20. Universality of Christian obligation
But, that the pacific injunctions of the Christian Scriptures do apply to us, under every circumstance of life, whether private or public, appears to be made necessary by the universality of Christian obligation.
The language of Christianity upon the obligation of her moral laws is essentially this:
“What I say unto you, I say unto all.”
The pacific laws of our religion, then, are binding upon all men, upon the king and upon every individual who advises him, upon every member of a legislature, upon every officer and agent, and upon every private citizen.
How then can that be lawful for a body of men that is unlawful for each individual? How, if one is disobedient, can his offence make disobedience lawful to all?
We maintain yet more, and say that to dismiss Christian benevolence as subjects and to retain it as individuals is simply impossible.
He who possesses that subjugation of the affections and that universality of benevolence, by which he is influenced to do good to those who hate him, and to love his enemies in private life, cannot, without abandoning those dispositions, butcher other men because they are called public enemies.
The whole position that the pacific commands and prohibitions of the Christian Scriptures do not apply to our conduct as subjects of a state, therefore appears to me to be a fallacy.
Some of the arguments that are brought to support it so flippantly dispense with the principles of Christian obligation,
so gratuitously assume that because obedience may be difficult, obedience is not required, that they are rather an excuse for the distinction than a justification of it.
Some are so lamentably vague and indeterminate, the principles that are proposed are so technical, so inapplicable to the circumstance of society, and in truth, so incapable of being practically applied,
that it is not credible that they were designed to suspend the obligation of rules that were imposed by a revelation from Heaven.