physical relations of Omniscience and Will that are curiously premonitory of the views set forth in Parts II, III, and IV of the Supplementary Essay. He adds, in substance, that if in Professor Royce’s original argument the question were simply of proving real the conception of an Absolute, the objections he made would indeed fail of pertinence, but that they seem to hold unyieldingly when the conception is offered as the conception of God. He wishes it known, however, that with respect to this charge of deficiency in divine fulness he writes only in view of Professor Royce’s original argument, his earlier books, and his direct reply to the objections, and without acquaintance with the remainder of the Supplementary Essay, — that is to say, with the body of it, — which he has not seen.[1]
University of California, Berkeley,
- July 26, 1897.
- ↑ The editor, for his part, feels much regret that the limits of the volume have forbidden the insertion of Professor Mezes’s rejoinder in full. Its unavoidable length precluded its appearance as a whole, while the close articulation of its parts made impracticable any excerpts that would do it justice. It is to be hoped the public may see it elsewhere, and in a less restricted and more adequate form than its author was constrained to give it in his communication to the editor.
