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。’