( PDF ) The Early Christian Attitude to War

THE

EARLY'

CHRISTIAN

ATTITUDE

TO

WAR

A

CONTRIBUTION TO THE

HISTORY

OF

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

BY

C.:"JOHN

CADOUX

M.A..

D.D.

(Londd!

M.A.

(Oxon)

WITH

A

FOREWORD

BY

THE

Rev.

W.

E.

ORCHARD,

D.D.

LONDON

I

HEADLEY

BROS.

PUBLISHERS,

LTD,.

72

OXFORD

STREET.

W.

4

1.

1919

137964

ads:

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

Milhares de livros grátis para download.

TO

MY

WIFE

0

glorious Will of God, unfold

The splendour

of

Thy Way,

And all shall love

as

they behold

And loving

shall

obey,

Consumed

each

meaner care and

claim

In the new

passion’s

holy

flame.

0

speed the hours when o’er the world

Night from

his

ancient throne

is

burled,

Through human wills by Thee controlled,

Spreads o’er the earth the Age

of

Gold.

The vision’s

fire

shall run

;

Uprisen

is

Christ the

Sun;

REV.

G.

DARLASTON.

FOREWORD

THIS

is

a book which stands in need of no introduc-

tion

;

it will make

its

own way by the demand

for

such

a work, and by the exact and patient scholarship with

which that demand has here been

met.

For we have

no

work in this country which effectively covers this

subject

;

Harnack's

Militiu

Chrish'

has not

been

trans-

lated, but it will probably

be

found 'that the present

work

fills

its place.

But it

is

not only the need for this work

(of

which

scholars will be aware), but the serious importance

of

the

subject, which

will

make the

book

welcome. Argument

for and against the Christian sanction of war has had

to

be

conducted in the past few years in an atmosphere

in

which the truth has had small chance

of

emerging. Dr.

Cadoux has his

own

convictions

on

this subject, which

he makes no attempt to conceal

;

he believes that he

is

supported by

the

early uncorrupted instincts of

Christ-

ianity, which here he

sets

out before us

;

but his per-

sonal conviction has never

been

allowed

to

conceal facts

or make them out

to

be

other than they are. He not

only gives

dl

the evidence on

the

opposite

side,

but he

everywhere allows for influences and motives which

might weaken

the

force

of

the facts which

seem

to

support

his

own

position. The work is

impartial

in the

only

way

such

a

work ever can

be,

not because the

vii

...

VI11

Foreword

author is without convictions, but because he has

a

pro-

found reverence for truth and possesses a

keen

scholarly

conscience.

Here, then, is a survey of the early Christian attitude

towards war which must

be

read and pondered. It

takes

us

back to a time when life seems, at least to

us,

less complicated

;

it

shows

us

faith working largely

through instinct, often reinforced by crude thinking and

poor reasoning,and yet faith which was prepared to

pay

the price of

life

itself, and an instinct which is deeply

planted in

our

humanity, namely the instinct against

bloodshed, unsophisticated by argument Few will

be

able to

read

the story:without feeling that here

as

on

other subjects the Christian faith was acting

more

purely

and powerfully than ever since. We need not hold that

Christendom has been one long story of relapse and

apostasy to

be

able

to

recognize the essentially

super-

natural gift not only in Christ our Lord, but in the

classical prime of Christianity, with its glorious apostles,

saints, and martyrs. Those

early

days will ever

speak

to

us,

however

much

farther we

may

progress

;

to them

we must return again and again, not necessarily to

dis-

cover a

final

and fixed standard, either

for

thought or

practice, but certainly whenever we want to renew

our

f&

and

see

again the vision of what Christianity

was

meant

to

be.

Whether

the

evidence of the early Christian attitude

can

provide

any

guidance for Christians

in

the

twentieth

century

is

a

question into which

other

considerations

have

to

enter.

Dr.

Cadoux

has

effectually

shown

that

the

false apocalyptic hopes of

those

times

did

not

deter-

mine the attitude taken

up;

he has

not

show&

as

I

think he might, how a translation of

that

apocalyptic

i

1

Foreword

ix

hope into the belief in the swift possibility of

great

moral change and spiritual advance, is one sanctioned

by

modern thought, and provides again that atmosphere

of

expectation and faith in which alone great adventures

can

be

made

;

he has preferred to keep the whole subject

free from any such entanglement. But he has shown

how an uncritical view of the Old Testament reve1.ation

tended to embarrass and corrupt the pure Christian

instinct on the subject

of

war. This view, save for one

or two recent examples

of

adoption for war emergencies,

has

now almost totally disappeared

;

and since a

humaner belief concerning God’s methods of purgation

in another world is demanded by the enlightened con-

science,

we

are left with that first Christian instinct

about war only further supported by modern belief; and

this, it should

be

noted, without reducing

God’s

love to

mere leniency and sentimentality. God

has

His ways

of

punishing, but they are as different from man’s as the

heavens are higher than the earth

;

and where man’s

most conspicuously fail, there

is

ground ,for hope that

God’s will in the end succeed.

The

only

real objection which can

be

urged against

the revival

of

the

early Christian attitude

is

that Christ-

ianity has accepted the State, and that this carries with

it the necessity for coercive discipline within and the

waging of war without; in which disagreeable duties

Christians must

as

citizens take their part

To

refuse

this will expose civilization to disaster. It may perhaps

Serve to provoke reflection to notice in passing that this

was

the

argument

of Celsus and is the general attitude

which determines German thought on this subject.

The truth is that the way

of

war,

if

persisted

in,

is

going

to destroy civilization anyhow, and the continual demand

X

Formord

for war service will, sooner or later, bring the modern

State to anarchy. It would be wise also for Christian

leaders and thinkers not to imagine that the problem

of

war is going to be solved without this disagreeable

question

of

Christian condemnation, and

of

individual

refusal to take part in it, having first to be settled. It

is

unlikely that we shall be relieved

of

this moral

decision, or that the great menace will be removed

without some advance

of

Christian opinion, which

will

have to be taken first by individuals and then by the

Church, incurring in the process the hatred

of

the

world and the hostility

of

the State. The real principle

for which the early martyrs died has yet to

be

estab-

iished

;

and we cannot

be

sure that it will be at less

price.

Here, then, is a subject on which

we

need clear light,

and this excellent piece

of

research certainly brings

considerable illumination

;

it,

is

a subject that will

not

.

cease to vex the Church until we have decided either to

make as unequivocal a condemnation

of

war

as

we have

of

slavery,

or

to abandon altogether any profession

of

whole-hearted allegiance

to

the Christian faith.

W.

E.

ORCHARD.

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

FOREWORD BY DR

.

ORCHARD

............

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

...............

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS

...

INTRODUCTION

..................

Christian ethics in general

............

Importance

of

the history

of

early Christian ethics

...

Present urgency

of

the elhical problem

of

war

......

Scope

and method

of

the present work

.........

Previous treatment

of

the subject (since Grotius)

...

Need

of

a further work on the subject

.........

Personal convictions in relation to the special task

historian

of

Christian ethics

.........

Relative justification

of

other

moral

standards than

Use

of

the srgumentum ad hominem

Conditions

of

military

service

in the Roman Empire

...

.....................

own

.........

...

of

an

one’s

...

PAGE

vi

i

xvii

xxv

1-17

i

,I

3

4

6

‘3

14

15

PART

I

.

THE TEACHING

OF

JESUS

......

19-47

Range

of

Jesus’ teaching on the subject

of

war

.........

19

Statements

of

Jesus inconsistent with the lawfulness

of

war

for

Christians

:-

I

.

‘

Thou

shalt

not

kill

’

...............

20

I1

.

The non-resistance teaching

............

22

111

.

Refusal

to

advance

his

ideals by political

or

coercive

means

..................

26

IV

.

Disapproval

of

Gentile ‘authority’ because resting

on

coeraon

...............

28

ri

xii

Contents

V

.

Three incidental utterances

............

(u)

.

Neither do

I

condemn thee

.......

(6)

'

Flee to the mountains

..........

(c)

'

Put back thy sword into its place

'

...

Statements

of

Jesus and other considerations apparently

I

.

'

Whoever impresses thee (to

go)

one mile.

go

two

with him

'

...............

I1

.

No

explicit disapproval of the military calling

...

I11

.

The expulsion of the traders

from

the Temple-

IV

.

The wars of the future

............

V

.

Illustrative allusions to war

............

VI

.

Recognition

of

civil government

.........

VI1

.

The obvious needs of society

.........

Summary

..................

Explanatory note

on

the arrangement

of

the remaining material

..................

Summary

legitimizing warfare

for

Christians

:-

..................

courts

VI11

.

The

'

interim-ethic

'

theory

.........

PART I1

.

FORMS

OF

THE

EARLY CHRISTIAN

DISAPPROVAL

OF

WAR

............

49-160

The Condemnation

of

War

in the abstract

.........

Early

authors

.....................

Clemens

of

Alexandria. Tertullianus. Hippolutos. etc

....

Cyprianus to Methodios

...............

Amobius. Lactantius. and Eusebios

.........

Summary

.....................

The Essential Peacefulness

of

Christianity

.........

General statements

of

early authors down to Justinus

...

Christian appropriation

of

the

'

ploughshare

'

prophecy

General statements

of

later authors

(Athenagom

to

of

Isaiah

Amobius)

..................

Concluding comments

...............

The Christian Treatment

of

Enemies and Wrongdoers

...

Pertinence'

of

the subject

...............

Christian writers

of

the first century

.........

The

Apostle John and the

Robber

............

Christian writers

of

the

first

half

of

the second century

....

Justinas

.....................

Athenagoras. Theophilos. etc

.............

.....................

condents

...

x111

Eirenaios

.....................

Tertullianus

.....................

Clemens of Alexandria

................

Origenes

.....................

Cyprianus. etc

...................

Lactantius. etc

...................

The question

of

the defence of others

.........

The Christians' Experience

of

Evil in Lhe Character

of

Soldiers

.....................

Introductory

.....................

The soldier's share in persecution

............

Other

occasions

of

offence

...............

Conclusion

No

Christian soldier known to have existed between

50

and

170

A.D.

..................

Sergius Paulus and the Praetorian

Guard

in the time of

Paul

.....................

The action of the Jerusalem Christians in the war

of

No

evidence

of

Christian soldiers in the reign of Trajanus

67-71

A.D.

No

evidence

of

Christian soldiers

in

the reign

of

Hadrianus

...

i

..............

.....................

The Christian Refusal to participate in War

.........

...................

The

impression given by Justinus

............

The impression given

by

Tatianus and Athenagoras

...

General remarks

on

the

period

of

M

.

Aurelius

......

The evidence of Celsus

...............

Statements

of

Eirenaios, etc

.............

Statements

of

Tertullianus

...............

Remarks

on

the statements

of

Tertullianus

:-

I

.

Earliest evidence

for

the enlistment

of

baptited

christisns

...............

2

.

Tcrtdlianus seriously advises Christians to leave

the

my

..................

3

.

Tertullianus moved

by

humanitarian considera-

4

.

Tertullianus not disingenuous

.........

5

.

Tertullianus

justified

in

trying

to

apply

the

Gospel

6

.

The

alternative

service

rendered

by

the

Christian

to

practical

life

to

the

State.

...............

7

.

'hrtulliius

not

an

individual dissenter from the

rest

of

the Church

............

tions,

as

well

as

by

the

danger

of

idolatrp

...

...............

F

97

98

99

I

xiv

C&&

The Canons

of

Hippolutos and the early Church-Orders

The literary problems

............

Tabular statement of the evidence

.........

Summary

of

the evidence

............

Conclusion as to the oldest regulations

......

Importance of this conclusion

.........

Evidence given by Minucius Felix

.........

Statements

of

Origenes

...............

Remarks on the statements of

Orieenes

:-

...

.

I

.

He recognizes the possibility

of

righteous wars waged

by non-Christians

...............

2

.

His view of the illegitimacy

of

war

for

Christians not

therefore to le fegarded

as

an inconsistency

or

as

3

.

His

evidence

as

to

the extent of the Christian refclsal

not seriously meant

4

His view independent of eschatology

of

service

5

.

He

objects to war on the score

of

bloodshed, not

6

.

His

emphasis on the alternative service of the Christian

The position

of

Cyprianus

...............

The evidence of Plotin

os

..................

The martyrdom of Maximilianus

(295

A.D.)

.........

The difficulty over idolatry-martyrdom of Marinus

(260

A.D.)

The martyrdom

of

Marcellus and Cassianus

(298

A.D.)

...

Cases of other Christians leaving the army

about

300

A.D.

...

Christian view

(250-313

A.D.)

as

to illegitimacy

of

litigation

and magistracy for Christians

............

...............

..................

.........

idolatry

..................

7

.

His

programme

not

open

to

the charge

of

anarchy

...

Quobtions

from Arnobius and Lactantius

.........

PAkT I11

.

FORMS

OF

THE-EARLY CHRISTIAN

ACCEPTANCE

OF

WAR

.........

161-243

The

use

of

military terms and phrases

to

illustrate the

.

by Paul

......................

x61

by Clemens

of

Rome and

Ignatius

.........

163

by

Justinus. Tertullianus. etc

..............

164

by

Origenes. etc

...................

165

by Cyprianus. etc

...................

167

Such

language usually

non-cornmittnl

85

to

earthly

wadare

..................

167

but

was

not

without

its

own

dangers

.........

168

religious

liie-

The

Wars

of

the

Old

Testament and

of

Hebrew History

...

References in early writers down to Justinus

......

Theory broached by hfarkion

............

Later developments

..................

Views of Origenes and

‘

Adamantios

’

.........

Cyprianus and others

...............

Concluding summary

-.-

............

Apocalyptic Wars

..................

Bearing

of

helief in apocalyptic wars on Christian conduct

The Jewish War

of

67-71

A.D.

...............

War

as

an Instrument

of

Divine Justice

.........

Bearing of this view

of

war on Christian conduct

...

The Functions

of

the State

...............

View

of

the State as a

useful

and necessary institution,

ordained by

God

for

the restraint

of

wrongdoing

...

Recognition ofthe rightfulness

of

judicial penalties

...

Recognition of the rightfulness, in some sense,

of

war

Writers down

to

Julius

Africanus

.........

Origenes and later writers

............

Prayer

for

the imperial armies

............

The Christian justification of State-coercion was relative

to the State’s paganism, and did not imply

a

Christian readiness to participate in it

......

Ulterior problems involved in

this

position

......

Contribution to their solution offered by Origenes

...

Contribution to their solution offered in the Clemen-

tine Homilies

...............

’

Contribution to their solution offered in the

Dialogus

de Recta Fidei

...............

Defence

of

early Christian abstention

from

State-

coercion

.....................

Cases of real

or

apparent compromise (short

of

military

service) in pre-Constantinian Christianity

......

The Christian’s Experience

of

Good

in the Character

of

Soldiers

.....................

The

Participation

of

Christians

in

Military

Service

......

The period ending

170

A.D.

............

The

so-called

.

Thundering

Legion

’

.........

Julius

Africanusand Clemens

of

Alexandria

......

kileides

of

Alerandrim

...............

The information contributed by Tertullianas

......

He

is

the oldest

witness

for

the

enlistment

of

Christians

in

the

my

after

conversion

...

218

220

22

I

235

xvi

Inscriptions

...

.. . .

.

...

.

. .

,

.

..

Cyprianus and other writers down to the Great Persea-

Christians in the armies

of

Constantinus and Licinius

...

tion

.

..

.

. . .

.

..

.

,

.

. .

.

. . . .

Note

on

the numbers

of

Christians in the armies,

250-313

A.D.

...

PART

IV.

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSION

244

Summary

of

Jesus' teaching

...

Extent

of

the strict adherence

of

the Church to

this

teaching

Yet few Christians called on to

face

the problem

of

military

service

Connexions in which Christians thought

of

war without

Simplemindedness and other conditions facilitating the con-

reproach

...

.

..

.

..

.

. . .

..

.

tinuance of converted soldiers in the army

... ...

Further reasons

for

a

certain acquiescence in this state

of

The

thin end

of

the wedge

...

things

..

.

. . .

. .

.

. .

.

. .

.

. .

..

Extent

of

acquiescence

in

the bearing

of

arms

by

Christians

has

been

greatly

exaggerated

...

Strength

of

the adherence

to

stricter views

...

The conclusion involved

in

the triumph and patronage

of

The importance and significance

of

this

conclusion

...

Constantinus

..

.

. ..

.

,

. .

.

...

. .

.

Vigorous

survival

'of

stricter views after

the

Constantinian

settlement

...

..

.

,

.

..

...

.

. ..

.

That

settlement in regard

to

war

discredited by the way in

which

it

was

arrived

at

...

The

bring

of

the early Christian witness

on

:modem

conditions

...

PAQE

236

237

24

I

INDEX

...

_..

...

267-272

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

Names

of

Emperors are printed in Capitals.

Many

of

the dates given are conjectural

or

approximate. Where two

figures are given, they indicate either the limits

of

a

reign

or

the probable

termini between which the date

of

an event

or

a composition falls.

In the case

of

martyrdoms,

it

is to

be

noted that the written

Acta

do not

always date from immediately after the events they narrate. The

Acta

quoted however usually contain

for

the most part early and reliable

material.

A.D.

14

Death

of

AUGUSTUS.

29

Crucifixion

of

Jesus.

37-41

GAIUS (CALIGULA).

14-37

TIBERIUS.

?40

Conversion

of

the centurion Cornelius.

41-54

CLAUDIUS.

41

Martyrdom

of

James, the son

of

Zebedee.

47

Paul preaches to Sergius Paulus, proconsul

of

Cyprus.

49

Conversion of the gaoler

of

Philippi.

50-61

The extant Epistles of

Paul.

5468

NERO.

?

62

The Epistle of James.

64

Fke

at Rome

;

Nero

persecutes

the Christians.

The Martyrdom

of

Peter and Paul

at

Rome.

The

Pastoral Epistles

(?of

Paul), i.e.

I

and

z

Tim.

and Tit.

The

Epistle to the Hebrews.

The (First) Epistle

of

Peter.

68-69

GALBA

:

OTHO

:

VITELLIUS.

64-70

The

Gospel

of

Mark.

69-79

VESPASIANUS.

66

Outbred

of Jewish

War

against

Rome.

167

Christians

of

Jerusalem

withdraw

to Pella.

70

Jerpdcm

captured

by

the

Romms.

I*

#

xviii

Chronological

Table

A.D.

7-80

The

Gospel

of Matthew.'

The

Gospel

and Acts

of

Luke.

?

75

The Epistle

of

'

Batnabas

'

(Egypt).

79-81

TITUS.

&-go

The Didakhe (Syria).

81-96

DOMITIANUS.

93

The

Apocalyfse

of

John

(Asia

Minor).

9698

NERVA.

?94

The (First) Epistle

of

Clernens

of

Rome to the Corinthians.

98-117

TRAJANUS.

100

The

Vis,,

of

Zsaiah

(=Ascension

.fIsaiah

vi-xi.

40)

100-110

The Fourth Gospel (Asia Minor).

The Johannine Epistles (Asia Minor).

?

I

IO

The

Ejistles

(Asia Minor) and martyrdom (Rome) of Ignatius

of

?

I

IO

The

Epistle

of

Polukarpos

of

Smyrna to the Philippians.

Antioch.

112

The Correspondence between Plinius and Trajanus about the

Christians

of

Bithynia.

117-138

HADRIANUS.

I

10-130

The apocryphal

GospeI

oj

Peter.

?

130-150

The

'

Elders

'

cited

by

Eirenaios.

138-161

ANTONINUS

PIUS.

140

The

Shphcrd

of

Hermas

(Italy).

140-141

The

ApoZogv

of

Aristeides (Athens).

14.4-154

Markion flourished (Italy).

?

150

The so-called Second Epistle

of

Clemens

of

Rome.

The so-called Second Epistle

of

Peter.

The

EpistZe

to

Dwgwros.

153

The

Apology

of

Justinus (usually reckoned

as

two)

(Rome).

?

154

(before

165)

Tatianus'

Address

to

the

Greeks

(Rome).

155

The

martyrdom

of

Polultarpos at Smyma.

155-160

Justinus'

DicrrogUC

with

TrupirPn

th

few.

?

Justinus'

On

the

Resurrection.

?

160

The

apocryphal

Art$

of]uhn.

161-180

MARCUS

AURELIUS.

160-170

The apocryphal

Rctr

of

Paul.

161-169

The martyrdom

of

Karpos,

Papulos,

and

Agathdke

at Pergamus.

163-167

The martyrdom

of

Justinus

and

his

companions

Bt

Rome.

173

or

174

The incident

of

the

so-called

'Thundering

Legion.'

177-180

Athenagoras'

hgatw

pre

C&rishiuris

(7

Athens) and

De

?

170

The

Excerpta

ex

Thou&.

Rmuwe&k.

CeW

Trvr

Distonrse.

Chronological

Table

xix

A.D.

180-192

COMAIODUS.

177-178

Persecution at Lugdunum

(Lyons)

in Gaul.

180

(July)

Martyrdom

of

the Sci!litans.

180-185

Martyrdom of the Senator Apollonius (Rome).

181-189

Eirenaios’

Adversus Haereses

(Lyons).

?

181

Theophilos

of

Antiochs

Ad

Aactoolycunr.

Clemens

of

Alexandria’s

Lops

P~otrepticzrs.

?

IF

Eirenaios’

Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

(quoted in footnotes

as

Denzonstr)

(Lyons).

17-200

Pseudo-Justinus’

Oration

to

the

Greeks.

193

PERTINAX,

etc.

19s

Julius Africanus

serves

under Severus in an expedition to

197

Tertullianus’

Ad

Martyres.

193-211

SEFTIMIUS

SEVERUS.

Osrhoene.

,,

Ad

Natimzes.

,,

ApoZogeticus.

,,

De

Cultu

Feminanmr.

,,

De Baptism.

,,

De

Paenitsntia.

,,

De Patictrtia.

,,

De Oratwne.

,,

De IrZOloZatria.

,,

De

Praescn@he Haereticorzmr.

,,

Adversusjudaeos.

I~&ZO~

,,

De

Spectaculis.

I9s210

Clemens’

Strornatcis.

Igo-zoo

),

Paedagogm.

200-210

,,

treatise

against

~oetos.

?

ZOO

Fseudo-Justinus’

Cobtatio

ad

Gmtiks.

200

Hippolutos’

De

Antichristo.

203

,,

Commentary on

DanieZ.

203

Martyrdom

of

Perpetua, etc., at Carthago.

?

20s

Clemens’

Quis

Dives

SaZvetur

?

204-206

Tertullianus’

De

Exhovfafw~

Castitatis.

207

Tertullianus becomes

a

Montanist.

200-220

The apocryphal

Acts ofPeter.

208-213

Tertullianus’

Rdverzus

Marcioncm.

,,

De

Anima.

211-217

CARACALLA and

(211-212)

CETA.

210

,,

De

PaZlw.

211

Tertullianus’

De

Remmtwm

Camis.

,I

Do

corona

Mititif.

xx

Chronologica,l

Table

A.1).

211-212

Tertullianus’

De

&up

in

Persecrrtione.

212

,,

Ad

ScaprJarn.

.

213

,

Scorpiace.

?215

Pseudo-Meliton’s

Apology

to

Adonitzus(i.e.

Caracalla) (in Syriac).

217-218

MACRINUS.

218

Tertullianus’

De

Monogamia.

.

,

Dejejunia.

218-222

ELAGAEALUS.

?

220

Hippolutos’

Canons.

220

Tertullianus’

De

Pdicitia.

222-235

ALEXANDER SEVERUS.

Julius

Africanus’

Ktaroi.

?223

The Bardesanic

Book

of

the Laws

of

the

Countries

(otherwise

called

The Dialope on

Fafe).

226

Hippolutos’

Refsrtafw

omnium hacresium.

228-230

Origenes’

De

Princ++ii$.

233

,,

De

Ovafione.

235-238

MAXIMINUS

TIIRAX.

235

Origenes’

Homifies.onjudges.

238

GORDIANUS

I,

11,

etc.

238-244

GORDIANUS

111.

230-250

The apocryphal

Acts

of

Thowas.

238-248

Minucius Felix’

Octmius.

,,

Exhortation

to

Maylyvdonl.

241

Gregorios

Thaumatourgos’

Panegyrzr

on

Origems.

243

Pseudo-Cyprianus’

De Pascha Conzputus.

244-249

PHILIPPUS ARABS.

After

244

Origenes’

Bindies

on

Numbcrs.

,,

Commentary

on

Romans.

,,

Ad

Quirinum Testinsmtiorum adversus

/&s

libri

247

Cyprianus’

Ad

Donalum.

tyes,

247-265

Dionusios

of

Alexandria’s letters and

other

writings.

248

Origenes’

Contra

Cckurn.

249

Cyprianus’

De

Habit%

Virpkum.

249-251

DECIUS.

Persecution.

250-258

Cyprianus’

Epistles.

249-250

Origenes’

Homilies

onjoskrur.

250

Cyprianus’

De

La&

rwbrlyrii.

?

250

Commodianus’

I~pstrurlionrr.

,

Carmen

Apologrtirnnt

.

Diabskalia

(Syria).

250

Martyrdom

of

Pionios at

Smyma.

Chronological

Table

xxi

A.

n.

Trial

of

Achatius at Antioch in Pkidia.

