End can be normative. The work of God as a whole must be a true expression of the Mind of God.

The point at which this set of considerations becomes important is the relation of History to Eternity. Now I certainly do not think that this is merely a relation of Symbol to Meaning, if by History we mean terrestrial history. This is made clear on p. 211, where it is insisted that the Christian hope is not only the attainment of a point of view from which the problems of existence are seen to be solved, but rather a resurrection to a new order of being. This passage is intended to correct the insufficiency of the analogy from Drama which is employed elsewhere (p. 90). On the whole I think we may say that, seen from this end, that is while we are still in ignorance of the new order of being to which we hope to attain by resurrection, the relation of History to Eternal Life must predominantly appear as one of Means to End; but viewed from the other end, when the attainment of Eternal Life will itself be a fact of History, it will appear as one of Symbol and Meaning. We cannot apprehend it thus, but we can see that it must in principle be thus apprehensible.

I have said something about these two points because they touch the main principles of my argument. Beyond this I would only say that this is an Essay, not a Treatise—a sketch, not a picture.

December 1924.

W. M.