19. Examination of the mode of its application
The right is however claimed, and how is it to be exercised?
We are told that the duty of obedience “may sometimes be doubted,” that in some cases we are induced to “call in question” the obligation of the Christian rule,
that “situations may be feigned,” that circumstances “may possibly arise” in which we are at liberty to dispense with it,
that still it is dangerous to “leave it to the sufferer to decide” when the obligation of the rule ceases, and that of all these doubts “philosophy furnishes no precise solution”!
I know not how to contend against such principles as these:
An argument might be repelled, the assertion of a fact might be disproved, but what answer can be made to “possibilities” and “doubts”?
They who are at liberty to guess that Christian laws may sometimes be suspended are at liberty to guess that Jupiter is a fixed star, or that the existence of America is a fiction.
What answer the man of science would make to such suppositions, I do not know, and I do not know what answer to make to ours.
Among a community that had to decide on the “particular and general consequences” of some political measure, which involved the sacrifice of the principles of Christianity, there would of necessity be an endless variety of opinions:
Some would think it expedient to supersede the law of Christianity, and some would think the evil of obeying the law less than the evil of transgressing it.
Some would think that the “particular mischief” outweighed the “general rule,” and some that the “general rule” outweighed the “particular mischief.”
And in this chaos of opinion, what is the line of rectitude, or how is it to be discovered?
Or, is that rectitude, which appears to each separate individual to be right?
And are there as many species of truth as there are discordances of opinion?
Is this the simplicity of the gospel?
Is this the path in which a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err?
These are the principles of expediency on which it is argued that the duties that attach to private life do not attach to citizens. I think it will be obvious to the eye of candour that they are exceedingly indeterminate and vague.
Little more appears to be done by Dr. Paley than to exhibit their doubtfulness. In truth, I do not know whether he has argued better in favour of his position, or against it:
To me it appears that he has evinced it to be fallacious, for I do not think that anything can be Christian truth, of which the truth cannot be more evidently proved.
But whatever may be thought of the conclusion, the reader will certainly perceive that the whole question is involved in extreme vagueness and indecision;
an indecision and vagueness that it is difficult to conceive that Christianity ever intended should be hung over the very greatest question of practical morality that man has to determine:
over the question that asks whether the followers of Christ are at liberty to destroy one another.
That such a procedure as a war is, under any circumstances, sanctioned by Christianity, from whose principles it is acknowledged to be “abhorrent,” ought to be clearly made out.
It ought to be obvious to loose examination:
It ought not to be necessary to ascertaining it, that a critical investigation should be made of questions which ordinary men cannot comprehend, and which, if they comprehended them, they could not determine.
Above all, that investigation ought not to end, as we have seen it does end, in vague indecision, in “doubts” of which even “philosophy furnishes no precise solution.”
But when this indecision and vagueness are brought to oppose the Christian evidence for peace; when it is contended, not only that it militates against that evidence, but that it outbalances and supersedes it,
we would say of such an argument that it is not only weak, but idle; of such a conclusion, that it is not only unsound, but preposterous.
Christian obligation is a much simpler thing than speculative philosophy would make it appear;
and to all those who suppose that our relations as subjects dismiss the obligation of Christian laws, we would offer the consideration that neither the Founder of Christianity nor his apostles ever made the distinction.
Of questions of “particular and general consequences,” of “general advantages and particular mischiefs,” no traces are to be found in their words or writings.
The morality of Christianity is a simple system, adapted to the comprehensions of ordinary men. Were it otherwise, what would be its usefulness?
If philosophers only could examine our duties, and if their examinations ended in doubts without solution, how would men, without learning and without leisure, regulate their conduct?
I think, indeed, that it is a sufficient objection to all such theories as the present, that they are not adapted to the wayfaring man.
If the present theory is to be admitted, one of these two effects will be the consequence:
the greater part of the community must trust for the discovery of their duties to the sagacity of others, or they must act without any knowledge of their duties at all.