251

Cyprianus’

De

Lapsis.

251-253

GALLUS and

VOLUSIANUS.

252

Cyprianus’

Ad

Drrnctrianum.

,,

De

Dominica Orafiom.

253-260

VALERIANUS.

253-254 Cyprianus’

De

Mortalitate.

254 Gregorios Thaumatourgos’

Camnicaf

Episfb (Pontus).

?

255

Novatianus’

(?)

Dc

Specfaadis.

Pseudo-Cyprianus’

Quod

I&&

Dii

non

sirzt.

Cyprianus’

De

Bono

Pafientiae.

256

39

,,

De

Rebaptime.

,,

Dt

Zeh

et

Livorr.

257

,~

Ad

Fortundurn

de

exhorfaiiorre

martyrii.

258 Martyrdom

of

Cyprianus (Carthago).

259 uan.) Martyrdom

of

Fructuosus (Spain).

(May)

93

, ,

Idontanus and Lucius (Carthago).

,,

Marianus and Tacohus (Kurnidia).

9,

,,

Codratins.

{

”

?

259 Pontius’

Lzy.

of

Cypn‘anus.

Pseudo-Cyprianus’

Rdversusjudaeor.

26268 GALLIENUS. Edict

of

Toleration..

260

Martyrdom

of

the soldier Marinus at Caesarea.

265

The

Penoabi

Petrou,

which are lost, but

of

which the

Clenrtntine

HomiZics

and the

CZewntinc Recopzitions

are later abridge-

ments, and

to

which the so-called

Epistfcs

of

CImcnJ

and

Pefer

too]urnes

were originally prefixed.

268-270

CLAUDIUS

11.

270-275 AURELIANUS.

272

Paulus

of

Snmosata ejected from

the

see of Antioch

by

the

secular

power.

275-284

TACITUS, etc.,

etc.

284-305 DIOCLETIANUS and (286-305) MAXIMIANUS.

270-300 Methodios’

Sympsium

(Olympus in Lycia).

Writings

of

Victorinus, bishop

of

Petavium (Petau).

293 Constantius Chlorus and Galerius made Caesars.

295 Martyrdom

of

Maximilianus at Teveste in Numidia

for refusing

298

Martyrdom

of

Marcellus and Cassianus at

Tingi

in

Mauretania.

to

lx

a soldier+

?

300

The Synod of Illiberis (Elvira in Spin).

Galerius

tries

to purge the amy

of

Christians.

303 Outbreak

of

the Great Persecution.

?

Martyrdom

of

the

veteran

Julius

in

Moesia.

xxii

lartyrdom

of

Pollio

in

Pannonia.

,,

Tarakhos, etc., in Cilicia.

305

Diocletianus and Maximianus resign,

leaving

GALERIUS and

CONSTANTIUS as Augusti, and Maximinus

Daza

and

Severus

as

Caesars.

305

or

later (Jan.) Martyrdom of Typasius in Mauretania.

305

Lactantius’

De Opi/;cio Dei.

.

,,

Dzvinae Institutiovus.

, ,

De

Ira

Dei.

West.

Maxentius supplants Severus in Italy.

306

Constantius dies

at

York

:

Constantinus becomes Caesar in the

304-310

Amobius’

Adversus Nahb?#es.

300-313

Adamantios”

Diaiogats

de

Recfa fiidei.

307

LICINIUS made Auystus by Galerius.

309

(Jan.) Martyrdom of Quirinus in Pannonia.

310

MAXIMINUS

DAZA

becomes Aogustus.

311

Death of Galerius.

312

(Jan.) Martyrdom

of

Lucianus at Nicomedia.

312

Constantinus adopts the sign

of

the cross in his campaign against

Eusebios’

Praqiwratio

Evangelicu.

CONSTANTINUS assumes the title

of

Augustus.

300-325

7

The Egyptian Church-Order.

Maxentius.

Maxentius defeated at the Bfilvian Bridge, and

slain.

313

(Jan.) Constantinus and Licinius

issue

the Edict of Milan.

Licinius defeats Maximinus

Daza

in Thrace and publishes

the Edict

of

Milan at Nicomedia. Suicide

of

Daza

at

Tarsus.

512-314

Eusebios completes his

Church

Histoty

(including

The

Mwtyvs

of

Palestine).

Lactantius inserts the panegyrical addresses to Constantinus in

his

Divinlv

Inscilutioncs

(I

i.

13-16,

VI1

xxvi.

11-17,

and

four brief apostrophes in

I1

i.

2,

IV

i.

I,

V

i.

I,

VI

iii.

I).

3x4

Lactantius’

De

240-

Per-secutorutn.

Synod

of

Arelate (Arles)

in

Gaul.

320

f. Licinius persecutes the

Christians.

Martyrdom

of

Theogenes

and

Marceliinus,

and

of

the Forty

323

Licinius defeated

by

Constantinus, captured, and shortly after-

Martyrs

of

Sebaste.

wards slain.

CONSTANTINUS

sole

Emperor.

325

Council

of

Xicaea.

xxiii

A.D.

330-340

Acta

Dirputationis

ArcluZai.

336

St.

Martinus

of

Tours leaves the army.

337-340

CONSTANTINUS

Ir.

337-350

CONSTANS.

.;37-361

CONSTANTIUS.

1

337-339

Eusebios'

L+c

of

Constanfinus.

?

350

Letter

of

Athanasios to Ammonios (Amun) pronouncing slaughter

in warfare legal (Migne

PG

xxvi.

11%

f,

1173).

361-363

JULIANUS, the last pagan Emperor.

363

ff

JOVIANUS, etc., etc., etc.

363

Gregorios

of Nazianzus complains of the character of soldiers.

35-375

The

Tcstamcnt

of

Our

tOrd

(Syria

or

S.E.

Asia Minor).

?

St.

Victricius (later archbishop

of

Rouen) leaves the army.

374

Basilios the Great recommends that soldiers who have shed blood

should abstain from communion for three years.

375-400

The

Apostolu

Constitutions.

586-387

Ambrosius

of

Milan declares the rightfulness

of

military service.

;go

Johannes Khrusostomos (Chrysostom) complains of the character

4m

Paulinus of Nola persuades a friend to leave the army.

of

soldiers.

Augustinus argues for the legitimacy

of

military service for

Christians in

Confra

Fausturn Manuhum.

412

and in

a

letter

to

Marcellinus.

416

Non-Christians forbidden by law

to

serve in the army.

418

Augustinus' letter

to

Bn@cius.

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

AND

EXPLANATIONS

Ac

Acta

Disput

Achat

Acts

9

Apollonitrs

Acts

of]ohn

Arts

of

Peter

Arts

of

Thomas

Adamant

Anal

BolZand

ANCL

AP

&List

Arnob

Barn

B.-Baker

ICW

Bestmann

The Book

of

the Acts of the Apostles

(70-80A.D.).

The

Actu

Dispzttationis

Achatii

(250

A.D.)

(in

(180-185

A.D.)

(in Conybeare and Gebhardt).

(?

A.D,)

The section is given, and then,

in brackets, the vol. and

p.

in

(2mz20

A'D')'

Lipsius and Bonnet (q.v.) and

(23*-250

AJ).))

the page in Pick (q.v.)

The anonymous

Dialops

h

Recta

Fidei

(300-313

A.D.),

in which the chief speaker

is Adarnantios

(?

=

Origenes).

Anuhciu

Bolladiuna

(a selection

of

martyr-acts).

Paris

and

Brussels,

1882

ff.

The

Ante-Niccnc

Christian

Library

:

transla-

tias

of

fh

writings

of

the

Fathers

&wn

to

A.D.

325.

Edited by

Roberts

and Donaldson.

Edinburgh,

1867-1872.

Gebhardt, q.v.).

The

Apocalypse

of

John (about

93

A.D.).

Aristeides'

Apology

(about

140

A.D.).

The

section

is

given, and,

in

brackets, the

page in

Texts

and

Studies

I

I.

Amobius'

Advcr.sus

Natiortcs

(304-310

A.D.).

(I77-Ib A.D.).

Athenagoras'

Lcgatiopuo

riunds

given, and, in

Migne

PC

vi.

The (so-called) Epistle of

Barnabas

(?

75

A.U.).

The

In@mace

of

Christianify

on War,

by

J.

F.

Bethune-Baker. Cambridge,

1888.

Gcschichtc

der

chlrrirthbn

Sitte,

by

H.

J.

Bestmann.

z

rols.

Nordlingen,

1880.1885.

XXP

xxvi

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

Bigelmair

Blunt

Can

Arel

Can

Illib

I

Clem

2

Clem

Ep

/as

Clem

Born

Clem

Paed

Clem

Protr

Clem

@is

Dives

Cienr

Rerog

Clem

Stronr

Col

Commod

Carm

Commod

Imtr

Cocybeare

Cooper and Maclean

I

Cor,

2

Cor

Cunningham

Cypr

Bon

Fat

Cypr

Demetr

Cypr

Dom

Orat

Die

BeteiZipng

&r

Christen

am

8fentluhm

Leden in vorkonstaniinisrher Zeit,

by

Andreas Bigelmair. Munich,

1902.

The

Apologzk

of

jusiin

Maryr,

by

A.

W.

F.

Blunt (Cambridge Patristic Texts). Cam-

bridge,

191

I,

Canons

of

the

Synod

of

Ap-elafe

(Arles)

(314

A.D.)

(in Hefele, q.v.).

Canons

of

the

Synod

of

Illiden>

(Elvira)

(?

300

A.D.)

(in Hefele and

Dale,

q.v.).

The (so-called) first

Epistle

of Clemens

of

Rome

to the Corinthians (about

94

A.D.).

The (so-called second) Epistle of Clemens

of

Rome (about

150

A.D.).

The

so-called

Epistle

of

Clemens

to

James, pre-

fixed

to the

Ciemenfinr NorrriZies

(265

A.U.).

The Cienrcniine Nonriiies

(see

265 A.D.

in the

Chronological Table).

Clemens

of

Alexandria’s

Paedzpps

(IF-200

A.D.).

Clemens

of

Alexandria’s

Logos

Protreptirus

(180-1go

A.D.).

Clemens of Alexandria’s

Quis

Dives

Sahetur

?

(circ.

205

A.D.).

T4e

CZemurfine

Kerognitionr

(see

265

A.D.

in

the Chronological Table).

Clemens

of

Alexandria’s

Stromateis

(IF-210

A.D.).

Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians.

The

Apohgy

and

Arts

of

Apolloniui,

and

other

Monumests

of

Ear& Chnitianity,

by

F.

C.

Conybeare. London,

1894.

The

Testawent

of

OUT

Lord:

transhted i~~to

English

from

the

Syriar,

by

Jas.

Cooper

and

A.

J.

Maclean. Edinburgh,

192.

Paul’s First

and

Second Epistles to the

Corinthians.

Clvistianity

and

Politics,

by

Rev.

W.

Cunning-,

ham,

Archdeacon

of

Ely.

London,

1916.

Cyprianus’

De

Bono

Patzhttiac

(256

A.D.).

,,

AdDemetriamm

(252

A.D).

,,

De

Dominica &afione

(252

A.D.).

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

xxvii

Cypr

Donat

CYPr

EP

Cypr

Fort

Cypr

Hab

Vir8

CYQr

Cypr

Laud

Cypr

Test

CYQI

.?el

Liv

Dale

Cypr

Mort

DCA

DCB

DidasR

Diog

Dion Alex

Eiren

Demonstr

Cyprianus'

Ad

Donaturn

(247

A.D.).

,,

Epistles

(250"258

A.D.).

The

first

no.

is

that

of

the Epistle in Hartel's edition, the

second (in brackets] that

of

the Same Epistle

in

ANCL

viii, the third that

of

the paragraph.

Cyprianus'

Ad

Fwtunatum

de

exhortation8

,,

De

ffabitu

Virginam

(249

A.D.).

,,

De

Lapsis

(251

A.D.).

,,

De

La&

Martyrii

(250

A.D.).

,,

De Mortalitate

(253-254

A.D.).

,,

Testimonia adversus juakeos

(ad

,,

De

Zelo

et

Livore

(256

A.D.).

martyn'i

(257

A.D.).

QuiritZun)

(247

A.D.).

The

Synod

of

Etvira,

and

Christian

Lsye

in

thz

fuurth

crntuy

:

a

historuaZ

essay,

by

A.

W.

Dale. London,

ISSZ.

A

Dictionary

of

Christian Antiquities,

edited

by

W.

Smith and

S.

Cheetham.

z

vols.

London,

1875,

ISSO.

A

Dictionary

of

Christian

Biography, Literaturc,

Sects,

andDortrines,

edited by

W.

Smith and

13.

Wace.

4

vols.

London,

1877-1887.

Diezsstweigen'ng

6ij

de ode Chriktenen

(Refusal

of

[military] service among the early Christ-

ians), by

K.

H.

E.

De Jong. Leiden,

195.

Didaskalia

(in

Funk's

Ddasralia

et

Consfifutiones

Apostohnrar,

vol.

i, Paderborn,

1905)

(circ.

250

A.D.).

The Epistle

to

Diognetos

(?

150

A.D.).

Dionusios

of

Alexandria (bishop,

247-265

A.D.).

Eirenaios' (Irenaeus')

Aabe7s~a

Eiaerescs

(181-

189

A.D.).

The bk. and

ch. accordmg

to

Massuet's edition are given, and then,

in

brackets, the

vol.

and

p.

in Harvey's

(Cambridge,

1857).

Eirenaios'

work

6%

the

Demonstratk

of

the

Apostolic

Preaching

(about

rgo

A.D.).

I

quote

the

section

(and page) in

the

German

version made

from

the Armenian

by

Ter-

Mekerttschian and Ter-Minassiantz

and

edited

by

Hamack

(Des

RriIigrn

I~J&s

Sckrsyt

aum

Breueise

a'er

apostolischcn

Verkid&mg,

Leipzig,

I@,

2nd

6.).

xxviii

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

Eiren

]rag

Eus

HE

Eus

Mart

Eus PE

EPh

Eus

Vit

Const

Excerp

Thud

Feltoe

Gal

Gebhardt

Greg Thaum

Paneg

Greg

Thaum

Ep

Gun

Guignebert

Harnack

C

Harnack

MC

Harnack

ME

UDB

Heb

Hefele

ThC fragments

of

Eirenaios

(no.

and p. in Harvey).

Paul’s

‘

Epistle to the Ephesians.’

Eusebios’

Historia

Ecclesiastics

(finished about

Eusebios’

Martyrs

of

PaZcstinc

(at end

of

HE

Eusebios’

Praeparafio Evan,olica

(3oc-313

A.D.)

(sections given

as

per

Gifford’s edition,

Oxford, 1903).

314

A.D.).

VIII).

Eusebios’

Lzye

of

Constantinus

(337-340

A.D.).

Exccrpfa ex Theohto

(?

170

A.D.)

found with the

8th bk.

of

Clem

Strom.

The

Zetters and other rtnuzins

of

Dionysius

bf

Alexandria,

by

C.

L.

Feltoe (Cambridge

Patristic Texts). Cambridge,

rgoq.

The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.

Acta

Murtymm

SeZecta. AusgmuXltc Martyrcr-

actcn

und

andere

Urkuna‘en

aus

Ir

Ve+x+zgszit

der

chrisfiichen Kirche,

edited by

0.

von Gebhardt. Berlin,

1902.

GregoriosThaumatourgos’

Panegyn’c

on

Origerrcs

(241

AD.).

Gregorios Thaumatourgos’

Epistola

Canorricu

(2%

A.D.).

Tertullien

:

hde

sur

ses sentiments

ri

Ptgard

de

Bempire et de la sociit;

civile,

by

C.

Guignebert. Pans,

1901.

Dic

Chronobgik

air

altchuistlfchen Litteratur

dis

Euse6ius,

by

A.,

Harnack.

z

vols.

Leipzig, 1897,

1%.

Militia

Christi:

die

chrirtliche

ReligMn

und

der Sohbfenstand

in

den ersten

drei

/ah-

kudrten,

by

A.

Harnack. Tubingen,

1905.

The

Mission

and

Exfinst&

of

Christianity in

the

first

three rmturies,

by

A.

Hamack.

London,

I*.

ET

from 3rd German

edition

of

I@.

A

Dictwnrwy

of

the

Bible,

edited by

J.

Hastings.

5

vols. Edinburgh,

1898-1909.

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

A

Histmy

of

the

Chnitim

Counrils

from

the

msnd

documents

to

the

close

of

the

Council

of

Nicaca

A.D.

325,

by

C.

J.

Hefele. Edin-

burgh, 1872. ET from the German.

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

xxix

lierrn

M

Herm

S

Herm

Vis

Hipp

Ant

Hipp

Dan

Hipp

Noef

Horner

Ig

E

Ig

M

Iii!

P

Ig

Ph

Iii!

Ig

s

Iii!

T

J=

Just

I

Afl

Just

z

Aj,

Just

Dial

JUSL

RCS

Kar?

K&er

Lact

Znst

Lact

Ira Dei

Lsct

Mort

Pen

Lact

C@y

Dei

Lecky

Lightfoot

AP

Lipsius

and

Bonnet

Maclean

Method

Symp

Migne

PG,

PL

Miw

parts of the

Shephcrd

of

Hemu

Visiones

Hipplutos’

De

Antichrrirzo

(zoo

A.D.).

,,

Conmzentary

on

Da?ziel(203

A.D.).

,,

treatise

ugairrsi

Noetos

(200-210

A.D.)

The

Statutds

of

the

Apostles

ar

Canows

Ecclcxi-

Ipnatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians

astici,

by

G.

Horner. London,

1%.

,,

Mapesians

I)

,,

Lo

Polukarpos

I

,,

to the Philadelphians

(?

I IO

1,

,,

Smyrnaeans

,,

Romans

,,

Trallians

The

EDistle

of

Tames

Justinus’

Dialogue

with

TYUthOB

The

col.

in

the

/ew

(155-160

A.D.).

Migne

PG

Justinus’

fragment

De Resurrec-

vi

is

added

tione

in brackets.

Acta

Carpi, Paeli, et Agatho?aices

(161-

169

A.D.)

(in Gebhardt).

Nixtory

of

ear&

Chrirtinn

Literatftre

in

the

jrst

three centutics,

by

G.

Kriiger.

New

York,

1897.

ET

from the German.

I

Lactantius’

Divinae

Znstitutiones

,

De Ira Dei

,,

De

Morte

Persecutorurn

(314 A.D.).

,,

De

0pzf;W

Dei

(circ.

305

A.D.).

Hislory

of

Eurown

Morals

&am

Augustus

to

CharZemagnc,

by

W.

E.

H.

Lecky. London

The

Ap4stoZic Fathers,

edited by

J.

B.

Lghhtioot.

Acta Apostohrrrm

ApocYpha.

3

001s.

Leipig,

i%

An&?&

Chwch

orders,

by

A.

J.

Maclean.

Methodios’

syrnjosiurn

(2p300

AD.).

Rztmhg&a

Gratca,

Pattvhgia

htina,

edited by

Minucius

Felix’

Octm‘u

(238-248

A.D.).

(I869),

I913*

5

vols.

London

(ISQ),

1889,

1890.

1891-1903.

Cambridge,

rgro.

J.-P.

Migne.

xxx

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

M

Largd

Moffitt

INT

Af

Pcir

M

Pwnii

M

Pol

Neumann

Novat

Spect

Orig

CeZs

Orig

Comm,

Honr,

etc.

orig

Mart

Orig

Oral

Orig

Prinr

Pcvet

Phil

Pick

Pol

The Epistle

of

the Church

of

Lugdunum

(Lyons), describing the persecution

of

177-

178

A.D.

(in

Eus

HE

V

i-iii).

hztrodurtion

to

the

Literature

of

fhe

Ncpr

Tesfament,

by

J.

Moffatt. Edinburgh,

1912

(2nd

edn.).

The

&fariyr&m

of

Pad,

being

part

of

the apocryphal

Acts

of

pad

(160-170

A.D.1

(in

For

notation

Lipsius and Bonnet).

1

see above,

The

iVariy7dom

of

Peter,

being under

Acts

of

part

of

the apocryphal

Acts

IOhn,

etc.

of

Peter

(200-220

A.D.)

(in

Lipsius and Bonnet).

1;

The Martyrdom

of

Piaws

(250

A.D.)

(in

Gebhardt).

TRa

Martyrdom

of

Poluka7pos

(155

A.D.)

(in

Gebhardt and the Apostolic Fathers).

Der

rOmische

St&

und

die allgemcine

Kirck

bis

auf

Diodetian,

by

K.

J.

Neumann.

Leipzig,

18go.

Novatianus’

(7)

De

Spectarulis

(255

A.D.).

Origenes’

Contra CeZszmm

(248

A.D.).

Origenes’ Commentaries and Homilies. The

vol.

and column

in

Migne

PG

are added

to

each reference.

Origenes’

De

Exhodatwne

Mar9n.i

(235

A.D.).

,,

DC

OYdhrte

(233

A.D.).

,,

De

Principiis

(22fk30

A.D.).

StdZi?s

I

2).

Passio

Sanctaz

PerpetuaP

(203

AD.)

(in

Texts

and

Paul’s Epistle to

the

Philippians.

The

Apucryyhal

Acts

of

Pad,

Peter,

jehu,

Andrew,

and

Thomas,

by

B.

pick.

Chicago,

1909.

The Epistle

of

Polukarpos

to the Philippia~~s

(ckc.

110

AD.).

Pontius’

Lge

of

CyFanns

(259-A.D.).

Pasrio

Sw#rum

Sn’C(isnorrrm

(

180

A.D.).

The

no.

is

that

of

the page in

Texts andStdies

I

2

Pseudo-Cyprisaus’

RhcrsusjlcrkuoJ

(7

259

AD.).

I,

,,

&Pascha

Cm@tra(243

A.D.)

3,

,,

Quod

Xabh

Dii

non

si&

(?

255

A.D.).

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Explanations

xxxi

Ps-Cypr

Re&apt

Ps-Just

Oral

Ps-Me1

Ps-Just

COAOT~

Robinson and James

Routh

Ruinart

Scullard

Tat

Tert

Anim

Tert

Apol

Tert

Ba$t

Tert

COY

Tert

Cui

Tert

Cast

Tert

Fsg

Tert

I&Z

Tert

/+n

Tert

Jwd

Tert

Marc

Tert

Mart

Tert

Mmg

Tert

Nat

Tert

Orat

Tert

Pen

Tcrt

Poll

Pseudo-Cyprianus’

De

Rcbapfismate

(256

A.D.).

Pseudo-Justinus’

CoLrrariaadGenfiCes(?aw~.~.)

,,

OrationdGe~rtiks(17o-ux,A.l1.)

Pseudo-Meliton’s

ApoZo~

(in Syriac)

1215

A.D.).

The

nos. are those of

the

section in

Otto’s

version, and the

p.

in

ANCL

xxiib.

The

Gospel

arc~rdin~

fo

Peter,

and

the

Rmelaiion

of

Peter,

etc.

By

J.

A.

Robinson and

M.

K.

James. London,

1892.

Religuiue

Sacrae,

edited

by

M.

J.

Routh.

5

vols.

Oxford,

1846-1848

(2nd edn.).

Acta Martyncm

P.

Thcodovici

Ruinan! opera

ac

studio

calkfa selecta atque illustrata

(Pans,

1689).

Ratisbon,

1859.

Early

Christian Ethics

in

the

West,

hy

H.

Scullard. London,

1907.

Tatianus’

Oratio

ad

Graecos

(?

154-165

A.D.).

The column in Mignc

PG

vi

is

added in

brackets.

Tertullianus’

De

Anima(zoS-zI3

A.D.

~pitogeticui

(I97

A.D.).

De

Baptism

(19%

De

Corona

MiZiti.

De

Culiu

Ferninarum

De

enhotfatione

Casii-

fds

(204-206

A.D.).

De

Fuga

(211-212

A.D.).

De

IdoloLz#rziz

(I+

De]+zw

(218

A.D.).

Adversus

/&s

(I+

Ahersus

Marcionem

203

A.D.).

(21

I

A.D.).

(Ig%-Zo3

A.D.).

203

A.D.).

203

A.D.).

208-213

AD.).

Ad

MmweS

(I97

A.D.).

De

Mmga?nia(zrS~.~.).

Ad

Nutimus

(197

A.D.).

De

OrariaG

(I+

De

Pacnitmtia

(I&

Dt

Pdw

(210

A.D.).

203

A.D.).

203

A.D.).

r

.I;

i

1

t

I

The

vol.

and

col.

in

Migne

PL

are

added

n

,rackets

.o

each

.efer-

:ne.

xxxii

List

of

Abbreviations

and

Exphnations

Tert

F‘af

Tert

Praescr

Tert

Pudic

Tert

Res

Tert Scup

Tert

Scorj

Tert

Spect

Tert

Virk

I

Th,

z

Th

Theoph

Troeltsch

Weinel

Tertullianus’

De

Patirntia

(19%)

203

A.D.).

,,

De PI-aesmpwne Here-

p~

are

,,

De

h’esurrrctwne

Camis

Gene

,,

De

pudicitia

(220

A.D.).

and ~01.

ticorurn

(19~-203

A.D.).

The vol.

(2x1

A.D.).

