Born, at Peterborough, July 1743. Educated at Giggleswick Grammar School (of which his father was head-master). To Christ’s Coll., Camb., as Sizar, Oct. 1759; Scholar and Exhibitioner. Dec. 1759: B.A., 1763; M.A., 1766. Schoolmaster at Greenwich, 1763–66. Ordained Deacon, 1766; Priest, 21 Dec. 1767. Fellow of Christ’s Coll., Camb., June 1766. Prælector, 1767–69; Hebrew Lecturer, 1768–70; Tutor, March 1771. Preacher at Whitehall, 1771–76. Rector of Musgrave, Cumberland, May 1775 to 1777. Married (i) Jane Hewitt, 6 June 1776. Vicar of Dalston, Cumberland, 1776–93. Vicar of Appleby, 1777 to Aug. 1782. Prebendary of Carlisle, 1780 to Jan. 1795. Archdeacon and Rector of Great Salkeld, Aug. 1782 to May 1805. Chancellor of the Diocese, 1785 to Jan. 1795. Wife died, May 1791. Vicar of Aldingham, May 1792 to March 1795; Vicar of Stanwix, 1793 to March 1795. Prebendary of St. Pancras, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Aug. 1794. Sub-dean of Lincoln, Jan. 1795. D.D. Camb., 1795. Rector of Bishop-Wearmouth, March 1795. Resided there till his death. Married (ii) Miss Dobinson, 14 Dec. 1795. Died, at Lincoln, 25 May 1805. Buried in Carlisle Cathedral. Works: “A Defence of the ‘Considerations on the propriety of requiring a subscription to Articles of faith’” (anon.), 1774; “Caution recommended in the use … of Scripture Language,” 1777; “Advice addressed to the Young Clergy of the Diocese of Carlisle,” 1781; “A Distinction of Orders in the Church defended,” 1782; “Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy,” 1785; “The young Christian instructed,” 1790; “Horæ Paulinæ,” 1790 (2nd edn. same year); “The Use and propriety of local and occasional preaching,” 1790; “Reasons for Contentment,” 1792; “View of the Evidences of Christianity,” 1794 (2nd edn. same year); “Dangers incidental to the Clerical Character,” 1795; “A Sermon preached at the Assizes at Durham,” 1795; “A Short Memoir of the Life of Edward Law, D.D.,” 1800; “Natural Theology,” 1802. Posthumous: “Sermons on Several Subjects,” 1808; “Sermons and Tracts,” 1808; “Sermons on Various Subjects” (2 vols.), 1825. Collected Works in 8 vols., 1805–08; in 5 vols., 1819; etc., etc. Life: by G. W. Meadley, 2nd edn., 1810.

Personal

  His delivery was fluent, his language strong and perspicuous, though mixed sometimes with provincial, but expressive words and phrases, which, however, were purposely used as uncommon, and likely to be remembered. His general manner, also, was strikingly impressive; and he treated everything with such force and animation, that the driest topics became interesting. By all these means, he secured not only the attendance of his pupils without the aid of punishments, but also their admiration whilst he lectured, and their regret when he had done…. In person, Dr. Paley was above the common size, and rather inclined to corpulence in his latter years. The expression of his countenance is well delineated in Mr. Romney’s exquisite portrait of him, taken after he was appointed archdeacon of Carlisle. Dr. Paley is understood to have left a very competent fortune amongst his family: for though he had never levied the utmost value of his preferments, and had always lived in a style suitable to his station, he had been through life, to use his own phrase, an economist upon a plan.

  A man singularly without guile, and yet often misunderstood or misrepresented; a man who was thought to have no learning, because he had no pedantry, and who was too little of a quack to be reckoned a philosopher; who would have been infallibly praised as a useful writer on theory of government, if he had been more visionary, and would have been esteemed a deeper divine, if he had not been always so intelligible.

  The greatest divine of the period is Dr. William Paley, a man of remarkable vigour and clearness of intellect, and originality of character. His acquirements as a scholar and churchman were grafted on a homely, shrewd, and benevolent nature, which no circumstances could materially alter. There was no doubt of obscurity either about the man or his works; he stands out in bold relief among his brother divines, like a sturdy oak on a lawn or parterre—a little hard and cross-grained, but sound, fresh, and massive—dwarfing his neighbours with his weight and bulk, and his intrinsic excellence.

