Thatonlyprovesthatwecanincreaseourhappinessbyprudence；butitsuggestsnoadditionalreasonseitherforseekinghappinessorforalteringourestimateofhappiness。As’PhilipBeauchamp’argues，wecannotfromthepurelyempiricalgroundgetanymotivefortakingintoaccountanythingbeyondour’temporal’orsecularinterests。This，again，wasinfactadmittedbyPaley。Hismodeofescapefromthedilemmaisfamiliar。Theexistenceofasupremeartificerisinferredfromtheinterventionsinthegeneralorderofnature。Theexistenceofamoralruler，orthefactthattherulerapprovesmorality，isinferredfromhisinterferencebytheparticularmanifestationsofpowerwhichwecallmiraculous。Weknowthatactionswillhaveotherconsequencesthanthosewhichcanbeinferredfromourownexperience，becausesometwothousandyearsagoaBeingappearedwhocouldraisethedeadandhealthesick。Ifsufficientevidenceofthefactbeforthcoming，weareentitledtosayuponhisauthoritythatthewickedwillbedamnedandthevirtuousgotoheaven。Obediencetothelawenforcedbythesesanctionsisobviouslyprudent，andconstitutesthetruedifferentiaofmoralconduct。Virtue，accordingtothefamousdefinition，isdoinggood’forthesakeofeverlastinghappiness。’ThedownrightbluntnesswithwhichPaleyannouncedtheseconclusionsstartledcontemporaries，andyetitmustbeadmittedthattheywereanaturaloutcomeofhisposition。
　　Inshort，thetheologicalpositionofthePaleyschoolandtheUtilitarianpositionof’PhilipBeauchamp’
　　startfromthecommongroundofexperience。Religionmeanstheknowledgeofcertainfacts，whicharetobeinferredfromappropriateevidence。Itdoesnotmodifythewholesystemofthought，butsimplyaddscertaincorollaries；
　　andthewholequestioniswhetherthecorollariesareorarenotprovedbylegitimatereasoning。CanwediscoverheavenandhellaswediscoveredAmerica?Canobservationofnaturerevealtousasupernaturalworld?’
　　Thefirstdifficultyisthattheargumentfornaturaltheologyhastorestuponinterference，notuponorder，andthereforecomesintoconflictwiththefirstprinciplesofscientificprocedure。TheDeityisrevealednotbytherationalbutbythearbitrary；andthemoretheworldisexplained，thelesstheproofthatheexists，becausethenarrowerthesphereofhisaction。Then，assuchaDeity，evenifproved，isnotprovedtobebenevolentormoral，Wehavetorelyforthemoralelementupontheevidenceof’miracles，’
　　thatis，again，ofcertaininterruptionsoforder。ThescientifictendencymoreorlessembodiedinProtestantism，sofarasitappealedtoreasonorto’privatejudgment，’had，moreover，madeitnecessarytorelegatemiraclestoaremoteperiod，whiledenyingthematthepresent。Toproveatoncethattherearenomiraclesnow，andthattherewereafewmiraclestwothousandyearsago，wasreallyhopeless。Infact，theargumenthadcometobestatedinanartificialformwhichhadnorealrelationtothefacts。Iftheapostleshadbeenajuryconvincedbyacarefullegalexaminationoftheevidence；iftheyhadpronouncedtheirverdict，inspiteoftheknowledgethattheywouldbeputtodeathforfindingit，therewouldhavebeensomeforceinPaley’sargument。Butthentheyhadnot。Toassumesuchanoriginforanyreligionimpliedatotalmisconceptionofthefacts。
　　PaleyassumedthattheapostlesresembledtwelverespectabledeansofCarlislesolemnlydeclaring，inspiteofthemostappallingthreats，thatJohnWesleyhadbeenprovedtohaverisenfromthedead。Paleymightplausiblyurgethatsuchaneventwouldrequireamiracle。But，meanwhile，hisargumentappearedtorestthewholecaseformoralityandreligionuponthisnarrowandperilousbase。Wecanonlyknowthatitisourinteresttobemoralifweknowofheavenandhell；andweonlyknowofheavenandhellifweaccepttheevidenceofmiracles，andinferthattheworkerofmiracleshadsupernaturalsourcesofinformation。Themoraldifficultywhichemergesisobvious。ThePaleyconceptionoftheDeityis，infact，coincidentwithBentham’sconceptionofthesovereign，Heissimplyaninvisiblesovereign，operatingbytremendoussanctions。Thesanctionsare’external，’thatistosay，painsandpleasures，annexedtoconductbythevolitionofthesovereign，notintrinsicconsequencesoftheconductitself。