.added

,,

AdScapulmz

(212

A.D.).

in

,,

~corpiace

(213

A.D.).

brackets

, ,

De

Sp.xtacuZis

to

each

,,

De

Virginibus

velandis

(‘9%

ence.

refer-

203

A.D.).

(204-206

A.D.).

1

Paul’s first and second letters to the Thessalonians.

Theophilos of Antioch’s

Ad

Auiolynrm

(ISI

A.D.)

Die SozialZehren

&r

chrirfiichen

Kircherr

und

Gruppen. Erste HalftE,

by Ernst Troeltsch.

Ttibingen,

1912.

Die

Stellung

des

Urch~istenhnnzs

zum

Stat,

by

H.

Weinel. Ttibingen,

1908.

ET

=

English Translation.

f

(ff)

=

‘

and the following page(s)

’,

‘

verse(s)

’,

etc.

frag

=

fragment.

n

=

footnote.

Roman

and arabic numerals generally refer respectively to

book

(some-

times chapter) and section in the case of an ancient work, and

to

volume

Bracketed

words

in passages translated

from

other languages

are

those

9

and

page

in the case

of

a modern work.

inserted in order to bring

out

the sense

or

make

good

English.

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

INTRODUCTION

WHILE

ethics, in the usual sense of the word,

do

not

exhaust the content

of

Christianity, they form one

of

its

largest and most important phases.

And

inasmuch

as

ethics

are

concerned with the practical duties

of

human

life,

it

is not unnatural that Christian thought should

have included among its various activities many inves-

tigations into the rules and principles

of

personal con-

duct, and should have carried these investigations

to

an

advanced degree

of

speciality and detail. The quest

however has only too often been marred by errors,

oversights, and misunderstandings, with the result that

'

casuistry

'

has fallen into

bad

odour and has

become

suggestive of unreality and pedantry-if not of positive

hypocrisy, But a moment's thought

will

show

us

that

every sincere and practical Christian must, however he

may

dislike the word,

be

a

casuist at least for himself;

he must think out the practical bearing

of

his principles,

weigh up

pros

and cons, balance one principle

against

another

whenever

(as

is

continually happening

in

the

complexities

of

actual

life)

they come

into

conflict,

and

so

work

out

some

sort

of

a

code

of

laws

for

his

daily

guidance

Further

than'

that, Christianity imposes

upon

2

1

2

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

its adherents the duty

of

explaining, defending, incul-

cating, and propagating the Christian virtues,

as

well

as that of living them out

:

and this duty is not com-

pletely met even by the strong witness of a

good

example, nor is

it

cancelled by the important modi-

fications introduced by the subjective differences

between oneself and one’s neighbour. Casuistry

therefore, when properly understood, must always

remain an important branch of Christian study, as

the science which is concerned with the determina-

tion, within duly recognized limits, of the practical

duties

of

the Christian life.

Of

this science the history

of

Christian ethics will

necessarily be a very important part. The example

of

our Christian forefathers indeed can never

be

of

itself a sufficient basis for the settlement of our

own

conduct to-day

:

the very variations

of

that example

would make such dependence impossible. At the same

time the solution of our

own

ethical problems will

involve

a

study of the mind

of

Christendom on the

same or similar questions during bygone generations

:

and, for this purpose, perhaps no period of Christian his-

tory

is

so

important as that

of

the first three centuries.

It is true that during that period the Christian mind

was relatively immature: it was still in the simplicity

of its childhood

;

it was largely obsessed and deluded

by

mistaken eschatological hopes

;

it was not faced with

many of the urgent problems that have since challenged

the Church and are challenging it to-day

;

it

seems to

us

to have been strangely blind and backward even

on

some matters that did face it, e.g. the existence

of

slavery, and of various other social anomalies.

But

over against

all

this we have to set the facts that the

Introduction

8

first three centuries were the period in which the work

of the Church

in

morally and spiritually regenerating

human life was done with an energy and a success

that have never since been equalled, when the power

springing from her Founder’s personal life pulsated

with more vigour and intensity than was possible at

a

greater distance, when incipient decay

was

held in check

by repeated purification

in

the fires of persecution, and

when the Church’s vision had not been distorted or her

conscience dulled by compromises with the world.

Among the many problems of Christian ethics, the

most

urgent and challenging at the present day

is

undoubtedly that of the Christian attitude to war.

Christian thought in the past has frequently occupied

itself with this problem

;

but there has never been a

time when the weight

of

it pressed more heavily upon

the minds of Christian people than it does to-day. The

events

of

the past few years have forced upon every

thoughtful person throughout practically the whole

civilized world the necessity

of

arriving at some sort

of

a decision on this complicated and critical question-

in

countless cases a decision in which health, wealth,

security, reputation, and even life itself have been in-

volved. Nor-if we look only at the broad facts

of

the

situation-would there seem to

be

much doubt as to

the solution

of

the problem. Everywhere

by

over-

whelming majorities Christian people have .pronounced’

in word and act the same decision, viz. that to fight,

to shed blood,

to

kill-provided it

be

done in the

defence of one’s country or of the weak, for the sanctity

of treaties or

for

the maintenance

of

international

righteousness-is

at

once the Christian’s duty and

his

privilege.

But only

by

an act

of

self-deception

4

.

The

Early

Chr&ian

Attitude

to

War

could anyone persuade himself that this

is

the last

word the Christian conscience has to say on the

matter. The power with which the decision of the

majority has been-and is still being-delivered owes

a large share of its greatness

(I

say it in no uncharitable

spirit) to other factors than the calm, impartial, and

considered judgment

of

the Christian intellect and

heart. In the tense excitement and ever-increasing

flood

of passion called forth by

a

state of war, an

atmosphere is generated in which the truth and reason-

ableness of the

vox

populi is not only taken for granted,

but elevated into a sort

of

sacrosanctity, and dissent

from

it

or disobedience to

it

appears to merit not

toreration or even argument, but contempt, censure,

and punishment. But however the state

of

public

feeling or the watchfulness of a government

at

grips

with the enemy may check

or

silence the expression

of

dissent, however the exigencies

of

an

acute inter-

national crisis may lead many to regard the problem

of

Christianity and war as (for the time

being

at least)

a closed question, it cannot but be clear tp those who

will look beneath the surface that forces are at work,

within as

well

as

without the organized Church, which

will not allow Christian feeling to remain where it

is

on

the matter, and which clearly show that the growing

generation

of

Christians is not going to rest satisfied

with the variegated and facile answers that have

been

given to

its

doubts and queries in this particular emer-

gency, notwithstanding the enormous weight of extra-

Christian

I

sentiment with which those answers have

been

reinforced.

The purpose

of

the following pages is

not

to

force

or

pervest

the

history

of

the

past in

the

interests

of

a

Inirodwtim

5

present-day Controversy, but plainly and impartially

to present the facts as to the early Christian attitude

to

war-with just

so

much discussion as will suffice to

make this attitude in its various manifestations clear

and intelligible-and to do

this

by way

of

a

contribu-

tion towards the settlement

of

the whole complicated

problem as it challenges the Christian mind to-day.1

Having recently had occasion for another purpose to

work

through virtually the whole

of

pre-Constantinian

Christian literature, the present writer has taken the

opportunity to collect practically all the available

material in the original authorities.

His

work

will

thus consist largely of quotations from Christian

authors, translated into English

for

the convenience

of

the reader, and arranged on a systematic plan.

The translations

are

as

literal

as

is consistent with

intelligible English

2

;

but

the

original

Latin or Greek

has

as

a

rule been dispensed with

:

full references are

given in the footnotes for those who wish to turn

them

up,

and

a

chronological table

is

provided as a

key to

the

historical development.

Few fields

of

knowledge have been

so

thoroughly

worked

and amply written upon

as

the New Testament

and

the

Early Church

;

and, inasmuch as no work on

Church History, or Christian ethics, or even Christian

teaching

in

the wider sense, could altogether ignore

the

subject before

us,

it has been out

of

the question

to

make

an

exhaustive consultation

of

the writings

of

modern scholars upon it.

I

have, however, endeavoured

*

I

am

wry

to

see that

Dr.

P.

T.

Forsyth,

in his

Chrirriatc

Ethic

,.y

War

(19x6)~

brdly

touches

(68)

on

the

early

Christians'

views

on

the

subject

(see

below,

pp.

115,

I~I),

except

in

connection

with

the

erepk

of

the

N.T.

See

the

last

observation

on

p.

usii.

6

The

Early

Christian

Atttitudc

to

War

to

get hold of the principal modern works either wholly

devoted to the treatment of this particular subject

or

containing important references

or

contributions to it.

The following list, therefore, is not an exhaustive

bibliography, but merely an enumeration with brief com-

ments

of

such works as have come under my notice.

What may be called the modern interest in the early

Christian attitude to war, begins with the great work of

Hugo

Grotius,

Uelure Belli

ac

Pacis,

published in

1625.

In

lib.

i,

cap.

ii,

of

that work, Grotius quotes some of

the New Testament and patristic passages bearing on

the subject, and controverts the conclusion that might

be drawn from them as to the illegitimacy of all warfare

for

Christians.

In

1678

Robert Barclay published

An

ApoZop

for

the

Trge

Christima

Divini&,

as

the

same

is

Held

Forth,

and

PreachEd,

by

the People called,

in

Scorn,

Quakers:

the work had already appeared

in

Latin two

years earlier. Towards the end

of

it he argued

for

the

Quaker position

in

regard to war, quoting passages

of

scripture, and giving a number of references to the

early Fathers to whose judgment he appealed in support

of

his thesis.

In

1728

there was published at Amsterdam

a

book entitled

Tmite'

de

Za

Morale

des

P2res

de

1'Eglise,

by Jean Barbkyrac. It was written 'in reply to a Roman

Catholic monk, R. Ceillier, who had attacked BarbPyrac

for some strictures he had passed on the ethics of

the Fathers. He takes up one Father after another,

and thus has occasion

to

criticize the attitude which

certain of them took up towards military service.'

In

1745

there appeared at Magdeburg a small quarto

pamphlet of thirty pages by Johannes Gottlieb Calov,

entitled

Examen Sententz'ae

Veiemm

Chitianorurn

de

See

pp.

xixf, xxiv,

Ssf,

104f

n

I,

141

f,

19

ff.

Introdudim

7

Militia.

It argued that those Christian authors who

regarded military service

as

forbidden to Christians

were mistaken. In

1776

Edward Gibbon brought out

the first volume of his

Decline

nnd

Fa&

of

the

Roman

Empire.

Chapters

15

and

16

of that famous work deal

with the status of Christians in the pre-Constantinian

Empire, and contain brief but critical paragraphs on

the Christian attitude to military service.' The

passages are interesting on account of the eminence

and learning

of

the author and his frank avowal

of

the

early Christian aversion to all bloodshed, rather than

for their fulness or for the justice of the criticisms they

contain.

In

1817

Thomas Clarkson, the great anti-slavery

agitator, published the second edition

2

of

his

Essay

on

the

Doctrines and Practice

ojtlze

Early

Christians

as

they

date

to

Wur

(tmenty-four pages). It

was

a

brief

and

popular, and perhaps somewhat ouesided, treatment

of

the subject. It

has

often

been

republished, e.g. in

1823,

1839~

1850.

A

Spanish translation

of

it appeared in

1821.

In

1828

were published Jonathan Dymond's three

Essays

on

the

Princz$les

of

Mordiw

and

on

ths private

and

political

Rkhts

and

Obligations

of

Mankind.

The

last chapter

(xix)

of

the third

Essay

is

on

War.

The

author, a member of the

Society

of

Friends, defends

the position of that Society that all war is unlawful

from the Christian point of view, and attempts to

justify it from the practice and the

words

of

the

early Christians, quoting

a,

few examples.3 In

1846

*

I

have

not

succeeded

in

discovering the date

of

the

first

edition.

3

The third edition

of

Dymonds

Essays

was published in

1836,

the

eighth in

1886.

The chapter

on

war

has

been

ublished

seplmtely,

first

in

1823.

then in

IS@

with

an

introduction

by

fohn Bright, and again in

1915

with

P

Foreword

by

the Rt. Hon. Thomas

Burt,

M.P.

See

vol

ii,

pp.

38

f,

120

f,

in

Bury's

edition

(1897).

8

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

there appeared at Philadelphia,

U.S.A.,

a

small

book

on

Chrristian Non-yesistame,

by Adin Ballou. He treats

briefly of the early Christian practice, quoting

a

few

passages

from the Fathers and from Gibbon.1

A

few

pages are devoted

to

the subject in

C

Schmidt’s

So&!

Results

of

Ear& Chn’stianity

(published in French,

1853

;

English Translation,

1885),2

Le Blant’s

IttscrzjWions

chrktiennes de la Gade

(Paris, two vols,

1856,

1865),3

W.

E.

H, Lecky’s

History

of

Ewopan

Morals

(first

edition,

18%

:

several new editions and reprints),4

Loring Brace’s

Gesta

Christi

(I

882),5

and Canon

W.

H.

Fremantle’s

Pleading against War

from

the

p@it

of

Canterbury Cathedyul

(1885).6

P.

Onslow’s article

on

‘Military Service,’ and

J.

Bass Mullinger’s on

‘War,’

in

the second volume

of

Smith

and Cheetham’s

Dictioprapy

of

Christian Antiquities

(I

So),

contain a good deal of

useful information. In

1881

John Gibb

wrote

an article

for

The British

Quavtw&

Review

on

The Christian

Church and War,7

suggested by the political situation

of the time, and dealing mainly with the post-Augusti-

nian age, but also touching briefly on the earlier period.

In

1884

appeared

a

volume on

Ear&

Church

Nktory,

which has

a

special interest in this connection, in that it

was

the

work

of

two

Quakers, Edward Backhouse and

Charles Tylor, and as such naturally laid stress

on

the

early Christian attitude to war

:

the topic was faithfully,

though not exhaustively, handled.*

Hitherto, however, contributions to the study

of

the

pp.

61+.

vo1

i,

pp.

81-87.

=

pp.

282-289.

A

new

edition

appeared

in-xgo7.

4

See

vol

ii,

pp.

248

B

of

the

191

I

impression.

7

Brit.

Quae&

Revicw,

vol

lxxiii

(Jan

and

April,

1881),

pp:

L.

5

See

pp.

88-92

(several

quotations

from

Dymond). p

5If.

See

pp.

126-130,

313-317

of

Backhouse

and

Tylor’r

thud

edition

189).

Introduction,

9

subject had been for the most part very brief and

fragmentary.

A

more thorough treatment of it was

attempted by Mr. (now Professor)

J.

F.

Rethune-Baker,

of Cambridge, in his

Injuence

of

Christianity

on

War,

published in

1888.

This scholar gave a larger selection

of

passages from ancient authors and a fuller discussion

of

them than had hitherto appeared, besides pursuing his

subject far beyond the limits of the early Church

:

but

he unfortunately allowed his prepossessions in favour of

a particular theory to mislead him

in

his presentation

of

the facts and

in

the inferences he drew from them.

I

shall have occasion in

the

following pages to criticize

some

of

his

statements in detail. The misconceptions

that unfortunately mar his work are the more to

be

regretted in that it has been taken as an authority

by a more recent writer, Rev. William Cunningham,

Archdeacon of Ely (Christianity

and

PoLitics,

1916)~'

who has thus prblonged the

life

of

a

number

sf

serious inaccuracies.

In

1890

appeared the first of an important series of

works

by

Continental scholars-K.

J.

Xeumann's

Der

riimiscke

Staat

wad

die

aZZgemeine Kircke

bis

aaf

Dio-

cleta'an

(The Roman State and the general Church down

to Diocletianus), vol

i

(Leipzig).

The

book

was a

new

and scholarly investigation

of

the historical problems

connected with the relations between Church and State,

and contained a number of paragraphs and shorter

passages

on

the Christian view

of

war.= In

-1g01

Charles

Guignebert brought out at Paris

a

large work entitled

TertuUiea

:

dtade

sur

ses sentiments

h

Z'Pgard

de

Z'empirr

et

ck

hsodtdcivile.

He

handles the views of

many

people

'

See,

c.g.,

pp.

37,

115,

126-13(1,

&ff,

197,

apf.

'

See

the

Appendix

to

Cunningham's

book,

pp.

249

IT,

251

n

3.

10

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

besides Tertullianus

;

and

his

chapter

on

‘Le

service

militaire, le service civil et l’impbt’

I

contains much

useful information on the whole subject. The following

year, there appeared at Munich Andreas Bigelmair’s

Die Beteiligung

&r

Christen

am

oflentlichen Leben in

vorkonstnntinischer

Zeit

(Participation of the Christians

in public life in the period before Constantinus). The

book

is

in two parts

:

the concluding chapter

(4)

of the

first of these deals with the Christian attitude to military

service.2 The work

is

on

the whole thorough and

scholarly, but the author’s leanings

as

a Roman Catholic

here and there unduly influence his judgment. In

192

also came the

first

edition of Adolf Harnack‘s monu-

mental

work,

Die Mission

und

A2csbrktung

des

Christen-

t~ms

in den drei ersten jahrhunderten

(The mission and

expansion

of

Christianity in the

first

three centuries)

(Leipzig).

An

English translation

was

published in

rgoq-5,

while in

1g06

appeared

a

new edition of the

original, which was followed

in

1908

by

a revised

English translation. The work is

an

encyclopzdia

of information on all aspects of the growth

of

early

Christianity,’and contains

a

full

summary of the avail-

able evidence

on

the subject before

us,

with many

quotations from the original authorities.3 In

1905

Harnack brought

out

a monograph specially devoted to

the early Christian view

of

war, and amplifying the

material he had collected in

his

Mission

und

Aw-

breitung.

It yas entitled

Militia

Christi. Die

chnkt-

Ziche ReZi$on und

der

SoZdztenstand

in

den

ersten drei

]uhrhunderten

(The soldiery of Christ. The Christian

religion and the military profession in the first

three

centuries) (Tiibingen). It

is

without doubt the most

‘

pp,

rQ-a10.

pp.

164-10’. 3

vol.

ii,

pp.

52-64

(ET).

Introduction

11

thorough and scholarly work on the subject that has yet

been produced. It has, unfortunately, not been trans-

lated into English

:

and, despite the author’s thorough-

ness, the extent

of

his learning, and his general saneness

and impartiality

of

judgment, the arrangement of the

material, and, in some cases, the conclusions arrived at,

leave something to be desired. The same year

(1905)

appeared at Leiden

a

small book by

a

Dutch scholar,

Dr.

K.

H.

E.

de Jong

:

Dienstweigeeviag

bzj’

de

oude

Christenen

(Refusal

of

[military] service among the

early Christians).

No

translation

of

this

book

into

English has appeared

;

but my friend, Mr. Cornelis

Boeke, late

of

Birmingham, has very kindly placed an

English rendering at my disposal. The

book

does not

aspire to that phenomenal level

of

scholarship that

characterizes all Harnack’s work, but it contains a large

amount

of

useful material, including some passages from

ancient authors which

I

have not seen quoted elsewhere

;

and its generalizations seem to me to

be

nearer the truth

than those of Rigelmair and in some cases

even

of

Harnack.

In

1go6

Mr.

F.

W.

Hirst’s

The Arbiter

in

Council

appeared anonymously. It

is

a record

of

discussions,

held on seven consecutive days, on various aspects

of

war. The subject

of

the seventh day’s discussion was

‘Christianity and War,’ and a considerable section of

it

I

consists

of

a freshly written study

of

the New Test-

ament and early Christian teaching on the subject. The

same year was published the first volume

of

Edward

Westermarck’s

The

Origin

and

DeveZofment

of

the

MoralIdeas.

This comprehensive work contains several

chapters (xiv-xxi) on homicide, the second

of

which

I

PP.

516-534.

12

The

Ea&

Chvistian

Attitude

to

War

opens with a brief sketch of the early Christian view

of

war.' Heinrich Weinel's brief monograph,

Die

.SleL?ung

des

Urchn'steneccms

zzmz

Staat

(The Attitude

of

Primi-

tive Christianity to the State) (Tubingen,

rgo8),

touches

only briefly on the particular subject we are to study,'

but is useful and important for the courageous and

sympathetic emphasis that it lays on an aspect of early

Christian thought which has since been largely snowed

under and

is

ofteg belittled and disregarded by modem

students. The first volume

of

Ernst Troeltsch's great

work,

Die

Soziallehren

der

chridichen

Kirchn

srnd

Gmppen

(The social teaching of the Christian churches

and sects) (Tubingen,

1g12),

has some interesting refer-

ences

to

the early Christian attitude to war,3 but does

not deal with the topic as a complete

or

connected

whole. More

in

line with

The Arbiter

in

Coztncil

and

less technical than Westermarck's

book

and the recent

works

of

German scholars are

Rev.

W.

L.

Grane's

Th

Passing

of

War

(London,

1912,

two editions), which

however makes only a few random allusions to the early

Christian

attitude^

and

Mr.

W.

E.

Wilson's

Christ

ad

War,

published for the Society

of

Friends in

1913.

The latter was written as

a

study-circle text-book, and

has

had

a

wide circulation among the

younger

genera-

tion

of

Christians.

The

first two chapters

of

it

deaf

with the teaching of Jesus on the subject, the third with

the rest of the New Testament and the Early Church

down

to

the time of Constantinus.

The

material

is

judiciously selected, and the comments are accurate and

suggestive. Other comparatively recent utterances

by

PP.

345

fl-

'

pp.

25

8.

4

pp.

31,

151,

161

f

(second

edition).

0

t.g.

pp.

40.

70,

111,

123ff,

153.

I~roductim

18

members of the Society

of

Friends are an undated

pamphlet of sixteen pages by

Mr.

J.

Bevan Braithwaite

of London, and Mr.

J.

W.

Graham's

War

from

a

Quaker

point

of

oiew

(London,

rgrg).~

A brief sketch and dis-

cussion of the available evidence was attempted by the

present writer in chap.

ii

of

The

Mittistry

of

Recon-

ciliation

(London,

1916).

Archdeacon Cunningham's

Christianity

and

PoZitics-published the same year-has

already been alluded to.

The question may quite properly

be

asked why,

if

so

much valuable work

on

the subject has already

appeared before the public, it is necessary to add

yet another

book

to

the list. The answer

is

that,

notwithstanding all that has been produced,

we

are

still without an English book dealing solely and

thoroughly with this important topic. The problem

of

Christianity and war

is

one that claims serious

attention even at ordinary times

;

and recent events

have immeasurably magnified that claim. It

is

sub-

mitted that, for the adequate discussion and .settlement

of

it,

a full and accurate presentation

of

the early

Christian view is indispensable. Harnack's

Militin

Christz'

is

the

only

book that comes anywhere near

meeting the casr

:

and this, not being translated,

is

of

no

use

to

those

who

cannot read German, and

furthermore

is

for

the present practically unobtainable

in

this

country.

But

in any case

the

subject is such

as to lend itself to more than one method

of

treat-

ment; and

I

venture to think that it

is

possible to

present the material more proportionately and com-

I

See

pp.

14f,

23-32.

I

might

also

mention

a

briefer pamphlet

issued

the Peace

Soclety,

and

the

Rectorial

Address

delivered

by

Andrew

e

at

the

University

of

St.

Andrews,

entitled,

A

Leap

of

Peace

L

(B=-II906,Frp

6f).

14

The

Early

Christian

Attitudc

to

War

prehensibly-and even, on

a

few

points-more accu-

rately than has been done by Harnack.

No

writer on the subject-least of all

in

these days

-can be without his own convictions

on

the main

question

;

and a Christian will naturally expect to

find support for his convictions, whatever they happen

to

be,

in

the words and example

of

our

Lord and

his early followers. It has unfortunately happened

only too frequently that writers have allowed their

own opinions-perhaps unconsciously-to distort their

view of historical facts. But a strong personal con-

viction, even coupled with the belief that it has

support in history, does not necessarily conflict with

an honest and thorough treatment

of

that history.

While

I

have not refrained from interpreting the early

Christian teaching in the sense which

I

believe to be

true,

I

trust

I

have succeeded in preventing the spirit

of

controversy from introducing into this treatise any-

thing inconsistent with the rigid demands

of

truth,

the dignity of scholarship, and the charitableness

of

Christianity.

Refore we plunge into an examination of the ancient

records themselves, something must be said on one

or

two matters which will need to be kept constantly

before

our

minds if the documents we

are

about to

study are to be rightly understood and interpreted.

The

first

of

these is the distinction between what

a

man holds to

be

right for himself, and

for

others

also in the sense of his being ready to exhort them

to

follow it as he

does,

and,

on

the other hand, what

a man may recognize

to

be

dative&

right for his

neighbour in view of the fact that

his

neighbur’s

mind, views, abilities, etc.,

are

different from his

own.

Introduction

15

The moral standards by which

A

feels

it

right to live

and to recommend others also to live, he

may

quite

fully realize that

€3,

in his present state

of

mind,

education, feeling, intellect, etc., cannot in the nature

of things for the time being adopt

;

and he may frankly

say

so,

without prejudice to his own consistency,

This

simple fact, which

I

would call the

reZative

+ti-

$cation

of other moral standards than our own, and

which rests upon our subjective differences from one

another, is daily illustrated in the judgments, opinions,

and thoughts which we have of others: and yet it is

surprising how easily it is overlooked, and how ready

scholars have been, whenever they find it, to assume

inconsistency and to make it a ground for disbelieving

or ignoring whichever

of

the two complementary

moral judgments conflicts most with their own sense

of what is proper. We shall have throughout our

study frequent occasion to notice mistaken inferences

of the kind here described.

