2.) It may not be possible, by general laws, to prevent all irregularities, or remedy them. 3.) Direct interpositions might perhaps remedy many disorders arising under them, but this would have bad effects. --Encouraging improvidence. --Leaving us no rule of life. --Every interposition would have _distant_ effects: so that we could not guess what would be the _whole_ result. · If it be replied that those distant effects might also be corrected by direct interpositions--this is only talking at random. _Objec._ If we are so ignorant as this whole argument supposes, we are too ignorant to understand the proofs of religion. _Ans._ 1. Total ignorance of a subject precludes argument, but partial ignorance does not. We may, in various degrees, know a man’s character, and the way he is _likely_ to pursue certain ends; and yet not know how he _ought_ to act to gain those ends. In this case objections to his mode of pursuing ends may be answered by our ignorance, though that he _does_ act in a certain manner is capable of proof. So we may have evidence of God’s character and aims, and yet not be competent judges as to his measures. Our ignorance is a good answer to the difficulties of religion, but no objection to religion itself. _Ans._ 2. If our ignorance did invalidate the proofs of religion, as well as the objections, yet is it undeniable that moral obligations remain unaffected by our ignorance of the consequences of obedience or violation. The consequences of vice and virtue may not be fully known, yet it is credible that they may be such as religion declares: and this credibility is an obligation, in point of prudence, to abstain from sin. _Ans._ 3. Our answers to the objections against religion, are _not_ equally valid against the proofs of it. [Answers rehearsed.] _Ans._ 4. Our answers, though they may be said to be based on our ignorance, are really not so, but on what analogy teaches _concerning_ our ignorance,--viz.: that it renders us incompetent judges. They are based on experience, and what we _do know_; so that to credit religion is to trust to experience, and to disregard it is the contrary. CONCLUSION. =1.= The reasoning of the last chapter leads us to regard this life as part of a larger plan of things. 1.) Whether we are connected with the distant _parts_ of the universe, is uncertain; but it is very clear we are connected, more or less, with present, past, and future. 2.) We are evidently in the midst of a scheme, not fixed but progressive; and one equally incomprehensible, whether we regard the present, past, or future.