343 
XVI. 
114. The Difficulties of human Responsibility, which oblige 
that Supreme moral government which is at the foundation of 
Religion, are connected with defects of Knowledge, and of 
Power, in the individual. (§ 11.) This will now direct our 
analysis. 
One end, at all events, to be aimed at in our present state 
of being is, as we have seen (§ 95), the perfecting of the cha- 
racter of the individual moral agent : nor can we fail to mark 
the possible connexion of this, with Religious ideas. The 
facts of life assure us, without doubt, that each one of us may 
become in character either better or worse ; i. e. we may either 
attain higher relation personally, with the true-always ; 
or we may deteriorate. Our Einitude reminds us Defecta in 
too (§ 79) that our present conscious relation to the present pro- 
Essential good is limited, though capable of growth : they may inl- 
and the law of Habit (§ 89) confirms to us the same ply< 
truth. Our present imperfection, then, suggests the possi- 
bility, if not probability, of Moral assistance in our Probation, 
both as to our defective knowledge and our imperfect power. 
As a fact, moral beings are capable of receiving and of giving 
moral assistance, even among themselves : and the idea of such 
assistance as even pertaining to all social Deontology, may 
reasonably be latent in any religious system which concerns 
responsible beings, like ourselves, under the government of 
the Perfect Moral Ruler of the world of moral agents. 
115. This general idea of “Assistance to moral agency ” is 
not all, however, that Religion may offer. As beings “ capable 
of goodness” (§ 20-46), living for a brief time in this world 
while our characters are undergoing Probation (§ 91), it is 
not unreasonable to think that we have some specific 
moral relations with the Supreme Governor under 
whom we act (§ 75), and by whom we shall be 
ultimately dealt with (§ 50). Since knowledge and 
duty are connected, there seems no antecedent 
objection, but just the reverse, to our having knowledge 
imparted to us concerning such specific relations. And in 
fact the whole history of our race shows us, that the expecta- 
tion of such communications from the Supreme to the finite, 
is consentaneous to our nature. A priori objection to Revela- 
tions concerning “ Him with Whom we have to do,” is surely 
obviated, at all events for a time, by this reflection. Any 
vital Religious dogma, we may readily grant, should be the 
expression of some Essential fact in connexion with Respon- 
Ho Antece- 
dent objection 
lies against 
specific assist- 
ance being 
given to moral 
agency. 