Not unconnected with this distinction is another,

namely that between a writer’s personal convictions

as

to what is morally right or wrong, on the one

hand, and on the other hand statements and allusions

which he may make

by

way of illustrating something

else, or

of

supporting an argument with one who differs

from him, when he speaks,

as

we say, ad hominem, and

is

not for the moment necessarily voicing his own view.

In

order to make this distinction quite lucid, examples

would

be

necessary, and these are for the present

postponed

;

but

it

is

well

at

the outset to

be

on our

guard against inferring too much from statements and

allusions of this character.

Lastly,

a

word

must

be

said on the conditions

of

16

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

military service in the early Roman Empire; for these

naturally determined very largely the form which the

early Christian attitude to war took. We must re-

member in the first place that the Roman soldier was

also

the Emperor’s policeman. Police duties through-

out the Empire were performed

by

the military. That

fact naturally affected Christian thought in regard to

the military calling. Whatever

be

the similarity

or

con-

nection between the offices

of

the soldier and those of the

policeman, there are yet important distinctions between

them

;

and objections or scruples felt in regard to the

former of them might not hold good against the latter.

The natural result

is

that Christian utterances against

military service are often

less

downright and uncom-

promising than they would have been if the soldier’s

calling had been

in

those days as distinct from that

of the policeman as

it

is

in

ours.

Secondly, it goes

without saying that practical ethical questions are not

discussed and adjudicated

upon

before they arise, i.e.,

before circumstances make the settlement

of

them an

urgent matter

of

practical importance. Now the state

of things

in

the Empire was such as to defer for a

long

time the realization by Christian people

of

the fact that

the question whether a Christian might

be

a soldier or

not was an acute and important one.

it

was con-

trary to law to enrol a slave

as

a soldier,

and

Jews

were legally exempt from military service

on

account

of their national peculiarities

:

and when we consider

what a

large

proportion of the

early

Christian com-

munities consisted

of

slaves, Jews, and women,

we

shall realize that the percentage of members eligible

for service’ must have been

small.

Further

than

that,

while

the Emperor was entitled

by

law

to

levy

conscripts, in actual practice he hardly ever found it

necessary to have recourse to this expedient

:

the

population was

so

large

in

comparison with the armies,

that the Emperor could get all the soldiers he needed

by voluntary enlistment. This meant that any attempt

to force a man into the ranks against his will was a

very rare occurrence, and rarer still

in

the case

of

a

Christian.1

Now

no

Christian ever thought of enlisting

in the army after his conversion until the reign

of

Marcus

Aurelius

(161-180

A.D.)

at earliest (our oldest direct

evidence dates from about

zoo

A.D.~),

while cases of men

being

converted when already engaged in the military

profession (such as Cornelius the centurion

of

Caesarea,

and the gaoler

of

Philippi) were during the same early

period

few

and far between. There was thus very

little to bring the practical question before the minds

of

Christian teachers, not only during this early period,

but in many cases even subsequently; and this fact

must

be

allowed

for

in studying statements made

by

them urzder such conditions. If it

be

our

object to

discover the real views of a writer

or

of a body of

early Christians, we shall only land ourselves in error

if

we

treat their words and acts as conveying their

considered judgment on problems which-we have

reason to believe-were never consciously before their

minds at all.

175-177,

De

JOW

If.

Neumann

127

f;

Hlrnrck

ME

ii.

57

n

I.

MC

48

f;

Bigelmair

a5,

a

h

below,

pp.

113

;

235

f.

3

t

PART

I

THE

TEA

CHIMG

OF

JES

US

THE

RANGE

OF JESUS'

TEACHING

ON

THE

SUBJECT

OF

WAR.-There

is

a sense

in

which it

is

true to

say

that

Jesus

gave his disciples no explicit teaching on the

subject of war. The application

of

his ethical principles

to the concrete affairs of life was not something which

could

be

seen and taught

in

its entirety from the very

first, but was bound to involve a long series

of

more

or

less complex problems

;

and the short lapse and other

special conditions of his earthly

life

rendered

it

impos-

sible for him to pronounce decisions on more than a

very few of these. Upon large tracts of human con-

duct he rarely

or

never had occasion to enter, and hence

little

or

no specific teaching

of

his

is

recorded concern-

ing

them.

A

familiar instance

of

this silence of Jesus

on a matter on which we none the less have little doubt

<-

as to the import of his teaching, is the absence from the

Gospels

of

any explicit prohibition

of

slavery. And

what

is

true of slavery

is

also true-though to a much

more limited extent-of war. Whatever

be

the bearing

of

his precepts and his example on the subject, the fact

remains that, as far

as

we know, no occasion presented

itself to him for any explicit pronouncement on the

question

as

to whether

or

not his disciples might

serve

as

soldiers.

it

does

not however follow

that

no

19

P

20

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

definite conclusion on the point is to be derived

from the Gospels. The circumstances

of

the time

suffice to explain why

an

absolutely definite ruling

was not given. Jesus was living and working among

Palestinian Jews, among whom the proportion of

soldiers and policemen to civilians must have been

infinitesimal.

No

Jew could be compe1:ed

to

serve

in the Roman legions; and there was scarcely the

remotest likelihood that any disciple

of

Jesus would

be

pressed into the army

of

Herodes Antipas or his

brother Philippos or into the small body

of

Temple

police at Jerusalem. But further, not only can the

silence

of

Jesus

on

the concrete question

be

accounted

for, .without supposing that he had an

open

mind in

regard to it, but

a

large and important phase of

his

teaching and practical life cannot be accounted for

without the supposition that he regarded acts of war as

entirely impermissible to himself and his disciples. The

evidence for this last statement is cumulative, and can

be

adequately appreciated only by

a

careful examina-

tion

of

the sayings in which Jesus utters general prin-

ciples that seem to have

a

more or less direct bearing

on war and those in which he explicitly alludes to

it,

and by an earnest endeavour to arrive at the meaning

that is latent in them.

STATEMENTS

OF

JESUS

INCONSISTENT WITH

THE

LAWFULNESS

OF

WAR

FOR

CHRISTIANS.-^.

The first

precept

of

which account

has

to

be

taken

is

Jesus’

reiteration of the Mosaic commandment,

Thou

shalt

not

RiZL

This commandment appears in the

Sermon

on

the

Mount as the first

of

a

series

of

Mosaic

ordinances which,

so

far from being narrowed

down

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

21

as

too

exacting, are either reinforced or else replaced

by stricter limitations

in

the same direction.1 It

is

included in the list

of

commandments which Jesus

enjoined upon the ruler who asked him what he

would have to do in order to inherit eternal 1ife.a

I

Acts of homicide’

($cho~)

are mentioned by him

among the evil things that issue from the heart

of

man.3 It is commonly argued that this command-

ment

of

Jesus refers only to acts

of

private murder,

and does

not

apply

to

the taking

of

life in war

or

in the administration

of

public justice. It

is

true

that the Hebrew

word

used in the Mosaic comrnand-

ment has almost exclusively the meaning of murder

proper,

and is not used

of

manslaughter in war, and that

the Mosaic Law in general certainly did not prohibit

either this latter act

or

capital punishment. On the

other hand, it has to be noted

(I)

that the ’Hebrew

word for murder’ is used two

or

three times of a

judicial execution,4

(2)

that the Greek word which

appears in the Gospel passages quoted has the more

general sense

of

‘killing,’ and is used of slaughter

in

war both in classical Greek

5

and in the Septuagintp and

(3)

that, while there is undoubtedly an ethical distinc-

tion

between murder

or

assassination on the one hand

and slaughter in war

on

the other, there

is

also an

ethical similarity between them, and the extension

of

the Mosaic prohibition to cases

to

which it

was

not

Mt

V.

21

IT,

cf

27

f,

31-48.

Mt

xix. 16-19

11s.

3

Mt

xv.

18-20;

Mkvii.

20-23.

4

Numb

sxxv.

27,

of

the

avenger

of

blood slaying

a

murderer

;

ibid.

30,

of

the

oficers

of

justice doing

so

;

I

Kings

xxi.

19,

of

Nabth’s execution.

5

Herodot

i.

211

;

Aiskhulos

Theb

340

:

cf

the

Homeric

use

of

Exod

xvii.

13

;

Levit

xxvi.

7

;

Numb

xxi.

24;

Deut

riii.

15,

XI.

13;

Q6VOC.

Josh

x.

28,

30,

9,

35

;

Is0

xxi.

15.

22

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

commonly thought to apply,

but

with which it

was

not wholly unconnected, was just such a treatment

as

we know

Jesus

imposed

upon

other enactments

of

the

Jewish Law.1

11.

Still more explicit

is

the well-known

non-resistance

teaching

in

the Sermon

on

the Mount.

1

quote from

the version of that Sermon in

Mt

v

:

(38)

“

Ye have

heard that

it

was said

:

‘

Eye for eye and

‘

tooth for

tooth.’

(39)

But

I

tell you not to withstand him who

is evil

:

but

whoever strikes thee on thy right cheek,

turn to him the other also

:

(40)

and

if

anyone wishes

to

go

to law with thee and take away thy tunic, let

him have thy cloak also

:

(41)

and whoever ‘impresses

’

thee (to

go)

one mile,

go

two with him.

(41)

Give

to him that

asks

of thee, and from him who wishes

to

borrow

of

thee, turn not away.

(43)

Ye

have

heard

that it was said

:

‘

Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and

hate thine enemy.’

(44)

But

I

say to you, Love your

enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

(45)

in

order that

ye

may become

sons

of

your Father

who

is in heaven, for He raises

His

sun

on

evil

and

good

(alike) and rains upon righteous and unrighteous.

(46)

For

if

ye love (only) those who love you, what reward

I

B.-Baker

parrles the

force

of

this argument by an appeal

to

the well-

known distinction betaeen letter and spirit. He says

(ICW

11-13):

“

Thus it is thaL Christ never seems

to

wish

so

much to assert

a

new truth,

or

a

new law,

as

to impress

upon

His

hearers the spiritual

significance

of

some old truth

or

law

;

to raise them altogether out

of

the sphere

of

petty

detail into the life

of

all-embracing principles

;

. .

.

It is essential to

our

understanding

of

Christ’s rneanmg to obseme that He designs to give a

spiritual turn, if we may say

so,

to the old specific law

.

So

we

cannot

regard the extension which

the

law

‘

Thou shalt not kill

’

received

from

Jesus

as

a

comprehensive denial

of

the right

of

man ever to deprive

a

brother-f his earthly

hfe.”

Arguing

in this way, the author

has

no

fellow-creature-in

the

beautiful

language

of

the

sermon

on‘

the

mount,

difficulty in proving that Christ

“

countenanced and sanctioned

war

’‘

(IS,

18).

Something will be said later in regard to this antithesis betweep

letter end spirit and the

use

here made

of

it (p.

23).

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

23

have ye? do not even the taxgatherers do the same

?

(47)

and if ye greet your brothers only, what extra

{thing) do ye do? do not even the gentiles

do

the

same

?

(48)

Ye

then shall be perfect, as your heavenly

Father

is perfect.”

I

Volumes

of

controversy have

been

written as

to

the real import and implications

of these critical words, and great care

is

necessary in

order to discover exactly how much they mean. The

obvious difficulties in the way of obeying them have

led to more than one desperate exegetical attempt

to escape

from

them. There

is,

for

instance, the

familiar plea (already alluded to) that Jesus meant

his followers to adopt the spirit of his teaching, without

being bound by the letter 2-a plea which, as has been

pointed out by no less an authority than Bishop Gore,

commonly results

in

ignoring both letter and spirit

words

:

‘

do

good to them that hate

you,

bless them that curse you.’ Its

’

The Lucan parallel (vi.

27-36)

adds to ‘Love your enemies’ the

other additions and differences are unimportant, and on the whole it has

remarking that the word used for enemies

(ixBpoi),

besides being

used

perhaps less claim to originality than the Matthaean version. It is worth

for

private and personal enemies,

is

also used in the Sept int, the New

Testament, and elsewhere, for rlatiotralfoes (Genxiv.

20,

xlix, Exod xv.

6,

Levit xxvi.

7,

8,

17,

I

Sam iv.

3,

etc., etc.

;

Lk i.

71,

74,

xix.

43:

also

Orig

Cds

ii.

0,

viii.

6g).

Thus

C.

E.

Luthardt

(History

of

Chisfaan Ethics

befove

the

Rqormu-

rim,

ET

p.

187)

criticizes Tertullianus’ view that Christians ought not

to

wield the sword

as

soldiers

or

as

magistrates

as

“

the necessary conse-

.internal attitude

of

the disposition directly into a law for the external

quence of the standpoint that makes the words

of

Christ which refer to the

orders

of

life.”

Cf

Magee,

in

Tln

FoYtneht@

Review,

January

18g0,

pp.

38

f.

B.-Baker’s

view

to the same effect

has

already been quoted

(see

n

I). The readcr may judge

for

himself how far astray

the latter author’s method

of

dealing with the teaching

of

Jesus

leads him,

from the following statement, taken from the

Same

context

(ZCW

12):

I‘

The theory upon which

the

Inquisition acted, that physical

sufferings

are

of

no moment in comparison with the supreme importance

of

the

spiritual welfare, is quite consonant with the tone

of

Christ’s commands

and teaching.” The error here arises

from

the neglect of the vital

dis-

tinction between the

glory

of

cndrrring

suffering and

the

grult

of

i@&img

it.

24

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

alike.1 Granting that the spirit is the more important

side

of

the matter, we may well ask,

If

in our Lord’s

view the right spirit issues

in

a

‘letter’

of

this kind,

how

can a

‘

letter

’

of

a

diametrically opposite kind be con-

sonant with the same spirit? Another hasty subterfuge

is

to say that these precepts are counsels

of

-perfection

valid

only

in a perfect society and not seriously meant

to

be

practised under existing conditions.2 The utter

impossibility

of

this explanation becomes obvious

as

soon

as

we recollect that

in

a

perfect state

of

society there

would be no wrongs to submit to and

no

enemies

to

love.

A

less shallow misinterpretation argues that Jesus

meant this teaching to govern only the personal

feelings and acts

of

the disciple in his purely private

capacity, and left untouched

his

duty-as a member

of

society and

for

the sake

of

social welfare-to

participate in the authoritative and official restraint

and punishment

of

wrongdoers.3 Whether or no this

’

See Bishop Gore’s article on

Tkc

SociaC

Doctrim

of

the

Sermon

on

fhc

Afount

in

Th

Ecortornic

Review

for

A

ril

1892,

p.

149

:

“The vast

danger is that

we

should avail ourselves ora

popular

misinterpretation

of

which is practically not at all in the actual details

of

life. .

.

.Therelore

St. Paul’s language, and observe these precepts,

as

we

say,

“

in the spirit,”-

we must apply Christ’s teaching in detail to the circumstances

of

our

day.”

the necessity of forming armies

was

indeed certainly one of those ideals

’

See

for example Bigelmair

165

:

“

The abolition

of

war and therewith

which the Divine Master foreshadowed in the Sermon on the Mount and

which will be reached

some

day in the fulness of time. But just

as

such

an ideal appears to be still remote from our present day,

50

its fulfilment

was

unrealizable in the earliest times,”

etc.

(see

below,

p.

253):

cf

also

this author’s treatment

(100)

of

Jesus’ prohibition

of

oaths

:

‘’

The Divine

Master had in the Sermon on the Mount .

.

. held out the abolition

of

all

able, when the other ideals

of

the Kingdom

of

God

.

.,

namely that

swearing

as

an ideal for humanity, an ideal which will first become attain-

unselfishness,

of

which the Saviour spoke in connection with the

oath,

shall have succeeded in getting carried out

”

(zur Durchhihrung gelangt

sein werden).

Rmim

for January

18go

(pp.

33-46)

on 2%

State

and

the

Sm~n

om

tk

3

See,

for

instance, an article

by

Bisbop Magee in

2%

Fortnighfly

Mount.

Dr.

Charles Meraer

(Th

frrchancc

of

Chrirthnafy

ad

Wa?,

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

25

interpretation

be

sound ethical teaching for the present

day, the idea that it represents the meaning

of

Jesus

cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. For in

this

very passage, Jesus exhibits society’s authorized court

of

justice, not

as

duly punishing the offender whom

the injured disciple has lovingly pardoned and then

handed over to its jurisdiction, but as itself committing

the wrong that has to be borne

:

“if anyone wishes

to

go

to

Zaw

with thee, and take away thy tunic,” and

so

on. But further than that, the

Lex

Talionis-that

ancient Mosaic law requiring, in

a

case of strife

between two men resulting in injury to one of them,

“

life

for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,

foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound,

stripe for stripe

’’

I-was

no mere authorization of private

revenge, permitting within certain limits the indulgence

j

of

personal resentment, but

a

public measure designed

in

the interests of society as

a

restraint upon wrong-

doing, and doubtless meant to be carried out by

(or under the supervision

of)

the public officers

of

the community. Yet this law Jesus quotes for the

sole purpose of forbidding his disciples

to

apply it.

We are therefore driven to the conclusion that he

regarded the duty of neighbourly love as excluding

the infliction of public penalties on behalf

of

society,

as

well

as

the indulgence

of

personal resentment.2

in

TAt

Hibhert

foumuZ,

July

1918,

pp.

555-563)

frankly recognizes that

Tesus’

teaching of gentleness cannot

he

harmonized with war; but he

cuts the Gordlan knot by dividing ethics into the Moral realm and the

Patriotic realm, penning

up

the words of Jesus within the

former

BS

as not forbidding war, which belongs wholly to the latter

!

applicable only

to

individuals within the

same

community, and therefore

Driver’s note on this passage in the

Cumbridye

Bible),

but

the scope and

’

Exod xxi.

23-2j

;

there is

some

difficulty about the literary setting (see

purport

of

the enactment are clear.

*

Troeltsch

(40)

remarks,

i

propos

of

the teaching

of

Tesus about love

;

::

L

4

26

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

a

111. In entire harmony with this conclusion is Jesus’

refusad

to

advance

his

ideaZs

trypoZiticaZ

OY

coercivz

means.

9

In

the one corner of the Roman world where the

6‘

passion for an independent national state still survived,

k

he had no

use

for that passion.

As

the incident of

f

the tribute-money shows, he felt but coldly towards

3.

the fierce yearning of his fellow-countrymen for national

8

independence and greatness, and he rejected the idea

‘:r

of the Messiah which was framed in conformity with

these aspirations. At his Temptation, if we may

so

paraphrase the story, he refused to take possession of

the kingdoms of the world, feeling that

to

do

so

would

be equivalent

to

bowing the knee to Satan.

It

is

difficult to imagine any

other

ground

for

this feeling

than the conviction that there was something immoral,

something contrary to the

Will

of God,jn the use of

the only means by which world-rule could then

be

obtained, namely, by waging

a

successful war. The

idea that the wrong he was tempted

to

commit was

the indulgence of pride

or

an eagerness for early

success does not meet the point: for was he not

in

any case invested by

God

with supreme authority over

men, and was it not his life’s work to bring in the

Kingdom

as

speedily

as

possible? Assuming that the

use

of military force did not appear to him

to

be

in

itself illegitimate, why should he not have used it?

Had he not the most righteous

of

causes

?

Would not

the enterprise have proved in his hands

a

complete

success? Would he not have ruled the world much

better than Tiberius was doing

?

Why

then should

6

b

.’

Thus

there

es1st.j

for

the

children

of

God

no

law

and

no compulsion,

no

war

and struggle,

but

only

an

untiring

love

and an overcomiug

of

evil

with

good-demands,

which

the

Sermon

on

the

Mount

interprets

in

extrcme

CaSeS.”

5

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

27

the acquisition

of

political ascendancy be ruled out

as involving homage to Satan

?

But on the assumption

that he regarded the use

of

violence and injury as

a

method that was in itself contrary to the Will of God,

which contained among its prime enactments the laws

of

love and gentleness, his attitude to the suggestion

of world-empire becomes easily intelligible.' Other

incidents bear out this conclusion. He refuses to

be

taken and made a king by the Galilaeans

2

:

he does

not stir

a

finger to compel Antipas to release the

Baptist or to punish him for the Baptist's death or

to prevent

or

avenge any other of the many misdeeds

of

that she-fox.''

3

He was not anxious to exact

from Pilatus a penalty

for

the death of those Galilaeans

whose blood the governor had mingled with their

sacrifices., He made no attempt to constrain men to

do good .or desist

from

evil by the application of

physical force or the infliction

of

physical injuries. He

did not

go

beyond a very occasional use of

his

personal

ascendancy in order to put a stop

to

proceedings that

appeared

to

him unseemly.5 He pronounces

a

blessing

on peacemakers

as

the children of God and

on

the

gentle as the inheritors of the earth.6 He laments the

ignorance

of

Jerusalem as to the (things that make)

for

peace.'^

He

demands the forgiveness

of

all

in-

juries as the condition

of

receiving the divine pardon

for oneself.* His own conduct

on

the last day

of

his

'

This view

of

the third temptation (Mt iv.

8-10

=

Lk

iv.

5-8)

is

a

John vi.

15.

3

Mk

i.

14

f,

vi. 14-29,

etc.,

and parallels;

Lk

iii 19

f,

xiii.

31

.

4

Lk

xiii.

1-3.

subslantially that suggested by Seeley In

Bcre

HOPLO,

ch.

il.

exception

to

his

usual policy of abstaining

from

violence-will be discussed

The

incident

of

Jesus'

clearing the Temple-courts-often regarded

as

an

later

(see

pp.

3

El.

Mt

V.

5,

9.

7

Lk

xix. 41

f

(+Q

~pbc

E~O~V~JY).

'

Mt

vi.

i2,1~

f;

Mk

xi.

25.

The

context shows that this type

of

for-

28

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

life

is

the best comment on

all

this teaching. He does

.

not try to escape, he oKers no resistance to the

cruelties and indignities inflicted upon him, and for-

bids his followers to strike

a

blow on his behalf.1 He

addresses

mild

remonstrances

to

the traitor and

to

his

captors,= and at the moment

of

crucifixion prays to

God

to pardon his enemies

:

I‘

Father, forgive them

;

for

they know not what they do.”

3

IV.

The words

in

which Jesus expressed his

dis-

approval

of

gentile

c

authority

point in the same

direction.

‘I

Ye know that those who are reckoned

to rule over the gentiles lord it over them, and their

great men overbear them. Hut

it

is not

so

among you

;

but whoever wishes to become great among you shall

be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among

you shall be slave of all.

For

the Son of Man did

not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his

life (as)

a

ransom for many.”

4

The service rendered by

the Master

was

thus to be the pattern of that rendered

by the disciples. That this service did not mean the

abnegation

of

all

authority as such is clear from the fact

that Jesus himself exercised authority over his disciples

and others,~ and furthermore expected the former to

exercise it as leaders

of

his Church.6 What sort

of

authority then was Jesus condemning in this passage?

What difference was there between the authority of

the gentile ruler and that

of

himself and his apostles?

Surely this, that the latter rested on spiritual ascend-

i

giveneas at

all

events is irrespective

ot

the

wrongdoer’s

repentance, though

there may

be

another type which requires it

(Lk

xvii.

3

f;

cf

Mt

xvii.

15-17,

21-35),

‘

Mt

xxvi.

51

f

11s;

John

xviii.

36.

2

Mt

=vi.

50

11

;

John

xviii.

22

f.

3

Lk

xxiii.

34,

Mk

x. 42-45

11s.

5

Mt

xi.

27,

xxiii.

IO,

xxviii.

18;

John

xiii.

13.

6

Mt

v.

5,

xvi.

19,

xviii.

17

f,

:xiv. 45-47, xxv.

21,

23

;

Lk

xk.

17,

19.

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

29

ancy and was exercised only over those who willingly

submitted to it, whereas the former was exercised over

all men indiscriminately whether they liked it

or

not,

and

for

this reason involved the use of the sanctions

of physical force and penalties. There can

be

no

doubt

that it was this fact that caused Jesus to tell his

disciples

:

‘I

It

is

not

so

among you.”

V.

Further evidence to the same effect

is

furnished

by

three

inCiderzta2

utterdnces

of

Jesus.

(a)

The first

of these occurs in the episode of the adulteress who

was brought to Him

for

judgment-an admittedly

historical incident.1 The Pharisees who brought her

were quite right in saying that the Law of Moses

required

the

infliction

of

the death-penalty

as

a

punishment for her offence.2 With. all his reverence

for

the Mosaic Law and his belief

in

its divine origin,3

Jesus here refuses to have any hand in giving effect to

it, and sets it on one side in favour of an altogether

different method of dealing with the guilty party.

“

Neither do

I

condemn thee,” he says to her,

‘I

go,

and

sin no

more”

4

The incident reveals the determination

of Jesus to take no part in the

use

of physical violence

in

the judicial punishment of wrongdoers.

(b)

The

second utterance expresses

a

corresponding disapproval

of

participation in warfare

on

the

part

of

his disciples.

It

occurs

in his apocalyptic discourse, in which

he

’

John

oii.53-viii.

I

:

cf

Moffitt

INT

555

f.

3

Mk

vii.

8-13

I!.

4

Campre

Jesus’

announcement-perhaps littdly meant-that he

had been sent

‘I

to

proclaim

release

to

captives and restoration

of

sight

to

the blind,

to

set

the oppressed at

liberty

”

(Lk

iv.

