moralists, having now taken private good for their foundation principle, it is proper to consider in what manner they applied this principle in particular cases. Supposing the controversy with their opponents to be terminated, what did they teach their disciples? Having demolished the ancient palace of Moral Rectitude, how did they proceed to give solidity to the commodious modern mansion which they undertook to erect on its ruins?

We find, in the works of Rutherforth, examples of the modes of procedure which, from this time, were commonly pursued by our moralists for this purpose; these are, for the most part, attempts to deduce special duties in detail, by tracing the special evils which arise from the neglect of them. Thus, in his Essay, insobriety and other sensual indulgences are vices, because they prevent our doing all the good we might, by disturbing our health, occupying our time, distracting our attention. We cannot help seeing how low and lax is the morality to which we should thus be led. It is true that purer precepts, borrowed from holier sources, are constantly operating among Christian moralists, to correct and elevate the perverse and debased conclusions which low and poor principles entailed upon them; but then, in proportion as their moral systems were made in this way practically harmless, they were made theoretically worthless. The bright and firm precepts of Christianity, like new pieces on an old garment, shone here and there the more conspicuously for the sordid and flimsy ground on which they were placed; but though, for the moment, they might serve to conceal the nakedness of the wearers, they tended rather to tear the theorist's robe into tatters, than to render it a lasting and suitable vesture.

From the time of which I speak, up to that of Paley, I am not aware that any material alteration took place in the nature of the Ethical Philosophy generally received here.

I come now to the further consideration of Paley's ethical work, and of the reception which it met with, and especially its reception in this University. Indeed, it is much more my purpose at present to consider the manner in which the book was received, and the place which it holds in the progress of moral speculation in England, than further to discuss the solidity or the weakness of the principles on which it rests. Some indication of the arguments bearing upon this latter question will be requisite for my purpose: for the place of a work in the history of philosophy, cannot be exhibited without showing, in some measure, how far it tended to promote truth, and how far to propagate error. And among the criticisms delivered by objectors to such a work, those only will demand our notice, which contain or illustrate some of the principles intimately involved in the establishment of sound moral doctrines. So far, therefore, as the selection of such criticisms goes, I cannot avoid at present delivering some judgment with respect to Paley's moral system. But any direct and complete examination of the work, beyond that which an historical view thus requires, I must reserve for future occasions.

You will recollect that Paley's work was but the summing up of a system of teaching which had long been current in the University, not a newly-introduced subject or system. Moral Philosophy had never ceased to be habitually taught in Cambridge; and the current discussions upon that subject always excited a strong interest among the speculators who were nourished here. The great controversy respecting the à priori evidence of the fundamental principle of Theology and Morality had been zealously carried on in this University at the beginning of the seventeenth century, John Balguy being the main combatant on the à priori side. In 1732, the translation of King's Origin of Evil, with Gay's Dissertation and Law's Notes, showed that the

care.

subject was by no means asleep; and these Notes of Law's were the matter of some controversies, which I omit. In 1744, Rutherforth dedicated his Essay on Virtue to his pupil, containing, he told him, nothing which he had not heard him explain upon different occasions while he was under his care at the University. In 1754 and 5, Rutherforth published his Institutes of Natural Law, the substance of a Course of Lectures read in St John's College. In 1755, too, Taylor published his Elements of Civil Law, which he had drawn up with a view to the education of young men committed to his Gradually we find ourselves in another generation of academics. Thomas Balguy, the son of the John just mentioned, and Powell, afterwards Master of the College, are teachers at St John's. "I have ever thought my warmest gratitude due," says one of their pupils*, "to that Being through whose kind providence the care of my education was entrusted to Drs Powell and Balguy" A little later (1771), we find Law, son of the Bishop of Carlisle, himself afterwards Bishop of Elphin, engaged in the tuition at Christ's College, along with Paley; the subjects of their Lectures being Locke's Essay, Clarke On the Attributes, and Butler's Analogy. heads of Balguy's Lectures were comprised in a Syllabus, which was handed about to various persons in the University; and from this Syllabus also Dr Hey, the late Norrisian Professor, delivered Lectures at Sidney Colleget. Similar Lectures formed part of the usual course of instruction in other colleges; and the value of the subject, as an element of education, was invariably acknowledged. A large portion of these Lectures were, doubtless, thoroughly Lockian in their principles, although, from time to time, the natural influence of higher principles would break through, and produce a remedial inconsistency. Butler and Clarke, as we have seen, * T. Ludlam's Logical Tracts.

Pearson, Remarks: Theor. p. 212, and p. iii.

The

were bound together in the same bundle with Locke. But the general tendency was to the morality of mere pleasure and pain, as we have seen in Gay, the elder Law, Rutherforth, and, as I might have shown, in others. Still the doctrine of a higher ground of morality had its defenders even here. The elder Balguy does not peculiarly belong to the academic line of writers. But there were others who, more or less, mitigated the rigour of the Lockian morality. Thus Pearson, whom I have to notice as one of the answerers of Paley, speaks of "that school which boasts of the names of Butler, Powell, Balguy, William Ludlam, and Hey ;" to which he adds Thomas Ludlam (p. vi.). I shall, however, now turn to the consideration of Paley's Works, and their acceptance here.

The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, or, as it was originally entitled, The Principles of Morals and Politics, was first published in 1785. It was very favourably received by the public, and was almost immediately adopted into the course of teaching in this University. Mr Jones, then senior tutor of Trinity College, who discharged the duty of Moderator in 1786 and 1787, introduced it as a standard book in the disputations which were then held in the schools upon a moral question, along with the mathematical disputations: and also in the subsequent examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. In fact, as we have already seen, the principle upon which Paley's book is based, the doctrine that actions are good in as far as they tend to pleasure, and obligatory in as far as they are commanded by a powerful master, had already long been taught in this University, and had undoubtedly taken a strong hold of the minds of men. They had accustomed themselves to look upon it as the only rational and tenable doctrine; and one which was as superior in these respects to the vague and empty doctrines, of loftier sound, which had preceded the time of Locke, as the philosophy of Newton was to that of Aristotle. Hence it seemed to them

quite natural and fitting, that a system founded upon this principle should be produced, displaying all the exactness, precision, and simplicity, of a mathematical treatise. When, therefore, the work of Paley appeared, in which the commonly-received rules of morality are all professedly deduced from this principle; in which there is a clearness of statement and expression which produces the effect, for a moment, of demonstrative reasoning; and in which the want of sound morality in the fundamental principle, is tempered by good sense and good feeling in almost all the instances, they at once saw, in this work, the standard book which they had long wanted, as a means of conveying these doctrines to their pupils in the definite and connected form which elementary instruction requires. Perhaps we may add, that they were not unwilling to join with Paley in rejecting all the more profound investigations into the foundations of moral principles, as useless metaphysical subtleties or empty declamation; and thus to assume an air of superiority over those who took any other road than theirs. We may add, too, that though there were some points of morality on which Paley's conclusions have been charged with being lax, as well as his principles unsound, many of his contemporaries were, it is understood, willing to accept such a decision as he gave on these very points; and thus, were not repelled from the work by the appearance, which some saw in it, of tampering with important moral precepts. So that the work had many recommendations, internal and external, to public favour.

But though Paley's system was received with favour by a large part of the public, and especially by those who, in this place, had long held the opinions which he had systematised with so much clearness and good sense, there were not wanting, from the first, persons who protested against its doctrines as false and immoral.

Such objections to Paley's doctrines were urged not only