Suchaconception，thoroughlycarriedthrough，makestherelationbetweenreligionandmoralityessentiallyarbitrary。Moreover，ifwith’PhilipBeauchamp’weregardthemiracleargumentasobviouslyinsufficient，andconsiderwhataretheattributesreallyattributedtothesovereign，wemustadmitthattheysuggestsuchasystemashedescribesratherthantherevelationofanall-wiseandbenevolentruler。Itistrue，as’PhilipBeauchamp’argues，thatthesystemhasallthefaultsoftheworsthumanlegislation；thatthepunishmentismadeatrociously——indeedinfinitely——severetocompensateforitsuncertaintyandremoteness；andthatashewouldclearlyadd，topreventitfromshockingandstunningtheintellect，itisregardedasremissibleinconsiderationofvicarioussuffering。If，then，thereligionisreallywhatitsdogmasdeclare，itiseasiertoassumethatitrepresentsthecunningofapriesthoodoperatingupontheblindfearsandwildimaginationsofaninaccessibleworld；andtheostensibleproofsofadivineoriginrestinguponmiraculousproofsarenotworthconsideration。Itprofessestobeasanctiontoallmorality，butisforcedtoconstructamythologywhichoutragesallmoralconsiderations。Takenasaseriousstatementoffact，theanthropomorphismofthevulgarbeliefwasopentotheobjectionswhichSocratesbroughtagainstthePaganmythology。Thesupremerulerwasvirtuallyrepresentedasarbitrary，cruel，anddespotic。
　　Ifweaskthequestion，whetherinpointoffactthereligionattackedby’PhilipBeauchamp’fairlyrepresentedthereligionoftheday，weshouldhave，ofcourse，toadmitthatitwasinonesenseagrosscaricature。If，thatis，weaskedwhatweretherealrootsofthereligiouszealofWilberforceandtheEvangelicals，orofthephilanthropistswithwhomevenJamesMillmanagedtoassociateonfriendlyterms，itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetoassumethattheytriedtodogoodsimplyfromfearofhellandhopeofheaven，orthattheirbeliefinChristianitywasduetoastudyofPaley’sEvidences。Theirrealmotiveswerefarnobler：genuinehatredofinjusticeandsympathyforsuffering，joinedtotheconvictionthatthesectstowhichtheybelongedwereworkingonthesideofjusticeandhappiness；whilethethecreedswhichtheyacceptedweresomehowcongenialtotheirbestfeelings，andenabledthemtogiveutterancetotheirdeepestemotions。Butwhentheyhadtogiveagroundforthatbelieftheycouldmakenoadequatedefence。Theywerebetterthantheirostensiblecreed，becausetheconnectionoftheircreedwiththeirmoralitywasreallyarbitraryandtraditional。Wemustalwaysdistinguishbetweenthecausesofstrongconvictionsandthereasonsofficiallyassignedforthem。Thereligiouscreed，asdistinguishedfromthereligioussentiment，wasreallytraditional，andresteduponthesimplefactthatitwascongenialtothegeneralframeofmind。Itsphilosophymeanwhilehadbecomehopelesslyincoherent。Itwishedtobesensible，andadmittedinprincipletherightof’privatejudgment’orrationalismsofarasconsistentwithProtestantism。
　　TheeffecthadbeenthatinsubstanceithadbecomeUtilitarianandempirical；
　　whileithadyetinsisteduponholdingontotheessentiallyirrationalelement。
　　Thereligioustraditionwasbecominguntenableinthissenseatthesametimeasthepoliticaltradition。
　　Ifradicalisminbothweretobeeffectuallyresisted，somebetterfoundationmustbefoundforconservatism。Ishouldbetemptedtosaythatacriticalperiodwasapproaching，didInotadmitthateveryperiodcanalwaysbedescribedascritical。Infact，however，thoughtfulpeople，perceivingontheonehandthatthefoundationsoftheircreedwereshaking，andyetholdingittobeessentialtotheirhappiness，begantotakeanewposition。
　　The’Oxfordmovement，’startedsoonafterwards，impliedaconvictionthattheoldProtestantpositionwasasuntenableastheradicalasserted。Itsadherentsattemptedtofindalivingandvisiblebodywhosesupernaturalauthoritymightmaintaintheolddogmaticsystem。Liberalthinkersendeavouredtospiritualisethecreedandproveitsessentialtruthsbyphilosophy，independentlyoftheparticularhistoricalevidence。Thepopulartendencywastoadmitinsubstancethatthedogmasmostassailedwereinfactimmoral：buttoputthemintothebackground，or，ifnecessary，toexplainthemaway。Thestresswastobelaidnotuponmiracles，butuponthemoralelevationofChristianityorthebeautyofcharacterofitsfounder。The’unsectarian’