IS),

and

his

words

in

the

Lucan

version

has

a

distinctly

legal

ring

about it).

His

refusal to

h

the

Sermon

on

the Mount about judging others (Mt vii.

I

f

;

Lk

vi.

37

f

:

a

‘judge

and

divider

’

in

a

case

of

disputed inheritance

(Lk

xu.

13fJ

may

he

indirect

bearing

w

the

subject.

a

Levit

M.

IO;

Deut

xrii.

22-24.

30

Thc

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

depicts the devastation

of

Judaea and the defilement

of

the Temple at the hands of a foreign foe, and bids his

followers in the midst

of

these distresses ‘flee to the

mountains.’I It is true that too much ought not to

be built

on

this saying

;

for

it

occurs

in

a highly pro-

blematical context, and many scholars refuse to .regard

it

as an actual utterance of Jesus at all,* and the

whole passage, even

if

authentic, is not very easily ex-

plained.

Still,

if

it be a fact that Jesus anticipated a

gentile attack on Judaea and Jerusalem, and bade

his

followers flee instead of resisting it, that fact is not

without significance for the question before us.

(c)

The

third utterance forbids the

use

of

the sword in a case

which, in many respects, appeals most strongly to the

modern mind, namely, the defence of others. When

Jesus was being arrested in the garden of Gethsernane,

Peter drew a sword on his Master’s behalf and attacked

one of the High Priest’s servants. Jesus, however,

checked him

:

“Put back thy sword into its place:

for

all who take the sword shall perish by the sword.”

3

It is only

by

an unreal isolation

of

the events

of

Jesus’

passion from the operation of

all

the

usual

moral and

spiritual laws which govern humanity, that one can deny

some sort of general application to the words here

used.

The circumstances of the case were

of

course in

a

measure special, but

so

is every incident in actual life

:

and, inasmuch as the grim truth with which Jesus

supported his injunction was perfectly general, one

1

Mk

xiii.

2,

7-9,

14-20

jls

;

cf

Lk

xvii.

31-37.

2

On

the theory that

Mk

xiii

contains (7f,

14-20.

24-27)

a

little

3

Mt

x%-.

512:

cf

Lk

xxii.

sof;

John

xviii.

IO

f,

36

(Jesus

says

to

’

aw~pse,’.dati

from

670

A.D.,

see

Moffitt

ZN2“w-q.

pihtm

:

If

my

Kingdom

were

of

this

world,

my

mts

would

fight,

in

order

that

I

should

not

be

handed

over

to

the

Jews

:

but

now

my

Kingdom

is

not

from

thence

’I).

>

The

Teaching

of

Jew

31

might reasonably argue that the injunction itself was

more than an order meant to meet a particular case,

and had in it something of the universality of a

general principle of conduct.’

To

sum

up,

whatever may be thought

of

the weakness

or

the strength of any one of the various arguments

that have just been adduced, it can hardly

be

questioned

that, in conjunction with one another, they constitute

a

strong body

of

evidence

for

the belief that

Jesus

both

abjured

for

himself and forbade to his disciples

all

use

of

physical violence as a means

of

checking

or

deterring wrongdoers, not excluding even that use

of

violence which is characteristic of the public acts

of

society at large as distinct

from

the individual. On

this showing, participation in warfare

is

ruled out

as

inconsistent with Christian principles

of

conduct2

STATEMENTS

OF

JESUS

AND

OTHER

CONSIDERA-

TIONS

APPARENTLY

LEGITIMIZING

WARFARE

FOR

CHRISTIANS.”There are, however, a number

of

pas-

sages

and incidents in the Gospels, which are thought

by many to show that Jesus’ disuse of violence and

disapproval of war were not absolute,

or

at any rate

are not binding

on

his

followers to-day

;

and

it

re-

>

The question has been

asked, how

Peter came to

be

carrying a sword

at

ell,

if his

Master

discountenanced the

use

of weapons

u.

M.

Lloyd

Thomas,

The

Zmmoralify

of

Non-rcsisiame,

p. ix

:

E.

A.

Sonnenschein, in

2%

RibkrtJorrmnl,

July

I

15,

pp.

865

f).

The answer is that Peter may

very well have iiled to un2erstand his

Master’s

real meaning (particu-

and, apprehending danger, may

have

put

on

a

sword without Jesus

larly

perhaps

the

‘

two swords’ saying-which we shall discuss presently),

noticing it.

a

Well may

a

resent-day scholar, not himself a pacifist,

say

:

“

I

think,

then,

it

must in krness

be

admitted that there

is

a real

case

for

the

plea

followers.

. .

.

I

cannot shut

rnyxes

to the

possibility

that

Jesus

Himself

of

the conscientious objector that

Jesus

totally forbade

war

to

his

may

have

been

a

paciht

”

(Dr.

A.

.

Peakt,

Prismrr

ofHopc,

pp.

28,30).

82

The

Early Christian

Attitude

to

,War

mains to be seen whether any of them constitutes

a

valid objection to the conclusion we have

just

reached.

I.

To

begin

with, in the very passage

in

which the

non-resistance teaching is given, occurs the precept

:

“

Whoever

‘

impresses

’

thee (to

go)

one mile, go two

with him.”’

It

is

urged that the word translated

‘impresses’

is

a technical term

for

the

vepuirement

of

service

by

the

State,

and that Jesus’ words therefore

enjoin compliance even with

a

compulsory demand for

military service. But it

is

clear that military service,

as distinct from general state-labour,

is

not here in

question

:

for

(I)

the technical term here

used

referred

originally to the postal system

of

the Persian Empire,

the

iyyapos

not being a soldier

or

recruiting officer,

but the king’s mounted courier

;

(2)

instances of its later

usage always seem to refer to forced labour or service

in

general, not to service

as

a soldier

a

;

and

(3)

the Jews

were

in

any case exempt from service in the Roman

legions,

so

that if,

as

seems probable, the Roman

‘

angaria’ is here referred to, military service proper

cannot be what is contemplated.

11.

Secondly, it

is

pointed out that, in the little

intercourse Jesus had with soldiers,

we

find

no

mention

made

of

any

disapproval

on

his

part

af

the

miZitary

caZling.

His

record in this respect

is

somewhat similar

to that

of

the Baptist,s whose example, however,

must

a

Mt

xxvii.

32

/I

(the soldiers ‘impressed ’-7jyyfpEuaav”Simon of

Mt

v.

41

:

rai

8arq

m

&yyaprirarl

phov

sv,

i;nayc

PET’

abroii

660.

Cyrene to

carry

the cross). See the article

‘angaria’

in Smith’s

Dic-

1imMry

of

GrccR

and

Roman

Antiguitics

:

‘‘

The

Roman

angak

.

. .

messengers, in forwarding both letters and burdens.” The Lexicons

gi~e

included the maintenance and supply, not only

of

horses, but of

ships

and

no hint that the word

was

used

for

impressing soldiers.

received

his baptism)

6‘

asked him, sayin ‘And

what

are

we

to

do?’

3

See

Lk

iii.

14

:

“And

men

on

service

”

(mpanw5pwor, who

hrd

and

he

ssid to them,

‘

Never;

extort money

tom

anyone

(pq6b-a

8uwrlqm),

or

falsely

accuse

anyone

;

and

be

content

with

your

pay.’

”

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

not be taken as indicating or determining the attitude

of his greater successor. When Jesus was asked by

a gentile centurion, in the service

of

Herodes at

Capernaum,

to

cure his servant, he not only did

so,

without (as

far

as the record

goes)

uttering any dis-

approval of the man’s profession, but even expressed

appreciation of his faith

in

believing (on the analogy

of

his own military authority) that Jesus could cure

the illness at a distance

by

a simple word

of

command.1

No

conclusion, however,

in

conflict with the position

already reached can be founded on this incident. The

attempt to draw such a conclusion is at best an argu-

ment from silence. Considering the number

of

things

Jesus

must have said

of

which no record has been left,

we cannot

be

at all sure that he said nothing

on

this

occasion about the illegitimacy of military service for

his own followers. And’ even supposing he did not,

is

it reasonable to demand that his views on this point

should

be

publicly stated every time he comes across

a soldier? Allowance has also to be made for the fact

that the centurion was

a

gentile stranger, who, accord-

ing to

Luke’s

fuller narrative, was not even present

in person, and in any case was not a candidate for

discipleship. The utmost we can say

is

that at this

the centurion

:

‘‘

He

represented himself

as

filling

a place

in

a graduated

Mt

viii.

5-13

11.

Seeley

(Eccc

Hotno,

pref. to

5th

edn,

p.

4,

says

of

scale,

as

commanding some and obeying others, and the proposed con-

descension

of

one whom he ranked

SO

immeasurably above himself in

that scale shocked him.

This

spirit

of

order, this

hearty

acceptance

of

a

above

its

place

than

it

will consent to

fall below

it,

was

approved

by

place

in society,

this

proud

submission

which

no

more

desires

to

rise

Christ with unusual emphasis and warmth.” This misses the point

:

the

centurion’s words about

being

under authority and having others under

him

ucpresaed,

not

hi

humility

or

reverence

for

Jesus, who was

MI

above

word

of

command

;

and it

ws

this

belief

that Gus

approved

so

heartily.

him

in

military

rank,

but

his

belief in Jesus’ wer to

work

the

cure

by

4

84

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

particular moment the mind of Jesus was not focussed

on

the ethical question now before

us:

but even that

much is precarious, and moreover, if true, furnishes

nothing inconsistent with our previous conclusion.

I1

1.

The

expcZsion

of

the

tratiers

from

the

Temple-

COOUF~S

x

is often appealed to as the one occasion on

which Jesus had recourse to violent physical coercion,

thereby proving that his law

of

gentleness and non-

resistance was subject

to

exceptions under certain

circumstances. Exactly what there

was

in the situation

that Jesus regarded

as

justifying such an exception

has not been shown.

If

however the narratives given

by

the four evangelists be attentively read in the

original, it will

be

Seen

(I)

that the whip of cords

is

mentioned in the Fourth Gospel only, which

is

regarded

by

most critical scholars

as

historically less

trustworthy than the other three, and as having

in

this

instance disregarded historical exactitude

by

putting

the narrative at the beginning instead

of

at the close of

jesus’ ministry,*

(2)

that even the

words

of

the

Fourth

Gospel

do

not necessarily

mean

that the whip

was

used

on

anyone besides the cattle,3

(3)

that the

action

of

Jesus,

so

far

as

the men were concerned,

is

de-

scribed

in

all

four

accounts

by

the same word,

~KPLXXO.

This

word

means literally ‘to cast out,’ but is also

used

of

Jesus being sent into the wilderness,4

of

him

expelling

the mourners from Jairus’ house,s

of

God

sending out workers into his vineyard: of

a

man

incline

to

acce

Lhc

historicity

of

the

Fourth

Gosprlher~t~&~

chronology

osaetmus.

k

rofi

irpoir,

ra

rc?

rpbflara

mi

TO^

h,

dl

a

John

ii.

15

says

:

mirorjuac

+payh

bc

qotviov

r&ac

iE&Aev

4

Mk

i

12.

5

Mk

V.

4011.

Mt

k.

38

11.

’

Mk

A

15-17;

Mt

ui.

IZf;

Ur

rir.

43

f;

John

ii.

13-17.

*

I

mention

this

argument

for

what

it

LS

worth,

th

The

Teaching

of

Jew

85

taking out

a

splinter from the eye,l

of

a

householder

bringing forth things

out

of

his store,"

of

a

man taking

money out

of

his purse,3 and of a shepherd sending

sheep

out

of

the fold.4 Here therefore

it

need mean

no

more than an authoritative dismissal.

It

is obviously

impossible for one man to drive out a crowd

by

physica2

force

or even by the threat

of

it. What he

,

can do is to overawe them by his presence and the

power

of

his personality, and expel them by an

authoritative command. That apparently is what

Jesus did.5

In

any case,

no

act even remotely com-

parable

to

wounding

or

killing is sanctioned by his

example

on

this occ,a.sion.

IV.

In

his prophecies

of

the Last Things, Jesus spoke

of

the

wars

of

the

future.

He said that nation would

rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, that

wars

and rumours

of

wars would

be

heard

of,

that

Judaea would

be

devastated, Jerusalem besieged and

taken by the gentiles, and the Temple defiled and

destroyed.6 It is difficult to separate these announce-

ments from those other general prophecies in which

calamity is foretold as the approaching judgment

of God

upon

the sins

of

communities and indi-

viduals~

In

this connection too

we

have to consider

the parabolic descriptions

of

the king who, angered at

3 Lk

x.

35.

I

Mtvii.411.

blt

xii.

35,

xiii.

52.

5

It

is

the very

ynt

of

the story,

not

that

He,

as

b

mere

force,

can

drive

so

many men,

ut

that

so

many

are

seen

retiring

Lore

the

moral

rwer

of

on-

mysterious

being

,

in

whose

fpce

and

form

the indignant

had.

mu&

lcfe

are

able

to

resist

"

(Horace

Bushnell,

N~UYU

Su

maturd,

p.

219).

&k

xiii.

2,

7f,

14-u,

11s;

Mt

xxiv.

a8

;

Lk

xvii.

22-37,

six.

41-44,

4

John

x.

4.

ush

of

innocence

rev&

a

tremendous

feeling they

can

nowise

mm

cf

xxiii.

28-31.

Mt

x$

o~fll,

xiu.

37-43,

49f,

xxi.

41

116,

xxii.

33-36

;

Lk

xii.

9-

p

xiii.

9,

111.

ub,

xa

az.

36

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

the murder of his slaves, sent his armies, destroyed the

murderers, and burnt their city,' of the other king who

executed the citizens that did not wish him to rule over

them," and

of

other kings and masters who punished their

offending servants with more

or

less violence.3 These

passages seem to prove beyond question that, in Jesus'

view, God under certain conditions punishes sinners

with terrible severity, and that one notable example

of such punishment would be the complete overthrow

of

the Jewish State

as

the result of a disastrous.war

with Rome. That being

so,

may we not infer from

God's

use of the Roman armies as the rod

of

His anger,

that Jesus would have granted that under certain cir-

cumstances his own followers might make themselves

the agents

of

a similar visitation by waging war?

As

against such an inference, we have to .bear in mind

(I)

that wherever the infliction appears as the direct

act

of

God, the language

is

always highly parabolic,

and the exact interpretation proportionately difficult

;

nothing more than the single point of divine punish-

ment is indicated

by

these parables; even the more

fundamental idea of divine love-the context in which

the divine severity must admittedly

be

read-is omitted.

Can we infer from the parable of the hardworked slave,4

illustrating the extent

of

the service we owe to God,

that Jesus approves of

a

master

so

treating

his

slaves,

or from the parabolic description

of

himself plundering

Satan,5 that he sanctions burglary

7

(2)

that the dif-

ference between divine and human prerogatives in the

matter

of

punishing sin

is

deep and vital, God's power,

JMtxviii.~f,xxii.13,xxiv.5of~~,xxv.30;cfLkxviii7f.

'

Mt

xxii.

7.

Lk

xix.

27.

4

Lk

xvii.

7-10

(Moffatt's

trans).

5

Mk

iii.

27

11s.

Th

Teaching

of

Jesus

37

love, knowledge, and authority making just for Him what

would be

unjust

if done by man

I

;

(3)

that,

in

the case

of

the Jewish war, the instruments

of

God’s

wrath were

unenlightened gentiles

who

in

a rebellion could see

nothing better to do than to crush the rebels

;

duty

might well be very different for Christian disciples

;

(4)

that the conception of

foreign

foes being used

to

chastise God’s people was one familiar to readers of the

Hebrew Scriptures, and did not by any means imply the

innocence

of

the

foes

in

question

2;

(5)

that, while

Jesus

holds up the divine perfection

in

general as

a

model

for

our imitation, yet, when he descends to par-

ticulars,

it

is

only the gentle side of

God’s

method

of

dealing with sinners-to the express exclusion

of

the

punitive side-which

he

bids us copy,3

and

which

he

‘

For

this view, cf

I

Sam xxiv.

12

:

“The

Lord

judge

between me

and thee, and the Lord avenge me

of

thee

:

huL mine hand shall not

bc

upon thee.”

’

Isa

x.

5-19

;

Jer

1.

23,

li.

20-26

;

Zech i. IS, etc.

3

Mt v.

44-48

I(,

cf

vii.

11.

A

similar distinction appears in

Paul

from

quoting here an interesting conversation that occurs in Dickens’

(Rom

xii. 17-xiii.

7),

which we shall have to discuss later.

I

cannot refrain

Littic

Dm2

(Bk

ii,

ch.

31)

:

“

I

have done,” said Mrs. Clennam,

“

what it was given me to do.

I

have

set

myself against evil

;

not against

god.

‘I

have been an

instrument of severity against sin. Have not mere sinners like myself

been commissioned

to

lay it low in all time

i’

”

In all time

?

”

repeated Little Dorrit.

vengeance

had

moved me, could

I

have found no justification?

‘‘

Even if

my

own wrong had prevailed with me, and my own

None in the old days when the innocent perished with the guilty,

a

thousand to one

?

When the wrath

of

the hater

of

the unrighteous

was not slaked even in blood, and yet found favour

?”

“Oh,

Mrs.

Clennam,

Mrs.

Clennam,” said Little Dorrit,

“

angry

feelings and unforgiving deeds are no comfort and no guide to

you

and me.

My

life has been passed in this

pour

prison, and my

teaching

has

been

very defective: but let

me

inlplore you

to

remember later and better days.

Be

guided

only

by

the healer

of

the sick, the raiser of the dead, the friend of all who were afflicted

and forlorn, the patient Master who shed tears

of

compassion for

our

infirmities. We cannot

but

he right if we put

all

the rest away, and

do

everything in remembrance

of

Him. There is no vengeance and no

infliction of suffering in His

life,

I

am sure. There can

be

no confusion

in following Him, and seeking for no other footsteps,

I

am Certain.”

38

The

Early

Chrktian

Attitude

to

War

himself

copied

in that supreme act in which he revealed

God’s

heart and moved sinners to repentance, namely,

his

submission to the cross.

V.

Difficulty has sometimes been raised over

Jesus’

illustrative

dLusioas

to

wnr.

There cannot be any

question as to the purely metaphorical character of

his picture

of

the two kings at war with unequal

forces-given to enforce the duty of counting

in advance the cost

of

discipleship,l

or

of his

allusion to violent men snatching the Kingdom

or

forcing their way into it =-a demand for eagerness

and enterprise in spiritual things.; The parabolic

description of the king sending his armies

to

avenge

his

murdered slaves

4

has already been dealt with.

More easily misunderstood

is

the passage in which

Jesus

states that he was sent not to bring peace to

the earth, but a sword.5 But there is

no

real difficulty

here: Jesus

is

simply saying that, as a result

of

his

coming, fierce antipathies will arise against his ad-

herents on the part of their fellow-men.

The

context

clearly reveals the meaning

;

the word

‘

sword

’

is used

metaphorically for dissension, and

a

result is announced

as

if

it were a purpose, quite in accordance with the

deterministic leanings

of

the Semitic mind.

No

sanc-

tion for the Christian engaging in war can be extracted

from the passage, any

more

than a sanction of theft can

3

Seelcy,

in

the

Lk sir.

31-33.

e

quoted above

(p.

33

n

I),

sap

:

“

Aa

Christ

I

habitually

comparm

that

its

analogy

to

an

army

WRBS

also

present

to

his mind.” Seeley has,

his hurch

to

a

state

or

kingdom,

so

there are traces

as

I

have

pointed out, misunderstood the

words

of Jesus and

the

centurion

about

each

other

;

but

Jesus’

approval

of the

centurion’s

ascription

to

him

le&

a

little

colour

to

the view which

Setley

here expresses.

of

uasi-military

power

on

the

analogy

of

his

(the centurion’s)

own

power

=

Mt xi.

12;

Lk xvi.

16.

4

Mt

Uii.

6f.

,s

Mt

I.

34

:

cf Lk rii.

51.

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

38

be

drawn from

Jesus’

comparison of his coming to that

of

a thief in the night.1 More serious difficulty is occa-

sioned by an incident narrated

by

Luke

in

his story of

the Last Supper. After reminding his disciples that

they had lacked nothing on their mission-joumeys,

though unprovided with purse, wallet, and shoes, Jesus

counsels them now to take these necessaries with them,

and adds

:

“

And let

him

who has no sword sell his

cloak and buy one.

For

I

tell

you

that this which has

been

written must

be

accomplished in me,

‘

And he was

reckoned with the lawless.’

For

that which concerneth

me has

(its

own)

accomplishment”

(doc).

They tell

him there are

two

swords there, and he replies abruptly:

-

“

It is enough.”

2

No

entirely satisfactory explanation

of this difficult passage has yet been given.3 The

obvious fact that two swords were

not

enough to

defend twelve men seems

to

rule out a literal inter-

pretation

;

and the closing words of Jesus strongly

suggest that the disciples, in referring to actual

swords,

had misunderstood him. The explanation suggested by

Harnack,4 that the sword was meant metaphorically to

represent the stedfast defence

of

the Gospel under the

persecution now approaching,

is

perhaps the best within

our

reach at present

:

at all events, until one obviously

Mt xxiv.

43

11.

’

Lk

xxii.

35-38.

3

One

recent

attempt may

be

referred

to.

B.

W.

Bacon distinguishes

two

sections

in

Jesns’ Messianic programme;

first,

the gathering of

the

flock,

when

premature Zealotism

was

guarded against

by

non-resistance

;

ycondly, when the flock would have to defend itself.

Thus,

Peter’s sword

IS

“

returned to its sheath to await the predicted day

of

need

”

(Chrrjhrr

Peter had

to

sheathe

his

sword,

because

“all

they that

take

the

sword

Militam,

in

2%

Hib&rtjmrnal,

July

1918,

pp.

92,

548,

55of).

But

and

beyond this

recarious

reading of the

‘

two-swords

’

passage,

there

rill

perish

by the sword,” not simply

because

his

act

was

bsdly

timed

:

is

nothing

in

the &pel

selfdefence, and

much

:l&$ly

inconsistent

with

it.

rt

the

idea

of

a

coming

period

of

violent

‘

HUM&

Mc

4

f.

40

The

Early

Christian Attitude to

War

better has been produced, we cannot infer from the

passage that Jesus was really encouraging his disciples

to

go

about armed. Peter took a sword with him that

very night, but on the first occasion on which he used

it,

he was told by Jesus not to do

so.’

VI.

It is clear that

Jesus accorded

a

certain recog-

nition

to

the

civil

governments~

of

his

day.

It is doubt-

ful

whether the Temptation-story compels

us

to believe

that he regarded the Roman Empire as objectively

Satanic

:

an explanation of the story has been offered

which involves

no

such supposition.2 He called the

Roman coins

‘the

things that belong to Caesar,’

3

and

bade the Jews pay them to their owner

:

in the Fourth

Gospel he is made to tell Pilatus that the latter’s

magisterial power over him had been given to him

‘

from above

’

4

:

he revered

King

David and the Queen

of

Sheba

5

:

he spoke

of

the

old

Mosaic Law, with its

pains and penalties, as

‘

the word of

God’6:

he reckoned

‘judgment’

Q

=

the administration of justice) among

the weightier matters

of

the Law, and rebuked the

scribes and Pharisees for neglecting it

7

:

courtiers,

judges, rulers, and councillors were numbered among

his friends and admirers

8:

he was scrupulously

obedient to the Jewish Law,9 and paid the Temple-

tax, even though he thought

it

unfair

10

:

he enjoined

compliance with the State’s demand

for

forced labour

11

:

he would undertake no

sort

of

active opposition to the

1

See

above,

p.

30.

See

above,

pp.

26

t

3

Mk

xii.

17

I/s

:

rd

Kaiuupoy.

5

Mk

ii.

25

f

Ijs,

xii.

35-37

11s;

Mt

xii.

42

11.

4

John

xix.

11.

Mk

vii.

8-13

I).

7

Mt

xxiii.

23

11.

Mk

XI.

43

;

Lk

vii.

2-6, viii.

3.

xiv.

I,

yxiii.

5of

;

John

iii.

I,

IO,

iv.

46ff,

vii.

50-52,

nii.

p,

xix.

38

f.

ID

Mt

xvii.

24-27.

9

Mt

v.

17-19

11,

viii.

4

11%

xxiii.

2,23

fin

;

.Lk

xvii.

14

I*

Mt

v.

41

;

cf

xxvii.

32.

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

41

governments of his day: he submitted meekly to the

official measures that led to his own death

;

and his

refusal to be made a

king

by the Galilaeans

I

marks

a certain submissiveness even towards Herodes, for

whom he seems to have had much less respect than

for other rulers. Does not all this-it may

be

asked-

does not,

in

particular, the command to

'

Give back to

Caesar the things that are Caesar's,' carry with it the duty

of rendering military service

if

and when the govern-

ment

demands it? Important as the words about

Caesar doubtless are, they must not

be

made to bear

more than their fair weight of meaning. Caesar,

it

was

well

understood, had formally exempted the Jews from

service

in

his legions

;

and the question was, not whether

they should fight for him, but whether they should

bow

to his rule and pay his taxes.