  Paley was above the average height, and in later life stout. He was curiously clumsy, made grotesque gesticulations, and talked, as Meadley and Best agree, with broad north-country accent. His son only admits “a want of refinement.” His voice was weak, though deep; and he overcame the awkward effect of his pulpit appearances by his downright sincerity. His son apologises for his abrupt conclusions by saying that he stopped when he had no more to say…. He was given to brooding over his books, often writing and teaching his sons at the same time, and turning every odd moment to account…. He was the incarnation of strong common-sense, full of genial good humour, and always disposed to take life pleasantly. As a lawyer, the profession for which he thought himself suited, he would probably have rivalled the younger Law, who became Lord Ellenborough. He had no romance, poetic sensibility, or enthusiasm; but was thoroughly genial and manly. He was a very affectionate father and husband, and fond, like Sydney Smith, of gaining knowledge from every one who would talk to him. He only met one person in his life from whom he could extract nothing.

Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, 1785

  Paley, who had not read a great deal, had certainly read Puffendorf: he has borrowed from him several minor illustrations…. Their minds were in some respects alike; both phlegmatic, honest, and sincere, without warmth or fancy; yet there seems a more thorough good-nature and kindliness of heart in our countryman…. They do not, indeed, resemble each other in their modes of writing: one was very laborious, the other very indolent; one sometimes misses his mark by circuity, the other by precipitance.

  The work of Dr. Paley embraces the Principles of Political as well as Moral Philosophy; but, able and judicious as in many respects that portion of the book is, the space allotted to it, being little more than one-third of two moderate-sized and widely-printed octavo volumes, shows how far it must be from explaining the whole even of the principles of the science. Of Political Economy it has almost nothing; it only gives the principles of government in their most general form; it makes no application of them to any constitution but that of England; it derives from the constitution of no other country any illustration of them; and it may justly be regarded rather as an illustration of the doctrines of Moral Philosophy, and an appendix to the main body of the work, than as a treatise on Political Science.

  Of what value, let me ask, is Paley’s “Moral Philosophy”? What is its imagined use? Is it that in substance it reveals any new duties, or banishes as false any old ones? No; but because the known and admitted duties—duties recognized in every system of ethics—are here placed (successfully or not) upon new foundations, or brought into relation with new principles not previously perceived to be in any relation whatever. This, in fact, is the very meaning of a theory or contemplation, when A, B, C, old and undisputed facts, have their relations to each other developed. It is not, therefore, for any practical benefit in action, so much as for the satisfaction of the understanding, when reflecting on a man’s own actions, the wish to see what his conscience or his heart prompts reconciled to general laws of thinking—this is the particular service performed by Paley’s “Moral Philosophy.” It does not so much profess to tell what you are to do, as the why and the wherefore; and, in particular, to show how one rule of action may be reconciled to some other rule of equal authority, but which, apparently, is in hostility to the first. Such then, is the utmost and highest aim of the Paleyian or the Ciceronian ethics, as they exist.

  Paley is a hard-headed North-countryman, whose chief mental sustenance has been a severe course of Cambridge mathematics. He is throughout a systematiser, not an original thinker; and his system begins by expelling as far as possible everything that is not as solid and tangible as a proposition in Euclid. Moreover, his ethical treatise is, in fact, intended for educational purposes. In such works, clearness and order are the cardinal virtues, and originality, if not a vice, is of equivocal advantage. Paley primarily is a condenser and a compiler; though he modestly enough claims to be “more than a mere compiler.” He gives a lucid summary of the most generally accepted system; and if there is any gleam of originality in his writing, it is, for the most part, such as occasionally results from a rearrangement of old materials…. Paley, with his undeniable merits as a reasoner, was not the man to desert the paths into which he had been guided. He has simply given a compact statement of what may be called the orthodox theory.

  It has been, I think, the fortune of this work to be of late years very unduly depreciated, partly because, in consequence of the singular charm and lucidity of its style, it has been so widely read, studied, and criticised that all its weak points have been fully disclosed, and partly also because the particular type of the utilitarian theory of ethics which it teaches has been generally abandoned. It is, however, both in form and substance, one of the masterpieces of the eighteenth century, and the author was much too shrewd a man not to know that the doctrines which he taught were not likely under George III. to lead a clergyman to the bench.

Horæ Paulinæ, 1790

  He proceeds with infinite acuteness and ingenuity to produce most striking instances of undesigned coincidences in the documents in question. Many of his sentiments and expressions are eminently happy.

  He is singularly ingenious in hitting on a casual argument where a common mind would have overlooked it. He makes his deduction just as far as that instance bears him out, and no farther; and, on proper occasions, he presses his reasonings with convincing force.

