lectual reception of Ethics, and admit of the same wide 
variety in individual cases. The impatient and unreal way 
in which men attempt to ask, at times, “ what is Truth ? " 
and “ who can tell us the Truth ?" seems to betray either a 
disposition to equivocate, or a misconception of the nature 
and dignity of man's personal accountability already. 
122. We find however such enquiry for “ Truth" to be 
sometimes supposed to be adequately met by the suggestion, 
that Revealed Truth must come to us on some “ Authority 
so that the ascertainment of the authority is everything ; — and 
then, the question arises, whether it should be a traditional, 
or a living Authority ; or whether the Revelation should 
be documentary, or purely historical; or whether, 
o? be auafnfng finally, it should be a communication to each indi- 
bevlrious 6 : 1 tK vidual ?— Such disputes, (to which we will refer 
fmportSt e is a g a * n (§ 141); are little more than technical, but are 
mp n ’ morally misleading ; — the fact itself of additional 
knowledge for the moral agent being the vital point at 
present ; and not the means of its conveyance. Probably 
the mode in which Truth is conveyed to different conscious 
beings lies, in many respects, beyond scrutiny. Our sense of 
Responsibility, or the fact itself, cannot be determined by 
any archaeological examination of the processes by which we 
gained our more defined notions of duty. Probation is 
always going on : we are responsible at each step. 
123. There is no previous objection, as far as appears, to the 
communication of truth either by a social organization, or by 
a “ written document," or by “ special illumination," or other 
means, provided that it be truth that the individual finds him- 
self to have really received ; and that it has been received as 
a moral conviction. Theorists unfortunately there are who 
no revious are mucdl more anxious about the method of receiv- 
obj ecUcm^ 10 to ing, than about the Truth received ; unhappily, too, 
oF tr attSn’fng the waywardness, and weariness of Responsibility 
lebgion ge in seen some men seems to account for their eager- 
ness in debating the preliminaries, as if in them 
they might find excuses for failure in duty. — But as every 
excuse presupposes the need of excuse, so these wranglings 
betray the unquietness of conscience, suspecting itself to be 
accountable while aiming to stand in suspense about the fact. 
Some who struggle most for what they term “authority," 
and for “ illumination," as against “ reason," are forgetful 
that they are in danger of removing Religion from the whole 
domain of Deontology ; for in proportion as the individual is 
restricted, his responsibility ceases. 
1 24. Revelation, or the imparting of Knowledge of further 