To

part with one's pro-

perty at the demand

of

another person ,does not make

one responsible for all that person's doings, nor does it

imply

a

readiness to

obey

any and every command that

that person may feel he has a right to issue. Jesus

sanctioned disobedience

to

Caesar in forbidding his

followers to deny him before kings and governors

*

;

and refusal to disobey his ethical teaching at Caesar's

bidding would

be

but a natural extension

of

this precept.

If it

be

urged that the phrase

T&

Kar'aaposalld the other

evidence quoted point

to

some sort

of

real justification

on

Jesus' part

of

the imperial and other governments,

it may

be

replied that that justification was relative

only-relative, that is, to the imperfect and unen-

lightened state

of

the agents concerned. The fact

that they were not as yet ready to be his

own

fol-

lowers was an essential condition

of

his approval

of

"

John

vi.

15.

Mt

x.

17

f,

18-33

11s

42

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

their public acts. That approval, therefore, did not

affect the ethical standard he demanded from his

own

disciples.1

VII.

It

is

commonly assumed that obedience to the

non-resistance teaching

of

Jesus

is

so

obviously

incon-

sistent

with

the

pence

and

well-being

of

society

that he

could not have meant this teaching to be taken literally.

Thus Professor Bethune-Baker says

:

I’

If

the right

of

using force to maintain order

be

denied, utter social

disorganization

must

result. Who can imagine that

this was the aim of

one

who

.

?

It was not Christ’s

aim

;

and

He

never gave any such command.”z

“

The

self-forgetting altruism, the ideal humanity and charity,”

says Schell, “would, by

a

literal fulfilment of certain

precepts

of

the Sermon

on

the Mount, offer welcome

encouragement to evil propensities, and

by

its indul-

gence would even provoke the bad to

riot

in

undis-

ciplined excess.”3

“

A

country,” says Loisy,

I‘

where

all the

good

people conformed to these maxims would,

instead

of

resembling the kingdom of heaven,

be

the

paradise

of

thieves and criminals.”4 This plausible

argument is however erroneous,

for

it ignores in one

way

or

another three important facts

:

(I)

The ability

to practise this teaching

of

Jesus

is

strictly relative

to

the status

of

discipleship

:

the Teacher issues it for

him

’

md

(rix.

38)

calls

Joseph

of

Arimnthaee,

who

we

know

was

I

John

indeed

tells us

(rii.

42)

that

‘many

of

the

rulers

believed

on

a councillor

(Mk

YV.

43),

a

disciple

;

but

how much

does

this

prove?

These people were

afraid

to

let their discipleship

be

public1 known, and

the

ders

‘

loved

the

glory

of

men more than the

glory

of

&dY

(rii.

43).

disciple

of

{is pronouncing

or

executing judicial

penalties

or

acting

as

a

We

certain1

mnnot argue from silence that Jesus

approved

of

my

rrgakr

soldier.

’

B.-BPker

ICW

13.

3

Quoted

by

Iloltzmann,

Nmtmfrunmflich

TAMIogir

(191

I),

i.

nlq

f.

4

Ibid.

The

Teaching

of

Jesus

48

immediate acceptance, not

by

the whole of unredeemed

humanity,

still

less by any arbitrarily chosen local

group

of

people (one nation, for instance, as dis-

tinct from others), but by the small though growing

company of his own personal disciples. It is essen-

tially a law for the Christian community.

(2)

The

negative attitude which this teaching involves

is

more

than compensated for by its positive counterpart. Jesus

and his disciples use no force, but they are on that

account by no means ciphers

in

the struggle against sin.

The changes wrought by Jesus in the Gerasene maniac,

the prostitute, the adulteress, the extortionate tax-

gatherer, and the thief on the cross, show what a far

more efficient reformer of morals he was than the

police.

As

we shall see later, his first followers worked

on the same lines, and met with the same splendid

success.

Nor

is it very difficult

to

see how enfeebled

would have

been

this policy

of

Jesus and the early

Christians,

if

it had ken combined by them with

a use

of

coercion or

of

the punitive power

of

the

'state. True, as long as man's

will

is free, moral

suasion

is

not bound to succeed

in

any particular

case;

but

the same is true also of the

use

of

force.

The point is that the principles of Jesus, as a general

policy,

so

far

from

leaving human

sin

unchecked,

check

it

more effectively than any coercion

or

penal-

ization can

do.

(3)

The growth of the Christian

community is a gradual growth, proceeding by the

accession

of

one

life

at

a

time.

Two

gradual pro-

cesses have thus to

go

on

pari passu, firstly, a gradual

diminution in the number of those who use violence

to restrain wrong, and secondly, a gradual diminution

in

the number

of

those -who seem to them to

need

f

44

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

Wur

forcible restraint.’ The concomitance of these processes

obviously means no such

‘I

utter social disorganisation

”

as is often imagined, but a gradual and steady transi-

tion to greater social security.

VIII.

Lastly, we have to consider the view which

frankly admits that the teaching

of

Jesus is inconsistent

with the use

of

arms, but regards that teaching as

qn

‘interim

ethic,’

framed wholly with an eye to the

approaching break-up

of

the existing world-order (when

by God’s intervention the Kingdom would

be

set up),

and therefore as having no claim to the strict obedience

of modern Christians who perforce have to take an en-

tirely different view

of

the world.

Dr.

Wilhelm Herrmann

of Marburg presents this view in a paper which appears

in

an English

form

in

Essuys

on

the

Social

Gospel

(London,

rgo7).2

On the ground

of

the supposed his-

torical discovery that Jesus looked upon human society

as

near its end, he cheerfully emancipates the modern

Christian from the duty

of

absolutely obeying in

our

rule

of

life to-day, the traditional words

of

J~sus.”~

I‘

Endeavours to imitate

Jesus

in points inseparable

from

His especial mission in the

world,

and His

position-which

is

not ours,-towards that world-

efforts like these lacking the sincerity of really neces-

sary tasks, have

so

long injured

the

cause

of

Jesus,

that

our

joy

will

be unalloyed when scientific

study

at last reveals to every one the impossibility

of

all

such attempts.”s

‘‘

As

a result

of

that frame

of

mind whereby

we

are united with Him,

we

desire the

existence of a national State, with a character and

’

The

power

of

Christianity

to

extirpate crime

was

insisted

on

by

Tolstoi

in

his

novel

Work

whi&

ye

have

the

Ligkf

(ET

published

by

Heinemann,

I

e).

pp.

176-185,

202-225.

3

p.

182.

4

p.

181.

The

Teaching

oj

Jesus

45

with duties with which Jesus was not yet acquainted

;

we will not let ourselves

be

led astray, even if in

this form of human nature various features are as

sharply opposed to the mode of life and standpoint

of

Jesus as is the dauntless use

of

arms.”I This

view, though quoted from a German author, tepre-

sents the standpoint of a

good

deal

of

critical opinion

in

this country, and is

in

fact the last stronghold of

those who realize the impossibility

of

finding any

sanction

for

war in the Gospels, but who yet cling

to

the belief that war is in these days a Christian

duty. In regard

to

it we may say

(I)

that ‘scientific

study’ has not yet proved that the mind of Jesus

was always dominated

by

an expectation

of

a world-

cataclysm destined to occur within that generation.

The Gospels contain non-apocalyptic as well as

apocalyptic sayings, and there

are

no grounds

for

ruling out the former as ungenuine. Early Christian

thought tended to over-emphasize the apocalyptic

element,

a

fact

which argues strongly

for

the origi-

nality

of

the other phase

of

Jesus’ teaching.

His

ethics cannot

be

explained by reference to his expec-

tation

of

the approaching end.

On

the contrary,

“where He gives

the

ground of

His

command, as

in

the case

of

loving enemies, forgiveness, and seeking the

lost, it is the nature

of

God

that

He

dwells upon, and

not

anything expected

in

the near

or

distant future.”Z

(2)

Herrmann maintains that

‘I

the command to love

our enemies

”

and the words

of

Jesus “dealing with

the love

of

peace” arc not to

be

included among

the

’

pp.

217

f.

Halliday,

of

New&,

and

others.

’

I

borrow

these

words

from

e

private

pamphlet

by

my

friend

Mr.

J.

A.

46

The

Early

Christian

Attitudc

lo

War

sayings which have to be explained by the idea

of

the approaching end.1 But he does

not

point to any-

thing in these sayings which entitles him to treat them

as exceptional

;

nor does he explain how obedience

to them-seeing that after all they are to

be

obeyed

-can be harmonized with the dauntless

use

of

arms.”

(3)

The appeal to the interim-ethic theory,

however sincere, has

a

pragmatic

motive

behind it,

as

Herrmann’s words about the

desire

for a national

state clearly reveal.

“

Thus Jesus brings

us

into con-

flict,” he confesses, “with social duties to which

we

ad

wisk

to cling.”z He takes no account at all

of

the three facts which have just been referred to3 as

governing compliance with Jesus’ teaching. These

facts, when properly attended to and allowed

for,

show

how utterly baseless is the prevalent belief that to

adopt the view

of

Jesus’ teaching advocated

in

these

pages

is

to ensure the immediate collapse

of

one state

or

another and to hand society over to the control

of any rascals who are strong enough to tyrannize

over their fellows. When that pragmatic motive is

shown to

be

based on a misapprehension, no ground

will

remain

for

withholding, from

our

Lord’s prohibi-

tion

of

the infliction of injury upon

our

neighbour,

that obedience which

all

Christian people willingly

admit must be accorded

to

his more general precepts

of

truthfulness, service, and love.

The interim-ethic theory is,

as

we have said, the

last fortress

of

militarism

on

Christian

soil.

Driven

from

that

stronghold,

it

has no choice but to take

refuge over the border. Its

apologists

eventually find

pp.

r78f.,

mzf.

’

p.

163

(itahmine).

3

Seeabove,

@.

eff.

The

Teaching

of

Jaws

47

that they have no option but to argue on grounds

inconsistent with the supremacy of Christianity

as

a

universal religion or as a

final

revelation of

God.

Most

of

the arguments we hear about

‘

the lesser

of

two evils,’

‘

living in an imperfect world,’ ‘untimely virtues,’ and

so

on,

reduce themselves in the last analysis to a renun-

ciation

of

Christianity,at least for the time being, as the

real guide of life. In the fierce agony

of

the times, the

inconsistency

is

unperceived

by

those who commit it;

or,

if

it is perceived,

the

sacrifice

of

intellectual clear-

ness becomes part of the great sacrifice

for

which the

crisis calls. But he, to whose words men have

so

often fled when the organized Christianity

of

the hour

appeared to have broken down or at any rate could

not salve the riddle or point the way, will, when

the smoke has cleared from their eyes,’& found to

possess after all the secret for which the human race

is longing

;

and the only safe

‘

Weltpolitik

’

will

be

seen

to

lie

in

simple and childlike obedience to

him

who said

:

“Happy are the gentle, for they

will

inherit the earth.”

48

Arrangement

of

the

remaining

Material

In chalking out the main divisions

of

our subject'

from this point onwards, it is not proposed to give

the

first

place to any set of chronological landmarks

between the death

of

Jesus about

zg

A.D.

and the

triumph of Constantinus about

313

A.D.

This does

not mean that the Christian attitude to war under-

went

no

change in the course of that long period;

but such changes as there were

it

will be convenient

to study within subdivisions founded on the

subject-

matter rather than on the lapse

of

time. The material

-excluding the final summary and comments-falls

naturally into two main divisions, firstly, the various

forms in which the Christian disapproval

of

war

expressed itself, such as the condemnation

of

it in

the abstract, the emphasis laid on the essential peace-

fulness

of

Christianity, the place

of

gentleness and

non-resistance in Christian ethics, the Christians'

ex-

perience of the

evils

of military life and character,

and

their refusal to act as soldiers themselves

;

and secondly,

the various forms

of

what we may call the Christian

acceptance or quasi-acceptance

of

war, ranging .from

such ideal realms as Scriptural history, spiritual

war-

fare, and

so

on, right up to the actual service of

Christians

in

the Roman armies.' When

we

have

examined these two complementary phases

of

the sub-

ject, we shall

be

in

a

position

to

sum

up the situation

-particularly the settlement involved in the Church's

alliance with Constantinus, and to offer

a

few

general

observations on the question

as

a

whole.

'

The reader is reminded

that

the dates

of

the early Christian authors

and

books

quoted and events referred

to

are given

in

the chronological,

table at the wnning

of

the

book,

in order

to

avoid

unnecessary

es

ha

tions

und

repeutions in the text,

and

that

with the same objqct

hi

par:

ticulars

of

works

quoted

are given

in

another lit, the references

in

the

footnotes

being

mostly

in

an

abbreviated

form.

PART

11

FORMS OF

THE

EARLY

CHRISTIAN

DISAPPROVAL

'OF

WAR

THE

CONDEMNATION

OF

WAR

IN

THE

ABSTRACT.^"

The conditions under which the

books

of the New

Testament were written were not such as to give occasion

.

for

Christian utterances on the wrongfulness

of

war.

The few New Testament passages expressing disappro-

bation of

wars'

and 'battles

'9

probably

refer in every

case, not to military conflicts, but to strife and dissension

in the more general sense. Reflection

is,

however, cast

on the incessant wars

of

men

in

'

The Vision of Isaiah

'

:

the prophet ascends to the firmament, "and there

I

saw

Sammael

and

his hosts, and there was great fighting

therein, and the angels of Satan were envying one

another. And as above,

so

on the earth also

;

for the

likeness

of

that

which

is

in

the firmament

is

here on

the earth. And

I

said

unto the angel who was

with

me

:

'

What

is

this

war,

and

what

is this envying

?

'

And

he said unto me

:

'So

has

it

been since this world

No

purpose

would

k

served

by

retailing

to

the

reader

p.sspges

in

which

war

IS

cited

simply

as

II

calamity

or

as

a

mere

historical

incident,

without

my

direct hint

of

moral blame

or

of

divine

visitation.

the

proposed

substitution

of

)8ovdrt

(ye

envy)

for

pveirtre

(ye

kill)

in

verse

z

Cor

vii.

('I

wrangling

all

round me

""kIaffitt)

;

JLS

iv.

I

f

(even

if

2

be

rejected,

and

the

krer

ivcn

its

lited

mearung

(so

Mayor),

the

refer-

e~lct

mu

hprdly

be

to

w&te

99

udy

understood)

;

z

Tim

ii.

a3f;

5

Tit

3.9,

49

50

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

was made until now, and this war will continue till

He

whom thou shalt see

will

come and destroy him.’”

I

Aristeides attributed the prevalence of war-chiefly

among the Greeks-to the erroneous views

of

men

as

to the nature

of

their gods, whom they pictured as

waging war:

(‘for

if their gods did such things, why

should they themselves not do them? thus from this

pursuit of error it has fallen to men’s lot to have con-

tinual wars and massacres and bitter captivity.”z He

specially mentions Ares and Herakles as discredited by

their warlike character.3 Justinus said that it

was

the

evil

angels and their offspring the demons who “sowed

murders, wars, adulteries, excesses, and every wicked-

ness,

among men.”

4

l’atianus equated

war

and murder,

and said that the demons excited war

by

means of

oracles.

(‘

Thou wishest to make war,’’ he says to the

gentile, “and thou takest Apollon (as thy) counsellor

in

murder”

(u15ppouXov

TGII

phwv).

He refers to Apollon

as the one

“

who raises up seditions and battles” and

makes announcements about victory in war.”

5

Athenagoras instances the usages of

unjust

war-the

slaughter

of

myriads

of

men, the razing of cities, the

burning of houses with their inhabitants, the devastation

of land, and the destruction of entire populations-as

samples

of

the worst sins, such as could not

be

adequately

punished by any amount of suffering in this life.6 He

also says that Christians cannot endure to

see

a

man

put to death, even justly.7 In the apocryphal Acts of

Charles,

2%

Ascension

of

Isuiuh

(vii.

p-12)

p. 48,

cf

74

(x.

29-31).

Arist

8

(104).

3

Arist

IO

(106

and-Syriac-43).

of

preparing

wars

(Kwp

17),

he

was

referring

to

the

persecutions

amed

on

4

Just

2

A$

v.

4.

When the martyr Karpos at Pergamum

accused

the devil

against

the Christians.

5

Tat

19

(849).

Athenag

Res

19

(1013).

2

Athenag,

Legat

35

(e).

We

shall discuss

later

the

qualification

‘

even

~ustly.

Thc

Earl9

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

SI

John, the apostle tells the Ephesians that military

conquerors, along with kings, princes, tyrants, and

boasters, will depart hence naked, and suffer eternal

pains.I

Clemens

of

Alexandria casts aspersions on the multi-

farious preparation necessary

for

war, as contrasted with

peace and love, and on the type

of

music patronized by

“

those who are practised in war and who have despised

the divine fear.,’z He likens the Christian poor to “an

army without weapons, without war, without bloodshed,

without anger, without defilement.”3 In the Pseudo-

Justinian

‘

Address to the Greeks,’ the readers are

exhorted

:

“

Be instructed by the Divine Word, and

learn (about) the incorruptible King, and

know

His

heroes, who never inflict slaughter on (the) pples.”4

Tertullianus says that when Peter cut

off

Malchus’

ear, Jesus “cursed the works

of

the

sword

for

ever

after.”s He criticizes the gentiles’ greed

of

gold in hiring

themselves out

for

military service.6 He objects to the

literal interpretation

of

Psalm

xlv.

3

f

as

applied to

Christ

:

‘

Gird the sword upon (thy) thigh

. .

.

extend

and prosper and reign, on account

of

truth and gentle-

ness and justice

’

:

“

Who shall produce these (results)

with

the

sword,” he

asks,

‘‘

and not rather those that are

contrary to gentleness and justice, (namely), deceit and

harshness

and

injustice, (which are)

of

course the

proper

business

of

battles

?

”

7

‘‘

Is

the laurel

of

triumph,’,

he

asks elsewhere,

‘(

made up

of

leaves. or

of

corpses

7

is

it

decorated with ribbons, or tombs?

is

it besmeared with

’

Acts

of

Jn

36fin

(i.

16y

;

Pick

148).

*

Clem

b,d

I

xii.

*,I1

iv.

42.

3

Clem

@is

Divcs

34.

5

Tcrt

Pat

3

i.

1254)

:

itaque

et

gladii

opera

dedixit

in

posterum.

*

Tert

Pat

7

[i.

1~62).

7

Tert.

Murc

iii.

14

(ii.

wo),

/yd

9

(ii.

621).

4

Ps-Just

Oror

5

init.

52

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

ointments,

‘or

with the tears

of

wives and mothers,

perhaps those of some men even (who are) Christians-

for

Christ (is) among the barbarians as well

?

’’

1

Hip-

polutos, in his commentary

on

Daniel, explains the

wild beasts that lived under the tree

in

Nebuchad-

ne7zar’s dream as

“

the warriors and armies, which

adhered to

the

king, carrying out what was

com-

manded (them),

being

ready like wild beasts for making

war and destroying, and

for

rending men

like

wild

beasts.”a One

uf

the features of the Roman Empire,

when viewed by this writer as the Fourth Beast and

as

a Satanic imitation of the Christian Church, was its

preparation

for

war, and its collection

of

the noblest

men from

all

countries as its warriors.3 The Bardesanic

‘

Book

of

the Laws

of

the Countries’ mentions the law

of

the Seres (a mysterious Eastern people) forbidding

to kill, and the frequency with which kings

seize

coun-

tries which do not belong to them, and abolish their

laws.4 Origenes spoke depreciatively

of

the military

and juridical professions as being

prized

by ignorant

and blind seekers for wealth and glory.5

Cyprlanus declaims about the

“

wars scattered every-

where with the bloody horror

of

camps. The world,” he

says, “is wet with mutual blood(shed): and homicide

is a crime when individuals commit

it,

(but) it

is

called

a

virtue, when it is carried on publicly.

Not

the reason

of

innocence, but the magnitude

of

savagery,

demands

impunity

for

crimes.” He censures also

the

vanity and

Tert

Or

IZ

(i.

940.

In

Pdzi

IO

(ii

m),

he

ups

soldiers

with

tax-gntherers

as

those

to

whom,

besides

the

sons

of

A%rrn,

the

Baptist

preached

repenwee:.,

’

Hipp

Doff

111

viii.

9.

3

Hipp

Dan

fV

VUI.

7,

k.

z.

4

AMCL

xxiib.

101,

I&.

5

Greg

Thaum

PU~J

vi.

76f.

On

the

low

idea

entertained

of

the

soldids

calling

in

the

third

century,

Md

porticul~ly

by

philooophers

uul

Christians,

see

hack

MC

6g

f.

The

Early

Chktian

Disapproval

of

War

58

p

deceitful pomp

of

the military office.’ “What

use

is

it,” asks Commodianus,

‘I

to know about the vices

of

kings

and their wars?

”2

Gregorios censures certain

Christians

for

seizing the property of others

in

corn-

pensation

for

what they had lost in a raid made by the

barbarians

:

just as the latter, he says, had

‘‘

inflicted the

(havoc)

of

war”

on

these Christians, they were acting

similarly -towards others.3

The

Didaskalia forbids the

receipt

of

monetary help for the church from “any of

the magistrates

of

the Roman Empire, who are polluted

by war.”

4

The Pseudo- Justinian Cohortatio censures

the god Zeus as

being

in

Homer’s words

I‘

disposer

of

the wars

of

men.”

5

In

the Clementine Homilies, Peter

asks,

if

God loves war, who wishes

for

peace

1:

speaks

obscurely

of

a female prophecy, who, “when she con-

ceives and brings forth temporary kings, stirs up

wars,

which

shed

much blood,”7 and points his hearers to the

continual wars going

on

even in their day owing to the

existence

of

many kings

8

;

Zacchaeus depicts the heretic

Simon

as

‘standing

like

a

general, guarded by the

crowd

9

;

and

Clernens tells the Greeks that the lusts

of

the flesh must

be

sins, because they beget wars, murders,

and

confusion.10

Similarly in the Recognitions, Peter

pleads that a decision by truth and worth %better than

a decisionby

force

of

arms,lx and says

:

“

Wars and con-

*

Cypr

Dm&

6,

of.

In

E

73 (72)

4

he

calls

heretics

pes

et

gladii.

’

&mrnod

r%m

585

f

;

cf

kt,

i.

34

(1.

12).

ii.

(11.

11

f),

22.

1

Greg

Thaum

Ep

Cun

5

(rd

?roXIpou

ripyboavroj

4

-h

rv

vi.

4

fomni

magistratu imperii

domai,

qui

in

macutati

sunt).

We

are

left

uncertain

as

to

whether

811-or only some“.

magistrates

are

spurned

as

bloodstained

:

but probably

the latter

is

meant.

5

Ps-Jmt

Cohort

2

(Horn

I/

xix.

2%)

:

Qdpcjrrwv

raplqc

sohkpo~o.

Cf

17

(wars

etc

represented

by

Homer

as

the

result

of

a multiplicity

of

NhS)

.

Clem

Horn

ii

44.

7

op

ctt

iii.

24,

cf

25

fin,

26.

op

cit

iii.

62

;

cf

ix.

2

f.

P

op

cit

iv.

q.

’

9

03

c.t

iii.

29.

I’

Uem

Recog

ii.

24.

54

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

tests are born from sins

;

but where

sin

is

not committed,

there is peace to the

soul,"^

“hence” (i.e. from idol-

worship) “the madness

of

wars blazed out

’’2

;

and

Niceta remarks that implacable wars arise from lust.3

Methodios says that the nations, intoxicated by the

devil, sharpen their passions for murderous battlest and

speaks of the bloody wars

of

the past.5

The treatise of Arnobius abounds

in

allusions to the

moral iniquity

of

war. Contrasting Christ with the

rulers

of

the Roman Empire, he asks

:

“

Did he, claiming

royal power for himself, occupy the whole world with

fierce legions, and, (of) nations at peace from the

be-

ginning, destroy and remove some, and compel others

to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him

?

”

6

What use is it to the world that there should be

.

generals of the greatest experience in warfare, skilled in

the capture

of

cities, (and) soldiers immoveable and

invincible in cavalry battles or in a fight on foot?”

7

Arnobius roundly denies that it was any part of the

divine purpose that men’s souls, “forgetting that

they

are from one source, one parent and head, should tear

up and break down the rights

of

kinship, overturn

their

cities, devastate lands in enmity, make slaves of free-

men,

violate maidens and other men’s wives, hate one

another, envy the

joys

and good fortune

of

others,

in

a

word

all

curse, carp at, and rend one another with the

biting

of

savage teeth.”8 He rejects with indignation

the pagan idea that divine beings could patronize,

or

take pleasure or interest in, human wars. Speaking

of

Mars, for instance, he says

:

“

If

he is the one who allays

I

op

cit

ii.

36.

a

op

cit

iv.

31.

4

Method

Syt%p

V.

5.

3

op

cit

x.

41.

5

op

cit

x.

I,

4.

1

id

ii.

38

id

ii.

45.

‘

Arnob

ii.

I.

The

Eurly

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

55

the madness of war, why do wars never cease for a day

?

But if he is the author

of

them, we shall therefore say

that

a

god, for the indulgence

of

his own pleasure, brings

the

whole world into collision, sows causes of dissension

and strife among nations separated

by

distance of lands,

brings together from different (quarters)

so

many thou-

sands

of

mortals and speedily heaps the fields with

corpses, makes blood flow in torrents, destroys the

stablest empires, levels cities with the ground, takes

away liberty from the freeborn and imposes (on them)

the state of slavery, rejoices

in

civil broils, in the fratri-

cidal death of brothers who die together and in the

parricidal horror

of

mortal conflict between sons and

fathers.”