  Paley’s “Horæ Paulinæ” is perhaps the most original and ingenious of his productions which may be called strictly professional; but his “Moral Philosophy” and “Natural Theology” will probably make his name longer known to posterity.

  It would not be in the power of the most suspicious lawyer, at the Old Bailey, to subject two witnesses to stricter cross-examination than that by which Paley has tried the testimony of St. Paul and St. Luke. This is the light in which the “Horæ Paulinæ” is to be viewed: it is a close, and rigorous, and searching series of questions, addressed to two men deponents to certain facts, and addressed, too, by a most acute advocate, in open court, before an intelligent tribunal.

  The “Horæ Paulinæ” is remarkably adapted for the profitable exercise of the minds of law-students. It is pronounced by one of the highest authorities upon such matters, Dr. Whately, to be “an incomparable specimen of reasoning,”—and of that kind of reasoning, moreover, with which lawyers are peculiarly conversant, and in which they do and ought to excel. Independently of the pre-eminent value and importance of such an undertaking, in a religious point of view, such an interesting and masterly exhibition of logical acuteness ought to be familiar to all capable of appreciating and profiting by it.

Evidences of Christianity, 1793

  Mr. Paley’s book has been universally well received, and the first edition is already gone. As he wrote and published it at my desire, I have just given him a prebend of St. Paul’s as a mark of my approbation and gratitude. It has given me much pleasure to find that this book has been much read and approved at Cambridge, where I think it will do essential service.

  It is almost superfluous to name a work so universally known as Dr. Paley’s “View of the Evidences of Christianity,” which is probably, without exception, the most clear and satisfactory statement of the historical proofs of the Christian religion ever exhibited in any age or country.

  We regard Dr. Paley’s writings on the “Evidences of Christianity” as of so signally decisive a character, that we could be content to let them stand as the essence and the close of the great argument on the part of its believers; and should feel no despondency or chagrin if we could be prophetically certified that such an efficient Christian reasoner would never henceforward arise. We should consider the grand fortress of proof as now raised and finished—the intellectual capitol of that empire which is destined to leave the widest boundaries attained by the Roman very far behind…. It is impossible to hear, with the slightest degree of respect or patience the expressions of doubt or anxiety about the truth of Christianity, from any one who can delay a week to obtain the celebrated “View of its Evidences,” or fail to read it through again and again. It is of no use to say what would be our opinion of the moral and intellectual state of his mind, if after this he remained still undecided.

  I am glad you can speak so respectfully of Paley’s Evidences as you do in your Preface. I have a sneaking regard for him, as a good, tough North of England man, not spoiled by his cleverness as a lawyer. But I have been fighting against him all my days; I cannot help thinking he has done much to demoralise Cambridge, and to raise up a set of divines who turn out a bag infidel on Sundays to run him down, fixing exactly where he shall run, and being exceedingly provoked if he finds any holes and corners which they do not happen to know of. I do not mean that Paley was at all like these disciples; but I have a spite against him for their sakes.

  Paley was an able writer on the proofs of Christianity, yet bases his ethical system on the skeptical, materialistic view of obligation. He found in his spiritual philosophy, no higher inspiration, no weightier law for the duties of ordinary life, than came to Hume in absolute unbelief, generalizing a transient law of action, from the unsubstantial fleeting facts afloat about him,—the gains and losses that fall to us under them. The belief and unbelief of England often strike hands on this question of morals, intimate as it is to daily life and character.

  The task is so judiciously performed that it would probably be difficult to get a more effective statement of the external evidences of Christianity than Paley has here presented. The general position, however, that the action of the first preachers of Christianity was due “solely” to their belief in the occurrence of certain miraculous events is on the same level as the view that “the proper business of a revelation” is to certify future rewards and punishments. It betrays a defective analysis of the religious consciousness. For the rest, his idea of revelation depends upon the same mechanical conception of the relation of God to the world which dominates his “Natural Theology;” and he seeks to prove the divine origin of Christianity by isolating it from the general history of mankind, whereas later writers find their chief argument in the continuity of the process of revelation.

  All his works, the most famous and characteristic of which is his “Evidences,” exhibit a peculiar hard-headedness of thought and the utmost lucidity of expression.

