1821 Oct. 14

Jug Util

2

Plan of Procedure

2

Rule 3. Take Natural Religion for the object of the first attack: leaving Revealed Religion, as carefully as possible unassailed. See Bentham to Jean Baptiste Say, 4 August 1823, Letter 2988, The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham, Volume 11. Bring to view in every occasion the alliance between the opinion here advocated and those of Revealed Religionists: in particular those of the English Establishment.

On the occasion of the attack on Natural Religion the question as to Usefulness and the question as to Verity will be found considerably entangled: to extricate them from this entanglement considerable care will be necessary.

In regard to Natural Religion, so far as concerns Verity actual want of Verity must not be imputed to it; for in that case the attack would reach supposed Revealed Religion: want of apparent verity is all that must be imputed to it: viz: from the want of sufficient evidence: of the sufficient evidence which Revealed Religion is supposed to have furnished.

So far as regards Usefulness, the first point to prove is the negative point—namely the want of positive usefulness. On this occasion the argument is more at liberty, than when the positive mischievousness is brought to view. For here, as in the case of the question of verity, the deficiency tells in favour of supposed Revealed Religion: whereas when you come to speak of positive mischievousness, it is not without difficulty that you will be able to keep the attack clear of supposed Revealed Religion. In addition to the fears inseparable from it, the positive mischiefs will consist chiefly of the mischiefs produced by all confessed false Religions, and those produced by the misconception and misapplication of the alledged only true one.