I

Lactantius also, in his ‘Divine Institutes,’ again and

again alludes to the prevalence

of

war

as

one of the

great blots on the history and morals

of

humanity.

I

quote three only

of

the numerous passages. Speaking

excellence

of

the athlete, because tbere is no harm in

it; but royal excellence, because it is wont to do harm

extensively, they

so

admire that they think that brave

and warlike generals are placed

in

the assembly of the

gods, and that there is no other way to immortality

than

by

leading armies, devastating foreign (countries),

destroying cities, overthrowing towns,

(and)

either

:

slaughtering or enslaving free peoples. Truly, the

more

men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and)

slain,

the more noble and renowned

do

they think them-

selves

;

and, captured by the appearance of empty

glory, they give the name

of

excellence to their

of

the Romans, he

says

:

“

They despise indeed the

wongfulness

of

war

occur

in

ii.

3,

76,

iii.

28,

v.

45,

vi.

2,

vii.

9,

36,

51.

Arnob

iii.

26.

Rhetorical

allusions

to

this

and

other

aspects

of

the

56

Tinc

Earl9

Chriaiiam

Attitude

to

War

crimes. Now

I

would rather that they should make

gods

for

themselves from the slaughter

of

wild beasts

than that they should approve of an immortality

so

bloody.

If

any one

has

slain a single man, he

is

regarded

as

contaminated and wicked, nor do they

think it right that

he

should

be

admitted to this

earthly dwelling

of

the gods. But he who has

slaughtered endless thousands

of

men, deluged the

fields

with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is

admitted not

only

to

a

temple, but even to heaven.”

1

“They believe that the

gods

love whatever they

themselves desire, whatever

it

is

for

the sake

of

which acts

of

theft and homicide and brigandage

rage every day,

for

the sake of which wars through-

out the whole world overturn peoples and cities.””

In criticizing the definition

of

virtue as that which

puts

first the advantages of one’s country, he points

out that this means the extension

of

the national

boundaries by means

of

aggressive wars on neigh-

bouring states, and

so

on

:

“

all which things are

certainly not virtues, but the overthrowing

of

virtues.

For,

in the first place, the connection of human society

is taken away; innocence

is

taken away; abstention

from

(what

is)

another’s

is

taken away; in

fact,

justice itself is

taken away

;

for justice cannot bear the cutting asunder

of

the human race, and, wherever arms glitter,

she

must

be

put to flight and banished.

.

For how can he

be

just, who injures, hates, despoils, kills

?

And

those

who

strive to

be

of

advantage to their country

do

all these

things.”

3

Eusebios ascribed the incessant occurrence

of

*

Lact

Inst

I

rviii.

8-10

;

cf

11-17.

’

Lact

Imt

I1

vi.

3.

3

Lact

Imt

VI

vi.

IS-24.

The

words

quoted

are

taken

from

~gf.

22.

For

other

e5

dealing

with the subject,

see

fmt

I

xix.

6,

V

v.

4,

12-14

vi.

v.

15,

xis.

zf,

Io,

VII

xv.

98.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

57

furious

wars

in

pre-Christian times, not only to the

multiplicity of rulers before the establishment

of

the

Roman Empire, but also to the instigation of the demons

who tyrannized over the nations that worshipped them.1

He refers to Ares

as

‘(the demon who

is

the bane

of

mortals and the lover of war

”

2

and remarks that

“

the

din of strife, and battles, and wars, are the concern

of

Athena, but not peace

or

the things

of

peace.”

3

This collection

of

passages will suffice to show how

strong and deep was the early Christian revulsion

from

and disapproval

of

war, both

on

account

of

the dissen-

sion

it

represented and of the infliction

of

bloodshed

and suffering which it involved. The quotations show

further how closely warfare and murder were connected

in Christian thought

by

their possession of a common

element-homicide

;

and the connection gives a fresh

significance €or the subject

before

us

to

the extreme

Christian sensitiveness in regard

to

the

sin

of murder-

a sensitiveness attested by the frequency with which

warnings, prohibitions, and condemnations in regard to

this

particular

sin

were uttered and the severity with

which the Church dealt with the commission

of

it

by

any

of

her own members. The strong disapprobation

felt

by

Christians

for

war was due

to

its close

rela-

tionship with the deadly

sin

that sufficed to

keep

the

man

guilty

of

it

permanently outside the Christian

community.

4

Eus

PE

Iob-IIa,

179ab.

a

Eus

PE

163b.

3

Eus

PE

rgzc.

4

1

have

not

attempted to quote

or

give references

to

the numerous

allusions

to

murder

in

Chnstian literature. The attitude of condemnation

is,

a

we

might expect,

uniform

and

unanimous.

Archdeacon

Cunningham’s

summary

statements on

the

early

Ch&tian

attitude to

war

are

completely

at

variance

with the

facts

we

have

just

been

surveymg

:

