Endnotes

1. Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy. ↩

2. Knox’s Essays, No. 34. ↩

3. History of Scotland. ↩

4. Lord Clarendon’s Essays. ↩

5. Knox’s Essays. ↩

6. Lord Clarendon’s Essays. ↩

7. These observations apply also to the naval profession; but I have in this passage, as in some other parts of the Essay, mentioned only soldiers, to prevent circumlocution. ↩

8. Dr. Paley. ↩

9. “Christianity quite annihilates the disposition for martial glory.” —⁠Bishop Watson ↩

10. Acts 20:22. ↩

11. We know that there may be, and have been, cases in which the soldier possesses purer motives. An invasion may rouse the national patriotism and arm a people for the unmingled purpose of defending themselves. Here is a definite purpose, a purpose which every individual understands and is interested in: and if he die under such circumstances, we do not deny that his motives are patriotic. The actions to which they prompt, are, however, a separate consideration, and depend for their qualities on the rectitude of war itself. Motives may be patriotic, when actions are bad. I might, perhaps, benefit my country by blowing up a fleet, of which the cargo would injure our commerce. My motive may be patriotic, but my action is vicious. It is not sufficiently borne in mind, that patriotism, even much purer than this, is not necessarily a virtue. “Christianity,” says Bishop Watson, “does not encourage particular patriotism, in opposition to general benignity.” And the reason is easy of discovery. Christianity is designed to benefit, not a community, but the world. If it unconditionally encouraged particular patriotism, the duties of a subject of one state would often be in opposition to those of a subject of another. Christianity, however, knows no such inconsistencies; and whatever patriotism, therefore, is opposed, in its exercise, to the general welfare of mankind, is, in no degree, a virtue. ↩

12. “The Sentiments Proper to the Crisis.”⁠—A Sermon, preached October 19th, 1803, by Robert Hall, A.M. ↩

13. Nor is the preacher inconsistent with Apostles alone. He is also inconsistent with himself. In another discourse, delivered in the preceding year, he says: “The safety of nations is not to be sought in arts or in arms. War reverses, with respect to its objects, all the rules of morality. It is nothing less than a temporary repeal of all the principles of virtue. It is a system, out of which almost all the virtues are excluded, and in which nearly all the vices are incorporated. In instructing us to consider a portion of our fellow-creatures as the proper objects of enmity, it removes, as far as they are concerned, the basis of all society, of all civilization and virtue; for the basis of these, is the good will due to every individual of the species.”⁠—“Religion,” then, we are told, “sheds its selectest influence over that which repeals all the principles of virtue”⁠—over that “in which nearly all the vices are incorporated!” What “religion” it is which does this, I do not know⁠—but I know that it is not the religion of Christ. Truth never led into contradictions like these. Well was it said that we cannot serve two masters. The quotations which we have given, are evidence sufficient that he who holds with the one neglects the other. ↩

14. Decline and Fall. ↩

15. Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humor. ↩

16. History of Brazil. ↩

17. See “the Inquiry,” etc. ↩

18. Lord Clarendon’s Essays. ↩

19. Lord Clarendon’s Essays. ↩

20. Life of Bishop Watson. ↩

21. Life of Bishop Watson. ↩

22. Southey’s History of Brazil. ↩

23. Essays. ↩

24. “Even thinking men, bewildered by the various and contradictory systems of moral judgment adopted by different ages and nations, have doubted the existence of any real and permanent standard, and have considered it as the mere creature of habit and education.”88⁠—How has the declaration been verified⁠—“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise!” ↩

25. I refer, of course, to those questions of morality which are not specifically decided. ↩

26. Matthew 5, etc. ↩

27. Matthew 5:28. ↩

28. Matthew 5:22. ↩

29. Yet the retention of both has been, unhappily enough, attempted. In a late publication, of which part is devoted to the defence of war, the author gravely recommends soldiers, whilst shooting and stabbing their enemies, to maintain towards them a feeling of “good will.” —⁠Tracts and Essays, by the late William Hey, Esq., F.R.S. ↩

30. It is manifest, from the New Testament, that we are not required to give “a cloak,” in every case, to him who robs us of “a coat;” but I think it is equally manifest that we are required to give it not the less because he has robbed us. The circumstance of his having robbed us does not entail an obligation to give; but it also does not impart a permission to withhold. If the necessities of the plunderer require relief, it is the business of the plundered to relieve them. ↩

