In those sentences where the infinite Person is spoken of as limited and unlimited, &c., it is evident that there is a play upon words, and that they apply to different qualities in the personality. It is not said, of course, that the number of his faculties is limited and unlimited; or that his self-complacency is boundless and constrained; or that his act is conditioned and unconditioned. Nor are these seeming paradoxes stated to puzzle and disturb. They are written to express a great, fundamental, and all-important truth, which seems never once to have shadowed the minds of the Limitists,--a truth which, when once seen, dispels forever all the ghostly battalions of difficulties which they have raised. The truth is this. That Being whose limitations, conditions, and relations are wholly subjective, _i. e._ find their whole base and spring in his self; and who is therefore entirely free from on all possible limitations, conditions, and relations, from without himself; and who possesses, therefore, all possible fulness of all possible excellences, and finds the perennial acme of happiness in self-contemplation, and the consciousness of his perfect worth; and being such is ground for all other possible being; is, in the true philosophical sense, unrelated, unconditioned, unlimited. Or, in other words, the conditions imposed by Universal Genius upon the absolute and infinite Person are _different in kind_ from the conditions imposed upon finite persons and physical things. The former in no way diminish aught from the fulness of their possessor's endowments; the latter not only do so diminish, but render it impossible for their possessor to supply the deficiency. The following dictum will, then, concisely and exactly express the truth we have attained. _Those only are conditions, in the philosophical sense, which diminish the fulness of the possessor's endowments._ An admirable illustration of this truth can be drawn from some reflections of Laurens P. Hickok, D. D., which we quote. "What we need is not merely a rule by which to direct _the process_ in the attainment of any artistic end, but we must find the legislator who may determine the end itself"... Whence is the ultimate behest that is to determine the archetype, and control the pure spontaneity in its action. * * * * *