more；　that　not　even　for　the　purpose　of　forming　the　concept　of　the　Supreme　may　we　make　it　a　duality；　if　now　we　do；　it　is　merely　for　the　sake　of　conveying　conviction；　at　the　cost　of　verbal　accuracy。　　　　　If；　then；　we　are　to　allow　Activities　in　the　Supreme　and　make　them　depend　upon　will…　and　certainly　Act　cannot　There　be　will…less　and　these　Activities　are　to　be　the　very　essence；　then　will　and　essence　in　the　Supreme　must　be　identical。　This　admitted；　as　He　willed　to　be　so　He　is；　it　is　no　more　true　to　say　that　He　wills　and　acts　as　His　nature　determines　than　that　His　essence　is　as　He　wills　and　acts。　Thus　He　is　wholly　master　of　Himself　and　holds　His　very　being　at　His　will。　　　　　Consider　also　that　every　being　in　its　pursuit　of　its　good　seeks　to　be　that　good　rather　than　what　it　is　it　judges　itself　most　truly　to　be　when　it　partakes　of　its　good：　in　so　far　as　it　thus　draws　on　its　good　its　being　is　its　choice：　much　more；　then；　must　the　very　Principle；　The　Good；　be　desirable　in