　　religion，representedinthemostcharacteristicwritingsofthenextgeneration，inTennysonandBrowning，ThackerayandDickens，reflectsthisview。Suchmendetestedthecoarseandbrutalisingdogmaswhichmightbeexpoundedasthetrue’schemeofsalvation’byignorantpreachersseekingtorousesluggishnaturestoexcitement；buttheyheldtoreligiousconceptionswhich，astheythought，reallyunderlaythesedisturbingimages，andwhich，indeed，couldhardlybeexpressedinanymoredefiniteformthanthatofahopeorageneralattitudeofthewholecharacter。Theproblemseemedtobewhetherweshallsupportadogmaticsystembyrecognisingalivingspiritualauthority，orfranklyacceptreasonasthesoleauthority，and，whileexplainingawaytherepulsivedogmas，trytoretaintherealessenceofreligiousbelief。
　　II。CONTEMPORARYTHOUGHT
　　IfIwerewritingageneralhistoryofopinion，itwouldbenecessarytodiscusstheviewsofMill’sEnglishcontemporaries；tonotetheirattitudeinregardtotheUtilitarianposition，andpointouthowtheypreparedthewayforthelaterdevelopmentsofthought。TheUtilitarianswereopposedtoavaguesentimentratherthantoanydefinitesystem，theywereasmallandaveryunpopularsect。Theyexcitedantipathyonallsides。Asadvocatingrepublicanism，theywerehardlymoredislikedbytheTories，whodirectlyopposedthem，thanbytheWhigs，whomightbesuspectedofcomplicity。Asenthusiasticpoliticaleconomists，theywereequallydetestedbysentimentalRadicals，Socialists，andbyallwhodesiredastronggovernment，whetherforthesuppressionofsocialevilsorthemaintenanceofsocialabuses。Andnow，assuspectedofatheism，theywerehatedbytheologians。ButthoughtheUtilitarianswereonallsidescondemnedanddenounced，theyweremetbynodefiniteandcoherentschemeofphilosophy，thephilosophyofStewartandBrownhadatleastastrongdriftintheirdirection。Though’politicaleconomy’
　　wasdenouncedingeneralterms，allwhospokewithauthorityacceptedAdamSmith。Theirpoliticalopponentsgenerallydidnotsomuchopposetheirtheoriesasobjecttotheoryingeneral。TheUtilitariansystemmightbebothimperfectanddogmatic；butithadscarcelytocontendwithanyclearandassignablerival。ThedislikeofEnglishmentoanysystematicphilosophy，whetherfoundeduponthenationalcharacterorchieflyduetospecialconditions，wasstillconspicuousoutsideofthesmallUtilitariancamp。
　　Todiscover，therefore，thetruepositionofcontemporaryopinion，weshouldhavetolookelsewhere。
　　Insteadofseekingforthephilosopherswhodidnotexist，weshouldhavetoexaminethemenofletterswhoexpressedthegeneraltendencies。InGermany，philosophicaltheoriesmaybeheldtorepresentthetruedriftofthenationalmind，andahistorianofGermanthoughtwouldinquireintothevarioussystemselaboratedbyprofessorsofphilosophy。Hewouldatleastbeinnowantofmaterialsfordefinitelogicalstatements。InEngland，therewasnosuchintellectualmovement。Thereweshouldhavetoconsiderpoetryandliterature；toreadWordsworthandColeridge，ScottandByronandShelley，ifwewouldknowwhatmenwerereallythinkingandfeeling，thedifficultyis，ofcourse，thatnoneofthesemen，unlessColeridgebeanexception，hadanyconsciousorsystematicphilosophy。Wecanonlyask，therefore，whattheywouldhavesaidiftheyhadbeenrequestedtojustifytheirviewsbyabstractreasoning；andthatisaratherconjecturalandindefiniteenterprise，itlies，fortunately，outsideofmyfield；anditwillbeenoughifItrytosuggestoneortwosufficientlyvaguehints。
　　Inthefirstplace，thecontrastbetweentheUtilitariansandtheiropponentsmayalmostbeidentifiedwiththecontrastbetweentheprosaicandthepoeticalaspectsoftheworldingeneral。Benthamfranklyobjectedtopoetryingeneral，itprovednothing，thetrueUtilitarianwasthemanwhoheldontofact，andtonothingbutthebarest，mostnakedandunadornedfact。
　　Poetryingeneralcamewithinthesweepofhisdenunciationsof’sentimentalism’