Itwould，Ithink，bedifficulttomentionamorevigorousdiscussionoftheproblemstated。Asanonymous，itcouldbeignoredinsteadofanswered；andprobablysuchorthodoxpersonsasreaditassumedittobeakindofreductioadabsurdumoftheUtilitariancreed。Itmightfollow，theycouldadmit，logicallyfromtheUtilitariananalysisofhumannature，butitcouldonlyprovethattheanalysiswasfundamentallywrong。Yetitsrealsignificanceispreciselyitsthoroughapplicabilitytothecontemporarystateofopinion。Beauchamp’sdefinitioncoincideswithPaley’s。Thecoincidencewasinevitable。UtilitariansbothinethicalandphilosophicalquestionsstartfromthesameassumptionsasPaley，andthePaleydoctrinegavethepithofthedominanttheology。
IhaveobservedthattheScottishphilosophershadabandonedtheaprioriargument，andlaidthewholestressoftheirtheologicaldoctrineuponPaley’sargumentfromfinalcauses。Thechangeofbasewasaninevitableconsequenceoftheirwholesystem。Theyappealedtoexperience，to’Baconian’
methods，andto’inductivepsychology。’Thetheoryof’intuitions，’effectivewhereitfellinwithadmittedbeliefs，wasidleagainstanatheist，whodeniedthathehadtheintuition。The’finalcauses’argument，however，resteduponcommonground，andsuppliedapossiblelineofdefence。TheexistenceoftheDeitycouldperhapsbeprovedempirically，liketheexistenceofthe’watchmaker。’Accordingly，thiswastheargumentuponwhichreliancewasreallyplacedbytheaveragetheologianofthetime。Metaphysicalorontologicalreasoninghadbeendiscardedforplaincommon-sense。ThefamousBridgewaterTreatisesarethecharacteristicproductoftheperiod。IthadoccurredtotheearlofBridgewater，whodiedin1829，that£；8000
fromhisestatemightbejudiciouslyspentinprovingtheexistenceofabenevolentcreator，thecounciloftheRoyalSocietyemployedeighteminentmenofsciencetocarryoutthisdesign。19Theywrotesomeinterestingmanualsofpopularscience，interspersedwithpropertheologicalapplications。
Theargumentsweresincereenough，thoughtheynowseemtooverlookwithsingularblindnesstheanswerwhichwouldbesuggestedbythe’evolutionist。’
Thelogicalresultis，inanycase，apurelyempiricaltheology。Thereligionwhichemergesisnotaphilosophyortheoryoftheworldingeneral，butcorrespondstoabeliefincertainmattersoffactorfiction，theexistenceoftheDeityistobeproved，liketheexistenceofCaesar，byspecialevidence。
Themainresultsareobvious。
Thelogicalbaseofthewholecreedis，naturaltheology，’and’naturaltheology’issimplyabranchofscience，amenabletotheordinaryscientifictests。Itisintendedtoprovetheexistenceofanagentessentialtotheworkingofthemachinery，asfromthemovementsofaplanetweinfertheexistenceofadisturbingplanet，theargumentfromdesign，inthisacceptation，isbrieflymentionedby’PhilipBeauchamp。’Itis，heargues，’completelyextra-experimental’；forexperienceonlyrevealsdesigninlivingbeings：
itsupposesapre-existingchaoswhichcanneverbeshowntohaveexisted，andthe’omnipotentwill’introducedtoexplainthefactsisreallynoexplanationatall，butacollectionofmeaninglesswords。20Theargumentisbrieflydismissedasconcerningthetruth，nottheutility，ofreligion，butonepointissufficientlyindicated。Theargumentfrom’design’isalwaysplausible，becauseitappliesreasoningundeniablyvalidwhenitisappliedwithinitspropersphere。Theinferencefromawatchtoawatchmakerisclearlyconclusive。Weknowsufficientlywhatismeantbythewatchmakerandby’making。’Wethereforereasontoaveracausa——anagentalreadyknown。WhentheinferenceistotheactionofaninconceivableBeingperforminganinconceivableoperationuponinconceivablematerials，itreallybecomesillusory，oramountstothesimpleassertionthatthephenomenonisinexplicable。