  The evidences of the truth of the Christian religion, and the proofs of the Being of a God had never been presented in a form that seemed to bring them so nearly within the grasp of the ordinary human understanding. Yet after 100 years Paley’s work on the subject seems to have many defects. In particular the Argument from Design is, as he gave it, founded too narrowly on the analogies of physical mechanism. The very facts of physiology, so carefully and minutely described (such as the phenomena of seeing and hearing), and the facts of biology as to the growth of life in the world, are all translated into terms of mechanical adaptation and compared to the watch or the windlass. He bore the stamp of his time. It is fairer to point to such defects in philosophical argument than to treat Paley’s reasoning as discredited throughout by an arrière-pensée. No doubt like most men he did not refuse advancement, and he may even have courted it. But the social optimism which made him think that the labourers of England had nearly every reason in 1791 to be contented with their condition is of a piece with the metaphysical optimism which made him regard the organisation of living beings as nearly perfect. It seems also true that his theology, which gave character to to his utilitarianism, qualified his optimism. The world is a place of probation, and therefore is not perfect. Christianity would make men perfectly happy; but it has not been universally accepted. Paley is theologian first and philosopher afterwards.

Natural Theology, 1802

  As a collection of striking facts and powerful arguments for the existence of a wise and beneficent Creator, this publication is certainly entitled to a very favourable reception…. Dr. Paley’s chief excellence consists in the judicious disposition of his forces, and the skill and confidence with which he has extended his array to every point which atheism has affected to menace…. The language of this book is by no means remarkable for dignity or elegance. Perspicuity and conciseness, seem to have been the only accomplishments of style which the author was ambitious of acquiring; and to these his praise must be confined. There is a great carelessness of composition throughout the whole volume, and a colloquial homeliness of diction, upon some occasions, that does not seem altogether suitable either to the gravity of the subject, or the dignity of the writer.

  It may be affirmed that a more important and generally useful work has scarcely at any time been published than the “Natural Theology.”

  His “Natural Theology” will open the heart, that it may understand, or at least receive, the Scriptures, if anything can. It is philosophy in its highest and noblest sense; scientific, without the jargon of science; profound, but so clear that its depth is disguised.

  His “Natural Theology” is the wonderful work of a man who, after sixty, had studied anatomy in order to write it; and it could only have been surpassed by one who, to great originality of conception and clearness of exposition, added the advantage of a high place in the first class of physiologists.

  Paley’s “Theology” has been to me a treasure of instruction and delight: the concluding chapter of the Goodness of God is invaluable, especially where he speaks of the alleviations afforded to those who suffer under the most painful diseases, and the compensation of delight which results from the first interval of ease. My imperfect recollection injures the subject; but on lately reading his life by his son, his faith and patience appeared more exalted when I found that this testimony to the Divine goodness, in affording support, was written in the few intervals of ease afforded during a dreadful disorder, which proved fatal not long after.

  His “Natural Theology” is the best work on the sublimest subject of human contemplation—the wisdom of God in the works of nature—that exists in our language.

  I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology.” I could almost formerly have said it by heart.

  So wonderful for its beauty, for its skilful statement, for its common sense, so valuable as a logical basis for the Christian faith, that the world will not willingly let it die.

General

  I have enclosed a little work of that great and good man Archdeacon Paley; it is entitled “Motives of Contentment,” addressed to the poorer part of our fellow men. The twelfth page I particularly admire, and the twentieth. The reasoning has been of some service to me, who am of the race of the Grumbletonians.

  The name of Dr. Paley, though scarcely to be reckoned among those of the great theologians and philosophers of England, is probably associated with as large and an enviable a portion of public approbation, as that of any living ecclesiastic. With less learning and less originality than some of his distinguished predecessors, it would be difficult, perhaps, to point out his superior in soundness of judgment, or in vigilant and comprehensive sagacity…. Almost all the writings of Dr. Paley relate to the highest and most important questions upon which human reason can be exercised, and appear to have been composed with suitable caution and deliberation. They are elaborate, rather than ingenious; and seem to have been diligently meditated, and carefully arranged, rather than to have been conceived in any fervour of imagination, or poured forth in any conviction of their infallibility. The utmost pains are taken, therefore, to render everything intelligible and precise; and more anxiety is shown that nothing necessary shall be omitted, than that all superfluity should be excluded. All cavil is prevented by a jealous strictness of expression; and a few homely illustrations are commonly sufficient to expose those illusions, by which a false philosophy is supported in so many of her unsubstantial speculations.

