22. Inconsistent with the usual practice of the author
Now, I am compelled to observe that in the discussion of the lawfulness of war, Dr. Paley has neglected his professed principles of decision and his ordinary practice.
His professed principles are these:
that the discovery of the “will of God, which is the whole business of morality,” is to be attained by referring, primarily, to “his express declarations, when they are to be had, and which must be sought for, in Scripture.”
Has he sought for these declarations?
Has he sought for “Resist not evil,” or for “Love your enemies,” or for “Put up thy sword,” or for “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” or for “My kingdom is not of this world”?
He has sought for none of these. He has examined none of them. He has noticed none of them.
His professed principles are, again, that
“when our instructions are dubious, we should endeavour to explain them by what we can collect of our Master’s general inclination or intention.”
Has he conformed to his own rule? Has he endeavoured to collect this general inclination and to examine this general tendency?
He has taken no notice of it whatever. This neglect, we say, is contrary to his ordinary practice.
Upon other subjects, he has assiduously applied to the Christian Scriptures in determination of truth:
He has examined not only their direct evidence, but also the evidence that they afford by induction and implication, the evidence arising from their general tendency.
Suicide is nowhere condemned in the New Testament, yet Paley condemns it – and how?
He examines the sacred volume and finds that by implication and inference it may be collected that suicide is not permitted by Christianity:
He says that patience under suffering is inculcated as an important duty, and that the recommendation of patience implies the unlawfulness of suicide to get out of suffering.
This is sound reasoning, but he does not adopt it in the examination of war.
Could he not have found that the inculcation of peacefulness forms as good an argument against the lawfulness of war as the inculcation of patience forms against the lawfulness of suicide?
He certainly could have done this, and why has he not done it?
Why has he passed it over in silence?
I must confess my belief that he was unwilling to discuss the subject upon Christian principles, that he had resolved to make war consistent with Christianity
and that foreseeing her “express declarations” and “general intentions” militated against it, he avoided noticing them at all.
This much at least is certain, that in discussing the lawfulness of war, he has abandoned both his avowed principles and his correspondent practice.
There is, to me at least, in the chapter “On War,” an appearance of great indecision of mind arising from the conflict between Christian truth and the power of habit,
between the consciousness that war is “abhorrent” to our religion, and the desire to defend it on the principle of expediency.
The whole chapter is characterized by a very extraordinary laxity both of arguments and principles.