Therefore，again，itisessentiallyopposedtosciencethoughclaimingtobescientific。Theactionofthecreatorissupposedtobeginwherethepossibilityofknowledgeends。Itisjusttheinexplicableelementwhichsuggeststhecreativeagency。Conversely，thesatisfactoryexplanationofanyphenomenontakesitoutofthetheologicalsphere。Assoonastheprocessbecomes’natural’itceasestodemandthesupernaturalartificer。’Making，’therefore，iscontradistinguishedfrom’growing。’Ifweseehowtheeyehascomeintoexistence，wehavenolongeranyreasontoassumethatitwasputtogethermechanically。Inotherwords，’teleology’ofthisvarietyisdispelledbytheoriesofevolution。Thehypothesisofinterferencebecomesneedlesswhenweseehowthingscametobebyworkingoutperfectlynaturalprocesses。Asscience，therefore，expands，theologyrecedes。Thiswastobecomemoreevidentatalaterperiod。
Forthepresent，theteleologicalargumentinthePaleyform，triumphantlysetforthinBridgewatertreatisesandthelike，restedthedefenceoftheologyontheproofsofthediscontinuityoftheuniverseandtheconsequentnecessityforadmittingsupernaturalinterference。Sciencewasthereforeinvokedtoplaceabsolutelimitsonitsownprogress。
Butothervitaldifficultieswerealreadyfelt。Theargumentfromcontrivancenaturallyimplieslimitation。
Themakerofamachineisstrictlylimitedbythepropertiesofthematteruponwhichheworks。Theinferencemightbeverballysavedbysayingthatthemakerwas’potentially’omnipotent；buttheargument，sofarasitgoes，ismoreeasilysatisfiedbythehypothesisofaBeingofgreatbutstilllimitedpowers。TheDeitysoproved，iftheproofbevalid，isnothimselfthegroundoftheuniverse，theSourcefromwhichnatureitselfemanates，aswellasthespeciallawsofnature，butapartofthewholesystem；interfering，guiding，andcontrolling，butstillonlyoneofthepowerswhichcontributetotheformationofthewhole。Hencearisequestionswhichtheologiansratherevadedthanattemptedtoanswer。IfwiththehelpofPaleywecanprovetheexistenceofaninvisibleBeing——potentiallyomnipotent，thoughalwaysoperatingasthoughlimited——therewouldstillremainthequestionastohisattributes。Heisskilful，wemaygrant，butishebenevolentorishemoral?Thebenevolencecouldofcoursebeassertedbyoptimists，iffactswereamenabletorhetoric。Butatheorywhichisessentiallyscientificorempirical，andconsistentlyarguesfromtheeffecttothecause，muststartfromanimpartialviewofthefacts，andmustmakenopresuppositionastothenatureofthecause。Thecauseisknownonlythroughtheeffects，andourjudgmentofthemcannotbemodifiedbysimplydiscoveringthattheyarecaused。If，then，contrivanceisasmanifestindiseaseasinhealth，inallthesufferingswhichafflictmankindaswellasinthepleasureswhichsolacehim，wemusteitheradmitthatthecreatorisnotbenevolent，orfranklyadmitthatheisnotomnipotentandfallintoManichaeism。Nature，wearefrequentlytold，isindifferentifnotcruel；andthoughPaleyandhisfollowerschoosetoshuttheireyestouglyfacts，itcouldbeonlybysacrificingtheirlogic。Theywereboundtoprovefromobservationthattheworldwassodesignedastosecurethe’greatesthappiness’beforetheycouldlogicallyinferapurelybenevolentdesigner。Itwasoftheveryessenceoftheirpositionthatobservedfactsshouldbetheultimatebasisofthewholetheory；andtoaltertheprimarydatabyvirtueofdeductionsdrawnfromthemcouldobviouslynotbelogicallyjustifiable。