  No reader of Dr. Paley’s former works will open his Sermons with any expectation of what we usually call eloquence…. In speaking of the effect which we have felt in reading parts of these Sermons, from the cool and somewhat austere manner in which the most interesting subjects are presented, we have described something different from the usual course of our experience: from our manner of accounting for it, we shall not be misunderstood to approve, in general, of so cold a manner of exhibiting the subjects of supreme consequence; for popular addresses we condemn it totally…. It would be ridiculous in us to affect to recommend a volume written by Dr. Paley. It will be extensively read; its readers will receive many useful and striking thoughts; and we earnestly wish they may study the New Testament enough to be saved from any injurious impression of what we cannot allow ourselves to regard as unimportant errors.

  Paley’s writings have done more for the moral improvement of mankind than perhaps the writings of any other man that ever existed. The doctrines laid down and established by this wise and able writer may be considered as the principia of moral physiology!

  To prove the existence of God, as Paley has attempted to do, is like lighting a lantern to seek for the sun. If you look hard by your lantern, you may miss your search.

  This excellent writer, who after Clarke and Butler, ought to be ranked among the brightest ornaments of the English Church in the eighteenth century, is, in the history of philosophy, naturally placed after Tucker, to whom with praiseworthy liberality, he owns his extensive obligations. It is a mistake to suppose that he owed his system to Hume, a thinker too refined, and a writer perhaps too elegant, to have naturally attracted him…. The natural frame of Paley’s understanding fitted it more for business and the world than for philosophy; and he accordingly enjoyed with considerable relish the few opportunities which the latter part of his life afforded of taking a part in the affairs of his county as a magistrate…. His style is as near perfection in its kind as any in our language. Perhaps no words were ever more expressive and illustrative than those in which he represents the art of life to be that of rightly “setting our habits.”

  There is no name in the English Church, perhaps, that should stand higher than his; there are few in the vast circles of English literature whose just fame shall be more extensively or permanently recorded.

  Nothing can drop from the pen of such a writer, so remarkable for his clearness and excellent sense, that can be without its importance, particularly where the subject has any immediate connection with the business of human life…. Johnson and Paley, Locke and Butler, immediately occur as the great masters of moral, metaphysical, and religious instruction,—Locke the votary of truth; and Paley, the very genius of good sense.

  His mind was essentially English and English in its best mood. He was not remarkable for his learning, though far from being ill-informed; but the bent of his mind was not toward scholarship. He was eminently practical in his ideas; his thoughts, descending from the clouds, ever turned to some object of actual importance in real life. His mind was not of the most elevated cast; and accordingly he made utility the great object of life and measure of actions. He will never be a favourite, accordingly, with that handful of men who nevertheless alone do great things in the world, who aim at the noble and generous in all things, and let the useful take care of itself. But, while his disposition precluded him from rising to the highest rank in literature, which never is to be attained but by the influence of lofty feelings, within his limits, and in a lower sphere, he was very admirable and eminently useful.

  All the theological works of all the numerous bishops whom he (Pitt) made and translated are not, when put together, worth fifty pages of the “Horæ Paulinæ,” of the “Natural Theology,” or of the “View of the Evidences of Christianity.” But on Paley the all-powerful minister never bestowed the smallest benefice.

  No Englishman will refuse to join with Coleridge in “the admiration” he expresses “for the head and heart” of Paley, “the incomparable grace, propriety, and persuasive facility of his writings.” But Paley had unfortunately dedicated his powers to a factitious thesis; his demonstration, however perfect, is in unreal matter.

  His intellect was clear and steady. He is a shining example of the form of practical good sense characteristic of Englishmen. He did not hunt after paradoxes and subtleties, nor did he throw himself with eagerness into original investigations. He liked to walk on sure ground, and made abundant use of the labours of others…. His writings contain little or nothing to satisfy the emotions; occasionally we cross a pleasant vein of irony or sarcasm, and we are constantly entertained with homely facts, but high-flown sentiment is totally wanting…. Although Paley’s language is not studiously varied, he never seems to be in want of words, and the combinations are often agreeably fresh. His preference is for homely words; but he does not scruple to use the most technical terms, and now and then even quotes Latin, trusting to make himself intelligible to the ordinary capacity by the power of his homely illustrations…. The chief thing worth noticing about Paley’s sentences is that they are not constructed upon a few favourite forms, or with any leaning to a favourite rhythm. His is not a “formed” style; he is studious to express himself in simple language, without regard to measure of fluent melody. It might be expected that, having no misleading desire for euphonious combinations, he would adopt the best arrangement for emphasis. But it is not so; he had not much natural turn for point, and does not seem to have been aware of the advantage of calling special attention to a word by its position.

