don't think you can point to any text, however literally you press the
interpretation, which will bear a contrary construction. Take "Resist
not him that doeth evil" as literally as you like, in its context. It
obviously refers to an individual resisting a wrong committed against
himself, and the moral basis of the doctrine seems to me twofold: (1)
As regards yourself, self-denial, loving your enemies, etc., is the
divine law for the soul; (2) as regards the wronger nothing is so
likely to better him as your unselfish behaviour. The doctrine plainly
does not refer to wrongs committed in your presence against others.
Our Lord Himself overthrew the tables of the money-changers. And the
moral basis of His resistance to evil here is equally clear if you
tolerate evils committed against others: (1) your own morale and
courage is lowered: it is shirking; (2) the wronger is merely
encouraged. If I take A.'s coat and A. gives me his cloak also, I may
be touched. But B.'s acquiescence in the proceeding cannot possibly
touch me and only encourages me. Now the Government of a country is
nearly always in the position of B. not A., because a country is not
an individual. In our case we were emphatically in the position of B.:
but I would justify the resistance of Belgium on the same grounds.

Of course as I said last week, national standards can't be as
self-sacrificing as individual standards: and never can be until all
the individuals in a nation are so Christian as to choose unanimously
the self-sacrificing course.

I agree that the Dardanelles outlook is very serious, and it now looks
as if Germany had got Bulgaria to come in against us. We ought to
concentrate on a decision there as vigorously as the Germans did in
Poland, and let us hope with more success.