Suchreflections，thoughsufficientlyobvious，mightbetoofarfrompracticalapplicationtohavemuchimmediateeffect。Butthequestionofthemoralbearingoftheologywasofmoreinterest；and，here，thecoincidenceoftheUtilitarianismwiththeacceptedtheologyofthedayisespeciallyimportant。TheDeityregardedastheartificerappearstobefarfrompurelybenevolent。Inrespecttomorality，ishenotsimplyindifferent?Doeshenotmakemenfragileandplacethemamidstpitfalls?Doeshenotconstantlyslaythevirtuousandsavethewicked?How，indeed，fromthepurelyempiricalorscientificbase，doyoudeduceanymoralattributeswhatever?’Naturaltheology，’asitwascalled，mightrevealacontriver，butcoulditrevealajudgeoramoralguide?Herethedifficultyofapurelymatter-of-facttheologymadeitselffeltonmanysides。TheremarkableinfluenceofButleruponmanymindswaspartlyduetoaperceptionofthisomission。Butleravowedlyappealstotheconscience，andthereforeatleastrecognisesGodasdirectlyrevealedinamoralcharacter。Thatseemedtosupplyagapintheordinarytheology。ButinthepurelyempiricalviewButler’sargumentwasuntenable。Itappealedtooneofthe’intuitions’whichwereincompatiblewithitsfundamentalassumptions。Thecompunctionsofconsciencewerefactstobeexplainedby’association，’nottoberegardedasintimationsofwrath。Butler’sviewmightbeinverted。The’conscience’does，intruth，suggestthedivinewrath；butthatonlymeansthatitsuggeststhequackremediesuponwhich’wonder-working’priestsestablishtheirpower，insteadofprovingthetruthofthereligion，itexplainstheoriginofsuperstition。
ToJamesMill，aswehaveseen，Butler’sargumentwouldlogicallyprovenotarighteousgovernorbutacruelcreator。Theologians，again，ofthePaleyschool，wereboundinconsistencytotheempiricalorUtilitarianviewofmorality。Paleyacceptedtheconsequencesunreservedly；andifsuchphilosophersasBrownandMackintoshpersistedinregardingthecoincidencebetweenmoralityandhappinessasindicativeofapre-establishedharmony，notofanidentificationofmoralitywiththepursuitofgeneralhappiness，theystilladmittedthat’utility’wasthe’criterion’ofmorality。Themorallaw，thatis，coincidesinitssubstancewiththelaw，’maximisehappiness，’andhappinessmeans，as’PhilipBeauchamp’callsit，’temporal’
happiness——thehappinessofactualmenlivinginthisworldandknowingnothingofanyexternalworld。How，then，isthemorallawrelatedtotheology?
Toknowwhatismoral，wemustappealtoexperienceand’utility。’Wemustdiscoverwhatmakesforhappiness，justasinmedicinewemustdiscoverwhatmakesforhealthorpleasure，bytheordinarymethodsofobservation。
Whatplaceisleftforanysupernaturalintervention?Theostensibleanswerwasthatthoughthemoralcodecouldbededucedfromitsutility，themotivesbywhichitwastobeenforcedrequiredsomesupernaturalagency。Thenaturalmanmightseewhatwasright，butneednotthereforedowhatwasright。
Here’PhilipBeauchamp’comestoadirectissuewiththetheologians。Hedeniesthatthesupernaturalmotivewillbeonthesideofmorality。WhenJ。S。Millremarkedthattherehadbeenfewdiscussionsofthe’utility’
asdistinguishedfromthetruthofreligion，hescarcelyrecognisesoneconspicuousfact。Thegreatargumentofdivineshadalwaysbeentheabsolutenecessityofreligiontomorality；andifmoralitybeunderstoodtomeanutility，thisissimplyanargumentfromutility。Thepoint，indeed，wasoftentakenforgranted；butitcertainlyrepresentsoneofthestrongestpersuasives，ifnotoneofthestrongestreasons。Thedivines，infact，assertedthatreligionwasofthehighestutilityassupplyingthemotiveformoralconduct。Whatmotives，then，canbederivedfromsuchknowledgeoftheDeityasisattainablefromthe’Naturaltheology’argument?Howcanweprovefromitthathewhoputstheworldtogetherismorefavourabletothevirtuesthantotheviceswhichareitsresults；or，ifmorefavourable，thatheshowsanyotherfavourthancanbeinferredfromexperience?Hehas，itisagreed，putmen，asBenthamhadsaid，underthecommandoftwosovereignmasters，PleasureandPain；andhasenabledthemtocalculateconsequences，andthereforetoseekfuturepleasureandavoidfuturepain。