31. Matthew 5:9. ↩

32. Matthew 26:51⁠–⁠52. ↩

33. John 18:36. ↩

34. In the publication to which note 29 refers, the author informs us that the reason why Christ forbade his followers to fight in his defence, was, that it would have been to oppose the government of the country. I am glad no better evasion can be found; and this would not have been found, if the author had consulted the reason assigned by the Prohibitor, before he promulgated his own. ↩

35. James 4:1. ↩

36. 2 Corinthians 10:4. ↩

37. Matthew 8:10. ↩

38. See a future quotation from the Moral and Political Philosophy. ↩

39. Luke 22:36. ↩

40. Acts 1:6. ↩

41. Isaiah 2:4. ↩

42. Isaiah 11:9. ↩

43. Isaiah 60:18. ↩

44. Galatians 1:8. ↩

45. “Essays on the Doctrines and Practice of the Early Christians as They Relate to War.” To this Essay I am indebted for much information on the present part of our subject. ↩

46. Pol. Ep. ad Phil. c. 2. —⁠Evidences of Christianity ↩

47. These examples might be multiplied. Enough, however, have been given to establish our position, and the reader who desires further or more immediate information, is referred to Justin Mart. in Dialog. cum Tryph. ejusdemque Apolog. 2⁠—Ad Zenam: Tertull. De Corona Militis.⁠—Apolog. cap. 21 and 37.⁠—Lib. de Idol. c. 17, 18, 19.⁠—Ad Scapulum cap. 1. Adversus Jud. cap. 7 and 9.⁠—Adv. Gnost. 13.⁠—Adv. Marc. c. 4.⁠—Lib. de Patient., c. 6. 10: Orig. Cont. Celsum lib. 3, 5, 8.⁠—In Josuam, hom. 12. cap. 9.⁠—in Mat. cap. 26. Tract 36: Cypr. Epist. 56⁠—Ad Cornel. Lactan. De Just. lib. 5. c. 18. lib. 6. c. 20: Ambr. in Luc. 22. Chrysost. in Matth. 5. hom. 18.⁠—in Matth. 26. hom. 85.⁠—lib. 2. De Sacerdotio. 1 Cor. 13: Chromat. in Matt. 5. Hieron. Ad Ocean.⁠—lib. Epist. p. 3. tom. 1. Ep. 2: Athan. De Inc. Verb. Dei: Cyrill. Alex. lib. 11. in Johan. cap. 25, 26. See also Erasmus, Luc. cap. 3, and 22. Ludov. Vives in Introd. ad Sap.: I. Ferus lib. 4 Comment in Matth. 7 and Luc. 22. ↩

48. Deuteronomy 21:18, 21. ↩

49. Deuteronomy 13:9. ↩

50. John 16:3. ↩

51. Moral and Political Philosophy, Chap. “Of War and Military Establishments.” ↩

52. Moral and Political Philosophy, Chap. “Of War and Military Establishments.” ↩

53. I do not know why “the profession of a soldier” is substituted for the simple term, war. Dr. P. does not say that war is nowhere forbidden or condemned, which censure or prohibition it is obviously easy to have pronounced without even noticing “the profession of a soldier.” I do not say that this language implies a want of ingenuousness, but it certainly was more easy to prove that the profession of a soldier is nowhere condemned, than that war is nowhere condemned. ↩

54. Moral and Political Philosophy, Book II. Chap. 4. ↩

55. I must be just. After these declarations, the author says, that when the laws which inculcate the Christian character, are applied to what is necessary to be done for the sake of the public, they are applied to a case to which they do not belong; and he adds, “This distinction is plain,” but in what its plainness consists, or how it is discovered at all, he does not inform us. The reader will probably wonder, as I do, that whilst Paley says no two things can be more opposite than the Christian and the heroic characters, he nevertheless thinks it “is plain” that Christianity sanctions the latter.

