Paley assumed that the apostles resembled twelve respectable deans of Carlisle solemnly declaring,in spite of the most appalling threats,that John Wesley had been proved to have risen from the dead.Paley might plausibly urge that such an event would require a miracle.But,meanwhile,his argument appeared to rest the whole case for morality and religion upon this narrow and perilous base.We can only know that it is our interest to be moral if we know of heaven and hell;and we only know of heaven and hell if we accept the evidence of miracles,and infer that the worker of miracles had supernatural sources of information.The moral difficulty which emerges is obvious.The Paley conception of the Deity is,in fact,coincident with Bentham's conception of the sovereign,He is simply an invisible sovereign,operating by tremendous sanctions.The sanctions are 'external,'that is to say,pains and pleasures,annexed to conduct by the volition of the sovereign,not intrinsic consequences of the conduct itself.Such a conception,thoroughly carried through,makes the relation between religion and morality essentially arbitrary.Moreover,if with 'Philip Beauchamp'we regard the miracle argument as obviously insufficient,and consider what are the attributes really attributed to the sovereign,we must admit that they suggest such a system as he describes rather than the revelation of an all-wise and benevolent ruler.It is true,as 'Philip Beauchamp'argues,that the system has all the faults of the worst human legislation;that the punishment is made atrociously --indeed infinitely --severe to compensate for its uncertainty and remoteness;and that (as he would clearly add),to prevent it from shocking and stunning the intellect,it is regarded as remissible in consideration of vicarious suffering.If,then,the religion is really what its dogmas declare,it is easier to assume that it represents the cunning of a priesthood operating upon the blind fears and wild imaginations of an inaccessible world;and the ostensible proofs of a divine origin resting upon miraculous proofs are not worth consideration.It professes to be a sanction to all morality,but is forced to construct a mythology which outrages all moral considerations.Taken as a serious statement of fact,the anthropomorphi** of the vulgar belief was open to the objections which Socrates brought against the Pagan mythology.The supreme ruler was virtually represented as arbitrary,cruel,and despotic.
If we ask the question,whether in point of fact the religion attacked by 'Philip Beauchamp'fairly represented the religion of the day,we should have,of course,to admit that it was in one sense a gross caricature.If,that is,we asked what were the real roots of the religious zeal of Wilberforce and the Evangelicals,or of the philanthropists with whom even James Mill managed to associate on friendly terms,it would be the height of injustice to assume that they tried to do good simply from fear of hell and hope of heaven,or that their belief in Christianity was due to a study of Paley's Evidences.Their real motives were far nobler:genuine hatred of injustice and sympathy for suffering,joined to the conviction that the sects to which they belonged were working on the side of justice and happiness;while the the creeds which they accepted were somehow congenial to their best feelings,and enabled them to give utterance to their deepest emotions.But when they had to give a ground for that belief they could make no adequate defence.They were better than their ostensible creed,because the connection of their creed with their morality was really arbitrary and traditional.We must always distinguish between the causes of strong convictions and the reasons officially assigned for them.The religious creed,as distinguished from the religious sentiment,was really traditional,and rested upon the ****** fact that it was congenial to the general frame of mind.Its philosophy meanwhile had become hopelessly incoherent.It wished to be sensible,and admitted in principle the right of 'private judgment'or rationalism so far as consistent with Protestantism.
The effect had been that in substance it had become Utilitarian and empirical;while it had yet insisted upon holding on to the essentially irrational element.
The religious tradition was becoming untenable in this sense at the same time as the political tradition.
If radicalism in both were to be effectually resisted,some better foundation must be found for conservatism.I should be tempted to say that a critical period was approaching,did I not admit that every period can always be described as critical.In fact,however,thoughtful people,perceiving on the one hand that the foundations of their creed were shaking,and yet holding it to be essential to their happiness,began to take a new position.
