16. The absence of a common arbitrator among nations
If it is said that Christianity allows to individuals some degree and kind of resistance, and that some resistance is therefore lawful to states, we do not deny it.
But if it is said that the degree of lawful resistance extends to the slaughter of our fellow Christians – that it extends to war – we do deny it.
We say that the rules of Christianity cannot, by any possible latitude of interpretation, be made to extend to it.
The duty of forbearance then, is antecedent to all considerations respecting the condition of man; and whether he is under the protection of the law or not, the duty of forbearance is imposed.
The only truth that appears to be elicited by the present argument is that the difficulty of obeying the forbearing rules of Christianity is greater in the case of nations than in the case of individuals:
The obligation to obey them is the same in both.
Nor let anyone urge the difficulty of obedience in opposition to the duty; for he who does this has yet to learn one of the most awful rules of his religion:
a rule that was enforced by the precepts, and more especially by the final example, of Christ, of apostles, and of martyrs, the rule which requires that we should be “obedient even unto death.”
Let it not, however, be supposed that we believe the difficulty of forbearance would be as great in practice as it is in theory. We hope hereafter to show that it promotes our interests as certainly as it fulfils our duties.