  No works of a theological or philosophical nature have been so extensively popular among the educated classes of England as those of Paley. His perspicacity of intellect and simplicity of style are almost unrivalled. Though plain and homely, and often inelegant, he had such vigour and discrimination, and such a happy vein of illustration, that he is always read with pleasure and instruction. No reader is ever at a loss for his meaning, or finds him too difficult for comprehension. He had the rare art for popularising the most recondite knowledge, and blending the business of life with philosophy. The principles inculcated in some of his works have been disputed, particularly his doctrine of expediency as a rule of morals, which has been considered as trenching on the authority of revealed religion, and also lowering the standard of public duty. The system of Paley certainly would not tend to foster the great and heroic virtues.

  Men received preferment neither from their abilities nor from their deserts, but through the interest of their friends. Paley was incomparably the ablest of living divines. But no one ever dreamed of offering him a bishopric. “Paley is a great man,” said George III., “will never be a bishop—will never be a bishop.”

  The crystal clearness and matchless grace of Paley’s periods, which were the envy of Coleridge, continue to attract readers, in spite of his antiquated science and dangerous philosophy.

  Paley’s works, whether judiciously or not we need not pause to inquire, are still text-books at the universities, but the scepticism against which he sets his forces in array was not of the kind to which we are now accustomed, which takes much of the force from his defence. They are still however eminently readable in a merely literary point of view, and extracts might be made, in which the reader would find much happiness of expression and force of illustration, without any of the disadvantages of antiquated polemics.

  The face of the world has changed so greatly since Paley’s day that we are apt to do less than justice to his undoubted merits. He is nowhere original, and nowhere profound, but he justly claims to be “something more than a mere compiler.” His strong reasoning power, his faculty of clear arrangement and forcible statement, place him in the first rank of expositors and advocates. He masses his arguments, it has been said, with a general’s eye. His style is perfectly perspicuous, and its “strong home-touch” compensates for what is lacking in elasticity and grace. Paley’s avoidance of ultimate speculative questions commended him to his own generation, and enabled him to give full scope to the shrewd practical understanding in which his strength lay.

  Paley may very well be taken as characteristic of the theological style of the forty years preceding, and between Paley’s literary form and the sapless legal style of Clarke, in the age of Anne, there is so little difference that we are tempted to regard these two as typical of their respective groups. If, then, we can say that in the generation of Swift leading theologians wrote like Clarke, and in the age of Burke like Paley, we are almost justified by that very circumstance in conjecturing that the contributions of eighteenth-century divinity to literature are so small that they are hardly worth considering.

  Paley is the most prominent instance among modern writers of a man who paragraphed on the theory of emphasis. His mechanical devices for securing prominence were numerous—different kinds of type, numerals, etc. But the man that takes up only mechanical means for securing emphasis, usually perishes by the same means: he loses in proportion what he gains in emphasis. Paley is a shining illustration of this fact.

  Nobody has surpassed Paley as a writer of text-books. He is an unrivalled expositor of plain arguments, though he neither showed nor claimed much originality.

  He was not, like Butler, an original thinker, but he was possessed of remarkable tact and common sense, and for lucidity of style is almost unrivalled…. An examination of Paley will show that he anticipates the hypothesis of evolution and the theory of indefinite, fortuitous variation, and shapes his argument accordingly. In his theological opinions Paley may be called a latitudinarian, although in his whole cast of thought he was at a wide remove from the school bearing that name.

  English theology in the later eighteenth century had, in fact, ceased to be speculative at all; and its philosophic impotence is peculiarly evident in the pages of its most luminous and persuasive exponent, Paley. Nowhere are the virtues and the vices of the mechanical modes of thought more easy to study than in the work of this accomplished senior wrangler, who made theology as transparently coherent as a proposition of Euclid, and as devoid of all appeal to the deeper instincts of man.

  As an apologist and expositor, Paley has been accused of a too business-like and profit-and-loss view of religion; but those who call him interested perhaps use an unfair presumption, and his popularity has no doubt suffered from his having served for generations as a class-textbook in the University of Cambridge. As a philosopher in things divine and human, he has a little too much of the merely forensic competence of the advocate about him. But this same competence extends (it may not be in the most interesting manner) to his work as literature. Paley gets the full value out of the plain style, for purposes to which it is far better adapted than anything more imaginative could possibly be. His arguments, if far lower and less noble, are much more easily intelligible than Butler’s; his style is perfectly clear; he sees his point and his method distinctly, and seldom or never fails to prove the one to the best of the other.