    I would take the opportunity afforded me by this note, to entreat the reader to look over the whole of Chap. 2, Part II in the Evidences of Christianity. He will find many observations on the placability of the gospel, which will repay the time of reading them. ↩

56. Montagu on Punishment of Death. ↩

57. Contr. Soc. II 5. Montagu. ↩

58. Del Delitti e delia Penes, XVI. Montagu. ↩

59. Moral and Political Philosophy. ↩

60. “The Lawfulness of Defensive War Impartially Considered, by a Member of the Church of England.” ↩

61. Moral and Political Philosophy. ↩

62. It forms no part of a Christian’s business to inquire why his religion forbids any given actions, although I know not that the inquiry is reprehensible. In the case of personal attack, possibly Christianity may decide, that if one of two men must be hurried from the world, of whom the first is so profligate as to assault the life of his fellow, and the other is so virtuous as to prefer the loss of life to the abandonment of Christian principles⁠—it is more consistent with her will that the good should be transferred to his hoped felicity, than that the bad should be consigned to punishment. ↩

63. See Select Anecdotes, etc., by John Barclay, pp. 71⁠–⁠79. In this little volume I have found some illustrations of the policy of the principle which we maintain in the case of a personal attack. Barclay, the celebrated Apologist, was attacked by a highwayman. He made no other resistance than a calm expostulation. The felon dropped his presented pistol, and offered no farther violence. A Leonard Fell was assaulted by a highway robber, who plundered him of his money and his horse, and afterwards threatened to blow out his brains. Fell solemnly spoke to the robber on the wickedness of his life. The man was astonished:⁠—he declared he would take neither his money nor his horse, and returned them both.⁠—“If thine enemy hunger, feed him⁠—for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.” ↩

64. Clarkson. ↩

65. Oldmixon, Anno, 1708. ↩

66. Proud. ↩

67. Oldmixon. ↩

68. Clarkson, Life of Penn. ↩

69. “The dread of being destroyed by our enemies if we do not go to war with them, is a plain and unequivocal proof of our disbelief in the superintendence of Divine Providence.” —⁠“The Lawfulness of Defensive War Impartially Considered; by a Member of the Church of England” ↩

70. Falkland’s Islands. ↩

71. 2 Samuel 24:16. ↩

72. Psalm 120:7. ↩

73. Lord Clarendon⁠—who, however, excepts those wars which are likely “to introduce as much benefit to the world, as damage and inconvenience to a part of it.” The morality of this celebrated man, also, seems thus to have been wrecked upon the rock of expediency. ↩

74. Johnson⁠—Falkland’s Islands. ↩

75. Lord Clarendon’s Essays. ↩

76. Erasmus. ↩

77. Hall. ↩

78. William Law, A.M. ↩

79. Essays.⁠—No. 19. Knox justly makes much exception to the applicability of these censures. ↩

80. Dr. Paley. ↩

81. There is something very unmanly and cowardly in some of the maxims of this law of honor. How unlike the fortitude, the manliness of real courage, are the motives of him who fights a duel! He accepts a challenge, commonly, because he is afraid to refuse it. The question with him is, whether he fears more, a pistol or the world’s dread frown; and his conduct is determined by the preponderating influence of one of these objects of fear. If I am told that he probably feels no fear of death; I answer, that if he fears not the death of a duelist, his principles have sunk to that abyss of depravity, whence nothing but the interposition of Omnipotence is likely to reclaim them. ↩

82. This inferiority will probably be found less conspicuous in the private than in his superiors. Employment in different situations, or in foreign countries, and the consequent acquisition of information, often make the private soldier superior in intelligence to laborers and mechanics; a cause of superiority which, of course, does not similarly operate amongst men of education.

    We would here beg the reader to bear in his recollection, the limitations which are stated in the preface, respecting the application of any apparent severity in our remarks. ↩

83. I would scarcely refer to the monstrous practice of impressing seamen, because there are many who deplore and many who condemn it. Whether this also be necessary to war, I know not:⁠—probably it is necessary; and if it be, I would ask no other evidence against the system that requires it. Such an invasion of the natural rights of man, such a monstrous assumption of arbitrary power, such a violation of every principle of justice, cannot possibly be necessary to any system of which Christianity approves. ↩

84. Life of Bishop Watson. ↩

85. All sober men allow this to be true in relation to the influence of those Novels which decorate a profligate character with objects of attraction. They allow that our complacency with these subjects abates our hatred of the accompanying vices. And the same also is true in relation to war; with the difference, indeed, which is likely to exist between the influence of the vices of fiction and that of the vices of real life. ↩

86. Duties of Men in Society. ↩

87. Acts 5:29. ↩

88. Murray’s Inquiries Respecting the Progress of Society. ↩