thus,

“there

was

not

in

primitive

times any definite

qainst

this

prticular

symptom

in

society

of

tbc

evil

dk

in

~~~~

58

The

Eurly

Christian

Attitude

to

War

TIIE

ESSENTIAL

PEACEFULNESS

OF

CHRISTIANITY.

----The natural counterpart

of

the Christian disapproval

of

war was the conception of peace as being

of

the very

stuff and substance of the Christian life. Peace,

of

course, meant

a

number

of

different things to the early

Christian. It meant reconciliation between himself and

God

;

it meant the stilling

of

turbulent passions and

evil desires in his own heart; it meant the harmony

and concord that normally reigned within the Christian

community

;

it meant (to Paul, for instance, in writing

‘Ephesians

’)

the reconciliation of Jew and gentile

;

it

meant immunity

from

annoyance and persecution at

the hands

of

pagans

;

it meant also freedom from the

distractions, toils, and dangers of actual war. Little

.

purpose would be served by attempting an analysis

of

all occurrences of the word ‘peace

in

early Christian

literature according to the particular shade

of

meaning

in each

case,

with the object

of

dissolving out the exact

amount said about peace as the antithesis and correlative

of

war. The result would be little

more

than a general

impression

of

the Christian inclination towards, and

approval

of,

peace. That fact

in

itself

is

not without

significance: for, while there are many places in which

peace is mentioned without any apparent reference to

the military calling-for instance, where Peter, shortly

before baptizing the centurion Cornelius, gave him the

pith of the Christian gospel as “the

word

which God

sent to the

sons

of Israel, giving the good

news

of peace

hearts

”

(Chri&zxify

urd

Politirs,

249)

;

the first

four

centuries are taken

as a

single

period

under

the heading

“

The acceptance

of

War

as

inevitable

in an evil world

”

(249

f)

;

“SO

far

as

we

can

rely on

the

argument

from

silence,

Christians

h

mt

ap&ar

to

Wme

been

repellea?

by

bdoodshd

in

war.

Pliny

does

not complain

of

them, and there seem to

be

no spcial warnings

in regard

to

un-Christian conduct in connection with

military

service

”

(251)

(italics mine:

the

argument

from

Plinius will

be

touched

on

later).

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War 59

through Jesus Christ

”

1-yet the close and repeated

identification of Christianity with peace even in

a

vague

sense

(e.g.,

in the opening and closing salutations

of

letters, and in phrases like

‘

the

God

of

Peace

’1

has an

important bearing on the Christian attitude to war,

particularly in view

of.

the many direct and explicit

allusions we find to peace in the military sense. It will

be

sufficient for our present purpose to quote only a few

of

the more explicit passages. Paul,

for

instance, tells

the Romans

:

‘I

If

possible, as far as lies in your power,

be

at peace with all men”

2

:

similarly, the author

of

Hebrews: “Pursue peace with

all

(men).”

3

The

evangelist Matthew’ quotes the words of Jesus

:

‘I

Happy are

the

peace-makers

”

4

;

and

Luke

tells

us

that at the birth

of

jesus the host

of

angels sang:

“

Glory in the highest to

God

and on earth peace

among men whom He favours,”

j

and represents

Zacharias

as

praying God

“

to guide our feet into (the)

way of peace.”6

In

the liturgical prayer at the end

of

the

epistle

of

Clemens of Rome occurs

a

petition

for

world-wide peace among men generally

:

Give concord

and peace to

us

and to all who inhabit the earth,

as

Thou gavest

to

our fathers.”

7

Then he prays specially

for the rulers

:

‘I

Give them, Lord, health, peace, concord,

stability, that they may administer without offence the

government given to them

by

Thee.

. . .

Do

Thou,

Lord, direct their counsel

.

in order that they,

administering piously with peace and gentleness the

authority given them by Thee, may find favour with

Ac

x.

36,

48.

Lk

ii.

K4:

are

the

dvCipw7r01

Eilo’o~io~

men generally,

or

Christians

Lk

i.

79

;

cf

the reference

to

national enemies

in

w.

71,

74.

3

Heb xii.

14.

’

Rom

xii.

18.

4

Mtv.

9.

only,

or

Jews

7

‘

I

Clem

1x.

4.

60

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

Thee.”

1

Jgnatius exclaims

:

“

Nothing

is

better than

peace, by which

all

war

of

those

in

heaven and those

on earth is abolished.”a

A

Christian Elder quoted

by

Eirenaios said that King

Solomon

“announced to the

nations that peace would come and prefigured the reign

of Christ.”

3

Justinus told

the

Emperors that the

Christians were the best allies and helpers they had in

promoting peace,4

on

the ground that their belief in

future punishment and in the omniscience

of

God

provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than

’\

”

and let

us

go

up

to the mountain of the Lord,

to

the house of the

God

of

Jacob; and He will teach

us.

of

His

ways, and we

will walk in His paths

:

for

out of Zion shall

go

forth

the law, and the word

of

the Lord from Jerusalem.

And He shall judge among the nations, and convict

many peoples

;

and they shall beat their swords into

ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-knives

;

nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall

they learn war any more.”

5

This prophecy

is

quoted,

in whole

or

in part, by

a

succession of Christian writers,

who all urge that it is

being

fulfilled in the extension

of

Christianity, the adherents of which are peace-loving

people, who do not make war. Thus Justinus quotes

it

in

his Apology, and goes

on

:

“And that this

has

happened,

ye

can

be persuaded.

For

from Jerusalem

3 Eiren

IV

xxvii.

i

(ii.

240)

:

the reference

is

apparently

to

A.

Ixyii.

7.

4

Just

I

Ap

xu.

I

:

’Apwyoi

d’iyiv

cui

vhppap

x

4

dpipvp

iqdv

’

I

Clem

lxi.

If.

Ig

E

win.

2.

aawwv

+ov

riWop37rwv.

5

I=

ii.

3

6

~f

M&

ir.

a

f.

The

Early

Christian

Disappoval

of

War

61

twelve men went out into the world, and these (were)

unlearned, unable to

speak

;

but by ,(the) power

of

God

they told every race

of

men that they had been

sent by Christ to teach all (men) the word of

God.

And we, who were formerly slayers of one another, not

only do not make war upon our enemies, but, for the

sake of neither lying nor deceiving those who examine

us, gladly die confessing Christ.”

He

quotes

it

again

in his Dialogue with Truphon the

Jew,

and insists

in

opposition to the Jewish interpretation that it

is

already

being fulfilled

:

“and we,” he goes on,

“

who had been

filled with war and mutual slaughter and every

wickedness, have each one-all the world over-

changed the instruments

of

war, the swords into

ploughs and the spears into farming instruments, and

we cultivate piety, righteousness, love

for

men, faith,

(and) the hope which

is

from the Father Himself

through the Crucified One.”= Eirenaios quotes it, and

comments upon it as follows

:

“

If therefore another

law

and word, issuing

from

Jerusalem, has thus made

peace among those nations which received *it, and

through them convinced many a people of folly,

it

seems

clear that the prophets were speaking

of

someone else

(besides Jesus). But

if

the law

of

liberty, that

is,

the

Word of

God,

being proclaimed to the whole earth by

the

Apostles

who went out from Jerusalem, effected

a

change to such an extent that (the nations) themselves

wrought their swords and lances of war into ploughs

and

changed them into sickles, which He gave for

reaping

corn,

(that

is),

into instruments

of

peace, and

if

they now know not how to fight, but, (when they are)

struck,

offer

the other cheek

also,

(then)

the

prophets

’

Just

I

Apnrir.

1-3.

a

Jut

Did

xog

E

(728

f).

62

The

Early Christian

Attitude

to

War

did not say this of anyone else, but

of

him who did it.

Now this is our Lord,” etc.1 Tertullianus quotes

it,

and asks

:

I‘

Who else therefore are understood than

ourselves,

who,

taught by the new law, observe those

things, the old law-the abolition of which the very

action (of changing swords into ploughs, etc.) proves

was to come-being obliterated

?

For the old law

vindicated itself by the vengeance of the sword, and

plucked out eye for eye, and- requited injury with

punishment; but the new law pointed to clemency,

and changed the former savagery

of

swords and lances

into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction

of war

upon

rivals and foes of the law into the peace-

ful

acts

of

ploughing and cultivating the earth. And

so

.

the observance

of

the new law and of spiritual

circumcision has shone forth in acts

of

peaceful

obedience.”

*

He quotes

it

again clause by clause

in his treatise against

Markion,

inserting comments

as he goes along

:

“

‘

And they shall beat their swords

into ploughs, and their spears into sickles,’ that is, they

shall change the dispositions

of

injurious minds and

hostile tongues and every (sort

of)

wickedness and

blasphemy into the pursuits

of

modesty and peace.

‘

And nation shall not take sword against nation,’

namely, (the sword) of dissension. ‘And they shall

not learn to make war any more,’ that is,

to

give

effect to hostile feelings

:

so

that here too thou mayest

learn that Christ is promised not

(as

one who is)

powerful in war, but (as) a bringer

of

peace

;”

and

he

goes

on

to insist that it is Christ who must

be

referred

6-9

in

Dt-ts

61

(3

).

1

Ekn

IV

xxxiv.

4

(ii.

271

f).

Cf

the

use

made

by

Eirennios

of

Isa

xi.

2

Tert

Jud

3

(ii.

6043

:

the

last words ore.in

pgcis

obsequia

elusit.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

63

to.’ He adverts to the prophecy again a little later:

And then they beat their swords into ploughs

.

.,’

that

is,

minds (that were) once wild and savage they

change into feelings (that are) upright and productive

of

good

fruit.”

2

Origenes quotes it

:

To

those who

ask us whence

we

have come or whom we have (for)

a leader, we say that

we

have come in accordance with

the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and

arrogant swords

of

argument into ploughshares, and

we

convert into sickles the spears we formerly used

in fighting.

For

we no longer take

‘

sword against

a nation,’ nor do we learn ‘any more to make war,’

having become

sons

of peace for the sake

of

Jesus,

who

is

our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral

(customs)

in

which we were strangers to the covenants.”

3

It is quoted

in

the Pseudo-Cyprianic treatise Against

the Jews’ and in the Dialogus de Recta Fidei

as

a

reference to the state of affairs inaugurated by Christ.4

Lastly, Eusebios quotes it-after referring to the

multiplicity of rulers in pre-Christian times and the

consequent frequency

of

wars

and universality of

military training-as prophesying the change that

was actually introduced at the advent of Christ. True,

he conceives the fulfilment to lie-in part at least-

in the unification of all governments

in

that

of

Augustus and the resultant cessation of conflicts

;

but he

goes

on

to point out that, while the demons

goaded men into furious wars with one another, “at

the same time, by

our

Saviour’s most

pious

and most

peaceful teaching, the destruction of polytheistic error

3

Orig

Ccls

v.

33.

What

exactly

Origenes

means

by

sac

aohpm4

I

Tert

Murc

iii.

21

(ii.

351).

Tert

Marc

ir.

I

(ii.

361).

Xoyu&

pug+”

cui

@pmtmi~

I

do

not

know

:

anyhow,

the

reference

to

actufd

WaI

e

is

clear.

Ps-CyprJudg; Adamant

i.

IO.

64

Th

Early

Christian

Attitude

lo

War

began

to

be

accomplished, and the dissensions

of

the

nations immediately began to find rest from former

evils. Which (fact),” he concludes,

I

regard as

a

very great proof of our Saviour’s divine and irresistible

power.”

1

Resuming our account

of

the various laudatory

allusions

of

Christian authors to peace, we

find

Athenagoras saying to the Emperors

:

“By

your

sagacity the whole inhabited world enjoys profound

peace.”

*

Clemens

of

Alexandria says

of

the Chris-

tians: We are being educated, not

in

war,

but

in

peace

”

;

‘I

We, the peaceful race

”

are more temperate

than “the warlike races”

;

among musical instruments,

‘I

man is in reality a pacific instrument,” the others

exciting military and amorous passions;

‘I

but

we

have made use

of

one instrument, the peaceful word

only, wherewith we honour

God.”

3

Tertullianus,

defending the Christian meetings, asks

:

To

whose

danger did we ever meet together? What we are

when we are separated] that we are when we are

gathered together

:

what we are as individuals, that

we are as a body, hurting no one, troubling

no

one

’’

4

:

he calls the Christian “the son of peace.”

5

The devil,

says

Hippolutos, knows that the prayer of the saints

produces peace for the world.”6 The Pseudo-

Melitonian

Apologist

prescribed the knowledge and

fear

of

the one

God

as the only means

by

which

a

kingdom could be peaceably governed.7 The Bardesanic

I

Pook

of

the Laws

of

the Countries foretold

the

coming

Arhcnag

&pi

1

(892),

Cf

37

h

(972).

’

Eus

PE

rob-lxa,

cf~7gnb.

9

Clem

Pad

I

x>.

98

tin,

11

n.

32,

iv.

42.

4

Tert

Apol39

(I.

478).

5

Tat

Cm

II

(ii.

92).

Hipp

Dm

111

uiv.

7.

7

Ps-McI

IO

(ANCL

dib.

121.)

The

Early

Chrbtian

Disapproual

of

War-

65

of

universal peace as a result

of

the dissemination

of

new teaching and by

a

gift from God.‘ In the Pseudo-

Justinian

‘

Address to the Greeks,’ the Word

of

God

is

invoked as

:

0

trumpet of peace to the soul that is

at war

!’I

2

Commodianus says to the Christian

:

‘I

Make

thyself a peace-maker to all men.”

3

Cyprianus

com-

mends patience as that which

‘I

guards the peace.”

4

Arnobius tells the pagans

:

‘I

It

would

not

be difficult

to prove that, after Christ was heard of in the world,

those wars, which ye

say

were brought about on

account

of

(the gods’) hatred for our religion, not only

did not increase, but were even greatly diminished

by the repression of furious passions.

For

since

we-

so

large

a

force

of

men-have received (it) from his

teachings and laws, that evil ought not to

be

repaid

with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than

to

inflict (it), to shed one’s own (blood) rather than stain

one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another,

the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit

from Christ, through whom the madness of savagery has

been softened] and has begun to withhold its hostile

hands from the

blood

of a kindred creature.

But

if

absolutely all who understand that they are

men

by

virtue, not

of

the form of their bodies, but

of

the power

of

their reason, were willing to lend an ear for a little

while to

his

healthful and peaceful decrees, and would

not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to

their

own

senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole

world would long ago have turned the uses of iron

to milder works and

be

living

in

the softest tranquillity,

and

would have come together

in

healthy concord

’

ANCL

xxiib.

I

I.

’

PI-

ut

Ord

5.

3

Commod

Imtr

ii.

22.

6

Cw

8m

Pd

+o:

cf

C&m

L

om

iii.

19,

Racogii.

27-31.

66

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

without breaking the sanctions of treaties.”r The

martyr Lucianus told the judge at Nicomedia that

one of the laws given by Christ to Christians was

that they should be keen on peace.”2

It

might of course

be

urged that these expressions

or

at least the bulk

of

them voiced the sentiments of

a

community that bore

no

political responsibility and

had been disciplined by no political experience. “The

opinions of the Christians of the first three centuries,”

says Lecky,

‘I

were usually formed without any regard

Church obtained an ascendancy, it was found necessary

speedily

to

modify them.”

3

It must of course

be

frankly admitted that the passages we have quoted

do not explicitly handle the ultimate problems with

which the philosophy

of

war and penal justice has to

deal

:

but

it

is

quite another question whether the policy

of

conduct dictated by what many might consider this

blind attachment

to

peace and this blind horror of war

did not involve a better solution of those problems than

had yet been given to the world. The modifications’of

which Lecky speaks were due to other causes than the

enlargement

of

the Church’s vision and experience.

The grave relaxation

of

her early moral purity had

a

good deal to do with it

:

and, as we shall see later,

the early Church was not without at least one

com-

petent thinker who was fully equal to giving a good

account of the peace-loving views of himself and his

brethren

in

face

of

the objections raised

by

the prac-

tical pagan critic.

i

to the necessities of civil or political

life

;

but

when the

is

alluded

to

by

Methodios

(Symp

x.

I

fin).

*

Arnob

i.

6

:

the

general

prevalence

of

peace since the time

of

Christ

a

Routh

iv.

6

(studere

paci).

3

Lecky

ii.

39.

The

Early

Chrbtian

Disapproval

of

W'ar

67

THE

CHRISTIAN

TREATMENT

OF

ENEMIES

AND

WRONGDOERS.-A very interesting sidelight

is

cast

on the attitude

of

the early Christians to war by the

serious view they took of those precepts of the Master

enjoining love for all, including enemies, and forbidding

retaliation upon the wrongdoer, and the close and literal

way in which they endeavoured to

obey

them. This

,

view and this obedience of those first follawers

of

Jesus

are the best commentary we can have upon the problem-

atic teaching in question, and the best answer we can

give to those who argue that it was not meant to

be

practised save in a perfect society,

or

that it refers only

to the inner disposition

of

the heart and not to the out-

ward actions, or that it concerns only the personal and

private and not the social and political relationships

of

life. The Christian emphasis on the duty of love may

be thought by some to have little bearing on the

ques-

tion of war, inasmuch

as

it is possible

to

argue that one

can fight without bitterness and kill

in

battle without

hatred. Whatever may

be

thought on that particular

point, the important fact for

us

to notice just now is,

not only that the early Christians considered themselves

bound by these precepts

of

love and non-resistance in

an extremely close and literal way, but that they did

actually interpret them as ruling out the indictment of

wrongdoers in the law-courts and participation in the

acts

of

war. And when we consider that these same

simple-minded Christians of the first generations did

more for the moral purification

of

the world in which

they lived than perhaps has ever been done before

or

since, their principles will appear to

be

not quite

so

foolish

as

they are often thought to

be.

We proceed to quote the main utterances

of

the early

68

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

Christian writers on

this

subject. The Apostle

Paul

writes to the Thessalonians

:

(‘May the Lord make

you to increase and abound

in

love towards one

another and towards all.1

.

See (to it) that

no

one

renders to any evil

in

return for evil, but always pursue

what

is

good towards one another and towards all.”z

To

the Galatians

:

‘‘

As

then we have opportunity, let

us

wmk that which is good towards all.”

3

To

the

Corinthians: “What (business) is it

of

mine to judge

outsiders?

. .

.

outsiders God will judge.”* To the

Romans

:

I‘

Render to no one evil for evil.

.

If

pos-

sible,

as

far

as

lies

in

your power, be at peace with all

men.

Do

not avenge yourselves, beloved, but Ieave

room for the wrath

(of

God)

;

for it is written

:

‘

Ven-

.

geance

is

mine,

I

will repay, saith the Lord.’

But

if

thine enemy hungcr, feed him

;

if

he thirst, give him

drink

;

for by doing this thou

wilt

heap coals of fire

on

his head. Be not conquered by evil, but conquer evil

with (what is) good:.

.

Owe no man anything, except

mutual love

:

for he

who

loves

his neighbour

has

ful-

filled the Law. For the (commandment)

:

‘

Thou shalt

not commit adultery,’ Thou shalt not kill,’ Thou shalt

not steal,’ ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and whatever other

commandment there is,

is

summed up in this saying

:

Thou shalt love thy neighbour

as

thyself.’ Love does

not work evil

on

a neighbour

:

love therefore

is

the ful-

filment

of

the Law.”

5

To

the Philippians

:

“

Let

your

forbearance be known to

all

men.”!

A

practical

1

I

Th

iii.

12.

I

Th

v.

15.

:

1

I

Cor

v.

IZ

f.

The

allusions in

z

Cor

vi.

6

to

‘

longsuffering

’

and

love

anfeigned

’

refer to Paul’s attitude

to

outsiders in

his

missionary

work.

5

Rom

xii.

17-21,

xiii.

8-10.

I

postpone

for

the present

all

cornmen

6

Phil

iv.

5

(r3muic

++v).

3

Gal

vi.

IO.

on

the interveni

passage

on the

State

(Rom

xiii.

1-7).

The

Early

Chrisiian,

Disapproval

of

WUT

69

instance

of

the way

in

which Paul

‘

conquered evil

with what is good

’

appears

in

his treatment

of

Onesimos, the slave who had robbed his Christian

master and then run away from

him

:

Paul, who came

across

him at Rome, called him

‘

My child, whom

I

have begotten

in

my bonds,’ and gained

by

love

so

great and

good

an influence over him

as

to

be

able to

send him back with a letter

oi

apology ad commenda-

tion to his offended master.’

In

the Pastorals we read

:

“The servant

of

God ought not to fight, but to

be

mild

to all,

a

(skilled) teacher, patient

of

evil

(ivt.F,lxaKou),

gently admonishing his opponents-God may possibly

give them repentance (leading) to

a

knowledge

of

truth,

and they may return to soberness out of the snare

of

the devil”

2

;

‘‘

Kemind them

.

to

be

ready for every

god

work, to rail at no one,

to

be uncontentious,

for-

bearing, displaying all gentleness towards all men.”

3

In

the Epistle

of

James

:

“

With

it

(the tongue)

we

bless the

Lord

and Father, and with

it

we curse men

who are made in the likeness

of

God. Out of the same

mouth issues blessing and cursing.

My

brothers, this

ought not to

be

SO."^

In

the Epistle

of

Peter:

“

Honour all rnen.5

. .

.

For unto this were ye called,

because Christ suffered for you, leaving

you

an example

in

order that

ye

might follow in his footsteps

:

.

who,

when he was reviled, did not revile in return, when he

suffered, did not threaten, but entrusted himself to Him

who

judges

righteously.6

. . .

Finally, (let) all (be)

. .

.

humble, not rendering evil

in

return

for

evil

or

reviling

’

Philemon,

passim.

3

Tit

iii.

I

f.

‘

I

Pel

ii.

21,

23:

the

words

are

actually

addressed

to

slaves,

who

(vv.

15-m)

are exhorted to

submit

patiently to

unjust

treatment from

their

masters,

but,

as

the

shows,

the

words

apply

to

all Christians.

2

Tim

ii.

24

ff (but see

above,

49).

4

Jas

iii.

9

f.

5

I

Pet

u.

17.

70

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

in

return for reviling, but on the contrary blessing (those

who revile you)

:

for unto this were ye called, in order

that ye might inherit a blessing.1

.

,

For it

is

better,

if the Will of

God

wills (it

so),

to suffer for doing right

rather than for doing wrong: because Christ also

suf-

fered once for sins, the righteous

for

the unrighteous,

in

order that he might bring

us

to God."= We do not

need to quote over again the passages in the Gospels

bearing upon this aspect

of

Christian conduct, as they

have already been fully considered in our examination

of the teaching of Jesus; but it

is

important to bear

in

mind the immense significance which those passages

would have for the evangelists who embodied them in

their Gospels and

for

the contemporary generation

of

Christians. Echoes of them are heard

in

other Christian

writings

of

the time. Thus the Didache says

:

"

This

is

the way of life

:

first, thou shalt love the God who made

thee, secondly, thy neighbour as thyself: and

all

things

whatsoever thou wouldest not should happen to thee,

do not thou

to

another. The teaching of these words

is this

:

Bless those who curse you, and pray for your

enemies, and fast on behalf

of

those who persecute you

:

for what thanks (will be due to you),

if

ye love (only)

those who love you

?

do not the gentiles also do the

same? But love ye those who hate you, and ye shall

not have an enemy.

. . .

If

anyone give thee

a

blow

upon the right cheek, turn the other also to

him,

and

thou shalt be perfect:

if

anyone impress thee (to

go)

one mile,

go

two with him

:

if

anyone take away thy

cloak, give him thy tunic also

:

if

anyone take from

thee what

is

thine, do not demand

it

back.3

.

Thou

shalt not plan any evil against thy neighbour.

Thou

'

I

Pet

iii.

8

1.

r

Pet

iii.

17f.

3

Did

i.

2-4.

The

Early

Christian

&approval

of

War

71

shalt not hate any man

;

but some thou shalt reprove,

on some thou shalt have mercy, for some

thou

shalt

pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own

sou1.~

.

Thou

shalt not become liable to anger-for anger

leads to murder-nor jealous nor contentious nor pas-

sionate, for from all these things murders are born.”

a

“

Every word,” says the Epistle of Barnabas, (‘which

issues

from you through your mouth in faith and lbve,

shall

be

a means of conversion and hope to many.”

3

An

eloquent practical example of the true and typical

Christian policy towards sinful and wayward paganism,

is that beautiful story told by Clemens of Alexandria

about the aged apostle John. The story has every

appearance

of

being historically true, at

least

in sub-

stance

;

but, even

if

fictitious, it must still

be

(

in

character,’ and therefore have value

as

evidence

for

the

approved Christian method of grappling with heathen

immorality. The story

is

briefly as follows. John,

while visiting the Christians in some city-perhaps

Smyrna-saw in the church a handsome heathen youth,

and

feeling

attracted to him, entrusted him,

in

the

presence of Christian witnesses, to the bishop’s care.

The bishop took the youth home, taught, and baptized

him

;

and then, thinking him secure, neglected him.

When thus prematurely freed from restraint, bad com-

panions

got

hold of him, and by degrees corrupted and

enticed him into

evil

ways and finally into the commis-

sion

of

some great crime.

He

then took to the mountains

with them as a brigand-chief, and committed acts

of

bloodshed and cruelty. Some time after, John visited

Did

ii.

6

f

:

cf

Barn xix.

3

ff.

Did

iii.

2.

3

Barn

xi.

8.

Cf.

also

the

allusions

to

meekness,

forbearance,

long.

suffering,

etc.,

in

I

Clem

riii.

I,

XIX.

3,

xxx.

I,

3.

?Z

The

L

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

the same city again, and, learning on enquiry what

had happened, called for a horse and guide, and at

length found his way unarmed into the young captain’s

presence. The latter fled away in shame

;

but the

apostle pursued him with entreaties

:

‘I

Why, my child)

dost thou flee from

me,

thine own father, unarmed (and)

aged (as

I

am)

?

Have mercy on me, my child

;

fear

not. Thou still hast hope

of

life.

I

will give account

to Christ for thee.

If

need

be,

I

will

willingly endure

thy death (for thee), as the Lord endured it for

us.

I

will give my life for thine. Stand

;

believe; Christ has

sent me.” The youth halted, looked downwards, cast

away his weapons, trembled, and wept. When the

apostle approached, the youth embraced him, and

poured forth confessions and lamentations. John

assured him

of

the Saviour’s pardon, and, falling

on

his knees, and kissing the right hand which the youth

had concealed

in

shame, prevailed

upon

him to suffer

himself to be led back to the church. There the

apostle spent time with him in intercessory prayer,

prolonged fasting, and multiplied counsels, and did not

depart until he had restored him to the church,

‘a

trophy of visible resurrection.’

I

Ignatius w5ites to the Ephesians

:

“And

on behalf

of

the rest of men, pray unceasingly. For there

is

in them

a

hope of repentance, that they may attain to

God.

Allow them therefore to become disciples even through

your works. Towards their anger

(be)

ye gentle;

towards their boasting (be) ye meek; against their

railing (oppose) ye your prayers

;

against their error

(be) ye steadfast in the faith

:

against their savagery

(be)

ye mild, not being eager to imitate them. Let

US

‘

Clem

Q~is

Divrs

xlii.

1-15

;

Eus

HE

I11

rxiii.

6-19.

The

Early

ChristiavL

Disapprovul

of

War

73

be

found their brothers in forbearance

:

and let

us

be

eager to be imitators of the Lord, (to see) who can

be most wronged,

who

(most) deprived, who (most)

despised, in order that no plant of the devil be found in

you, but in all chastity and temperance

ye

may remain

in Jesus Christ as regards both flesh and spirit.”

I

He

says

to

the Trallians

of

their bishop

:

‘+

His gentleness

is

a

power

:

I

believe even the godless respect him.”

*

‘I

I

need gentleness,” he tells them,

‘I

by which the Ruler

of

this age

is

brought

to

nought.”

3

He exhorts his friend

Polukarpos, the bishop

of

Smyrna

:

I‘

Forbear all men

in lpve,

as

indeed thou dost.”

4

Polukarpos himself tells

the Philippians that God

will

raise

us

from

the dead if

we

“

do

His will and walk in

His

commandments

.

. .

not rendering evil in return

for

evil,

or

reviling in return

for reviling,

or

fisticuff in return

for

fisticuff,

or

curse in

return

for

curse.”

5

Pray also,” he says,

“

for

kings and

authorities and rulers and

for

those who persecute and

hate

you

and

for.

the enemies

of

the

cross,

that your fruit

may

be

manifest among

all,

that ye may

be

perfect in

Him.”

6

Aristeides says

of

the Christians

:

“

They

appeal to those who wrong them and make them

friendly to themselves

;

they are eager to do

good

to

their enemies

;

they are mild and conciliatory.”

7

Diognetos is told that the Christians

“

love

all

(men),

and are persecuted by all;

.

. .

they are reviled, and

they bless

;

they are insulted, and are respectful.”8

Hermas

includes in his enumeration of Christian

duties those

of

I‘

withstanding no one,

.

. .

bearing

insult, being longsuffering, having no remembrance

of

‘

Ig

E

x.

‘-3.

Ig

Tiii.

z.

1

Ig

Tiv.

z.

4

Ig

Pi.

2.

5

Pol

ii.

z

:

on

the

duty

of

love,

cf

iii.

3,

iv.

2,

(xii.

I).

Pdxii,

3.

7

hist

15

(III),

cf

17

(Syriac,

5’).

a

Diogr.

11,

15.

7.4

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

io

War

The author of the so-called second Epistle

of

Clemens reproves his readers for not being true to

these principles

:

‘I

For the gentiles, hearing from our

mouth the words

of

God, are impressed by their beauty

and greatness

:

then, learning that our works are not

worthy

of

the things we say, they turn to railing, saying

that it

is

some deceitful tale.

For

when they hear from

us

that God says

:

No

thanks

(will

be

due) to you, if ye

love (only) those who love you; but thanks (will

be

due)

to you, if ye love your enemies and those that hate you

I-

when they hear this, they are impressed by the overplus

of

goodness

:

but when they

see

that we do not love,

not only those who hate (us), but even those

who

love

(us),

they laugh at us, and the Name

is

blasphemed.”

2

‘I

We,” says Justinus,

‘I

who hated and slew

one

another, and because of (differences in) customs would

not share a common hearth with those who were not

of

our

tribe,

now,

after the appearance

of

Christ, have

become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to

persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that

they, living according to the good suggestions

of

Christ,

may share our

hope of

obtaining the same (reward)

from the God who

is

Master

of

all.3

. .

.

And

as

to

loving all (men), he has taught as follows

:

If

ye love

(only) those who love you, what new thing do ye do

?

for even fornicators do this. But

I

say to you

:

Pray

for your enemies and love those who hate you and

bless those who curse you and pray for those who act

spitefully towards you.’4

. .

.

And

as

to

putting up

with evil and being serviceable to

all

and without

’

Herm

M

VI11

IO.

Hermas

has

many inculcations

of

gentleness,

z

Clem

riii.

3

f.

3

Just

I

Rp

xiv.

3.

4

Just

I

Ap

xv.

9.

longsuffering,

etc.,

etc.

Th

Early

Christian Disapproval

of

War

75

anger; this

is

what he says

:

‘

To

him that smiteth

thy cheek, offer the other (cheek) as well, and do not

stop (the man) that takes away thy tunic or thy cloak.

Rut

whoever

is

angry

is

liable to the fire. Every one

who impresses thee (to

go)

a

mile, follow (for) two

(miles). Let

your

good works shine before men,

that

seeing (them) they may worship

(8aup&xrc)

your

Father in heaven.’

For

(we) must not resist

:

nor has

(God) wished us to be imitators

of

the wicked, but has

bidden

(us)

by patience and gentleness lead all (men)

from (the) shame and lust of the evil (things). And

this we are able to show

in

the case

of

many who

were

(formerly) on your side. They changed

from

(being) violent and tyrannical, conquered either

(through) having followed the constancy of (their

Christian) neighbours’ life,

or

(through) having noticed

the strange patience

of

fellow-travellers when they

were

overreached,

or

(through) having experienced

(it

in the case)

of

those with whom they had dealings.”

I

“We have learnt,” says Athenagoras,

‘‘

not only not

to strike back and not to

go

to law with those who

plunder and rob

us,

but with some,

if

they buffet

us

on

the side

of

the head, to offer the other side of the head

to them

for

a

blow, and with others,

if

they take away

our

tunic, to give them also

our

cloak.*

. .

.

What then

are those teachings in which

we

are brought up

?

”

He

then quotes the familiar

words

of

Mt v.

af,

and asks

what logician ever loved and blessed and prayed

for

his enemies, instead of plotting some evil against them

:

but among the Christians, he

says,

there

are

those who

Dial

96

(74,

133

fin

(785),

Res

8

fin

(1588).

Just

I

Ap

xvi.

1-4.

Similar

professions

are

made

by

Justinus

in

Athenag

Legat

I

(893).

76

The

Early

Christiatl

Attitude

to

War

‘‘

do not rehearse speeches, but display good deeds, (viz.)

not hitting back when they are struck, and not going to

law when they are robbed, giving to those that ask, and

loving their neighbours as themselves.”

I

He speaks of

the Christians later as those “to whom it

is

not lawful,

when they are struck, not to

offer

themselves (for more

blows),

nor, when defamed, not to bless

:

for

it is not

enough to be just-and justice

is

to return like

for

like

-but it is incumbent (upon

us)

to be

good

and patient

of evil.”2 Speratus, the martyr

of

Scilli, told the pro-

consul

:

“

We have never spoken evil

(of

others),

but

when ill-treated

we

have given thanks-because

we

pay

heed to

our

Emperor” (Le. Christ)~ Theophilos wrote

:

“

In

regard to

our

being well-disposed, not only

to

those

of our own tribe, as some think (but

also

to

our

enemies), Isaiah the prophet said

:

‘Say to those that

hate and loathe you, Ye are

our

brothers, in order that

the name

of

the

Lord

may

be

glorified and it

may

be

seen in their gladness.’ And the Gospel says

:

‘Love

your enemies, and pray for those who treat you spitefully.

For

if

ye love (only) those that love

you,

what reward

have ye? even the robbers and the taxgatherers

do

this.’

”

4

Eirenaios refers on several occasions

to

this teaching.

One

of

the passages we have already had before

us.5

Elsewhere he quotes Jesus’ prayer,

‘

Father, forgive

them

.

,‘

as an instance

of

obedience to his own

com-

Athenag

Legal

11

(grzi),

cf

12

(913,

916).

Athenag

Lqat

54

fin

(968).

3

PScz7l112.

A

little

later, when persuaded by the

proconsul

to

give

up his

Christianity,

Speratus

replies:

Mala

est

persuasio

homicidium

facere,

falsurn

testimonium

dicere

(114).

I

am not

clear

to

what exactly

the first

clause

alludes.

4

Theoph iii.

14.

direct

bearing,

according

to

the

Christian

vlew,

of

this

tesching on the

5

Eiren

IV

xrxiv.

4

(ii.

271

F),

quoted on

pp.

61

f,

and

illustrating the

subject

of

war.

a

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

77

mand to love and pray for enemies. He argues from

the prayer that the sufferings of Jesus could not have

been in appearance only, as the Docetic errorists main-

tained

:

if

they were, then his precepts in the Sermon on

the Mount would be misleading, and

‘I

we shall

be

even

above the Master, while

we

suffer and endure things

which the Master did not suffer and endure.”,l The

Lord bade us, he says later, “love not neighbours only,

but even enemies, and be not only

good

givers and

sharers, but even givers

of

free gifts to those who take

away what is ours.

For

to him that takes away (thy)

tunic from thee,’ he says, give to him thy cloak also

;

and from him who takes away what is thine, demand (it)

not back

;

and as ye wish that Inen should do to you, do

ye to them

’

:

so

that we may not grieve

as

if

we did

not

want to

be

defrauded, but rejoice as

if

we gave willingly,

rather conferring a favour

on

neighbours, than bowing

to necessity.

‘

And

if

any one,’ he says, ‘impress thee

(to

go)

a mile,

go

two more with him,’

so

that thou

.

mayest not follow as

a

slave, but mayest go in front like

a free man, showing thyself ready

in

all things and

useful

to (thy) neighbour, not regarding their badness, but

practising thy goodness, conforming thyself to the

Father, who makes

His

sun rise on bad and good, and

rains

on

just and unjust.”’* Eirenaios in another work

remarks that the Law will no longer say Eye for eye,

and tooth for tooth

’

to

him

who

regards no one as his

enemy, but all

as

his neighbours

:

for this reason he can

never stretch out his hand

for

vengeance.”

3

Apollonius

told

the Roman Senate that Christ

‘I

taught

(us)

to

Eiren

111

xviii.

5

f

(ii.

99

f).

’

Euen

IV

xiii.

3

(ii.

182).

Another

paraphrase

of

the

teaching

of

the

Sermon

on

the

Mount

in

regard

to

retu% good

for

evil

occul~

in

Eim

I1

uxii.

I

(i.

37a).

3

Euen

Dcmmuh

96

(9).

78

Th

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

allay (our) anger,

.

to increase (our) love (for others)

(+Ah),

. .

.

not to turn to (the) punishment

(tipw~au)

of those who wrong

(us).

.

.”

I

Clemens of Alexandria alludes several times to the

teaching of Mt

v.

44

f,

Lk

vi.

27

f,2

and says further that.

the Gnostic, by which he means the thorough-going

Christian, “never bears

a

grudge

(pvqarrarE;),

nor

is

vexed

(XaXmraiuEt)

with anyone, even though he be

worthy of hatred for what he does

:

for he reveres the

Maker, and loves the one who shares in life, pitying and

praying

for

him because of his ignorance.”

3

Those who

pray that the wrongs they

suffer

should be visited upon

the wrongdoers, Clemens considers as better than those

,who wish to retaliate personally by process of law

;

but

he says that they

I‘

are not yet passionless, if they do not

become entirely forgetful of wrong and pray even

for

their enemies according to the Lord’s teaching.’’ After

some

further words about forgiveness, he

goes

on to say

that the Gnostic “not only thinks it right that the

good

(man) should leave to others the judgment

of

those who

.

have done him wrong, but he wishes the righteous man

to ask from those judges forgiveness of sins for those

who have trespassed against him

;

and rightly

SO."^

‘I

Above all,” he

says

elsewhere, “Christians are not

allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings.

For

(it is) not those who abstain from evil by compulsion,

but those (who abstain) by choice, (that) God crowns.

For

it is not possible

for

a man to

be

good steadily

except by his

own

choice.”

5

Tertullianus adverts to the command to

love

enemies,

Acts

df

Apollanius

37

(Gebhardt

56

;

Conybeare

46).

=

Clem

Stroar

I1

i.

2,

xviii.

88,

IV

xiv.

95.

3

Clem

Stmm

VI1

xi.

62.

5

Clemfrag

in

Maximus

Confessor,

Scm

55

(Migne

PC

xci.

965).

4

Clem

Sfrom

VI1

xiv.

Qf.

Thc

Early

Chrhtian

Disapproval

of

War

79

and not to retaliate, and reassures the pagans that,

although the numbers

of

the Christians would make it

easy

for

them to avenge the wrongs they suffer, this

principle puts an actual revolt out

of

the question

:

“For what war,” he asks, “should we not

be

fit

(and)

eager, even though unequal in numbers, (we) who are

so

willing to

be

slaughtered-if according to that dis-

cipline (of

ours)

it

was not more lawful to be slain than

to slay?

”1

‘I

The Christian does not hurt even his

enemy.”l

In

his treatise

on

patience, he quotes the

words about turning the other cheek, rejoicing when

cursed, leaving vengeance to God, not judging, etc., and

insists on

the

duty

of

obeying them in all cases.

‘I

It

is

absolutely forbidden to repay evil with evil.”3 It

is

true that Tertullianus smirches somewhat the beauty

of

the Christian principle

of

the endurance

of

wrongs,

by inviting the injured one to take pleasure in the dis-

appointment which his patience causes to the wrong-

doer.

The

spirit of retaliation is kept, and

‘

coals

of

fire’ selected as

the

most

poignant means

of

giving

effect to

it.

But his failure to catch the real spirit

of

Christian love renders his testimony to what was the

normal Christian policy all the more unimpeachable.

He calls the Christian the

son

of peace, for whom

it

will

be

unfitting even to

go

to law, and who

does

not

avenge

his wrongs.4 The Bardesanic

‘Book

of the

Laws

of

the Countries

’

compares those who take it upon

themselves

to

inflict vengeance, to lions and 1eopards.s

Origenes has several important allusions to this aspect

I

Tert

Apo137

(i.

463).

’

Tert

A@Z

46

(i.

512).

3

Tert

P&

8

(i-

1262f),

IO

(i.

1264)

(absolute

itque praecipitur

malum

4

Tert

011

11

(ii.

92)

:

.

filius

pcis,

cui

nec

litigare conveniet

.

malo

non

rependendum).

nec

suaturn

ultor

ininnarum.

s

ANCL

xxiib.

94.

of Christian teaching. I select three only for quotation.

He points out that God united the warring nations of

the earth under the rule of Augustus, in order that by

the suppression

of

war the spread of the gospel might

be

facilitated

:

for “how,” he asks,

‘I

would it have been

possible for this peaceful teaching, which does not allow

(its adherents) even to defend themselves against

I

(their)

enemies, to prevail, unless at the coming

of

Jesus the

(affairs)

of

the world had everywhere changed into

a

milder (state)

?

”2

Later he says

:

‘I

If a revolt had been

the cause

of

the Christians combining, and

if

they had

derived the(ir) origin from the Jews, to whom it

was

allowed

(;&)

to take arms on behalf

of

the(ir) families

and to destroy (their) enemies, the Lawgiver

of

(the)

Christians would not have altogether forbidden (the)

destruction of man, teaching that the deed

of

daring

(on

the part) of his own disciples against a man, how-

ever unrighteous he be, is never right-for he did not

deem it becoming to his own divine legislation

to

allow

the destruction

of

any man whatever”

(~TOL~V~+~OTE

&vOp&rov

hvclip~a~v).3

Later still,

in

dealing with the

difference between the Mosaic and Christian dispensa-

tions, he says

:

“

It would not be possible for the ancient

Jews to keep their civil economy’unchanged,

if,

let

us

suppose, they obeyed the constitution (laid down)

according to the

gospel.

For it would not be possible

for Christians

to

make use, according to the

Law

of

Moses,

of

(the) destruction of (their) enemies or

of

those

who had acted contrary to the Law and were judged

worthy

of

destruction by fire or stoning.

.

Again, if

thou wert to take away from the

Jews

of

that time, who

=

orig

Cds

li.

30.

‘

Or

possibly,

‘

take

vengeance

on

”dpiurdac.

3

Orig

CJtiii.

7.

The

Early Christian

Disap2wooal

of

War

81 .

had a civil economy and a land of their

own,

the (right)

to go out against the(ir) enemies and serve

as

soldiers

on

behalf of their ancestral (institutions) and to destroy

or otherwise punish the adulterers or murderers

or

(men)

who had done something of that kind, nothing would be

left but for them to

be

wholly and utterly destroyed,

the(ir) enemies setting

upon

the nation, when they

were weakened and prevented by their own law

from defending themkelves against the(ir) enemies.”‘

These statements of Origenes are important for several

reasons-for the clear indication they give that in the

middle of the third century the

‘

hard sayings

’

of the

Sermon

on

the Mount were still adhered to as the proper

policy for Christians, for the direct bearing which those

sayings were felt to have on the question of war, and for

the frank recognition which Origenes accords to the

place of sub-Christian ethical standards

in

the world’s

development.

Cyprianus lays it down that “when an injury has

been

received, one has to remit and forgive it,” “requital

for wrongs is not to be given,”

“

enemies are to

be

loved,”

“

when an injury has been received, patience is to

be

kept

and vengeance left to

God.”z

He was horror-struck at

the torture that went

on

in the law-courts: “there at

hand is the spear and the sword and the executioner,

the hook that tears,

the

rack that stretches, the fire that

burns, more punishments for

the

one

body

of

man than

Orig

Cclr

vii.

26.

origenes refers

in

Ccls

ii.

10

to the incident

of

Peter’s

sword

;

in v.

63

he quotes

the

beatitudes

about

the

meek

and the

attitude to opponents and persecutors

;

in

vii.

25

he

proves

from

Lamenta-

peace-makers, etc., in

order

to demonstrate the gentleness

of

the

Christian

tions

that

the command

to

huo

the other check

was

not

unknown

to

the

O.T.

;

in

viii.

35

he

quotes

Mt

v.

4

f

and

gives

a couple

of

illustEorions

?m$y

I

Trrt

iii.

22

f,

49,

106.

history

of

kindness

to

enemies.

I

7

82

The

Earl3

Christian

Attitude

to

War

(it has) limbs

!

”

I

‘I

Non;

of

us,”

he says, offers resist-

ance when he

is

seized,

or

avenges himself for your

unjust violence, although our people are numerous and

plentiful

.

. .

it

is

not lawful for us to hate, and

so

we

please God more when we render no requital for injury

.

we repay your hatred witJh kindness,” and

so

on.2

In his treatise on patience, he takes occasion to quote

Mt

v.

43-45

in

full.3

When a plague broke out and the

pagans fled, he urged the Christians not to attend to

their co-religionists only, saying

“

that he might

be

made

perfect, who did something more than the taxgatherer

and the gentile, who, conquering evil with good and

practising something like the divine clemency, loved his

enemies

also,

who prayed for the safety of

his

pcr-

secutors, as the Lord advises and exhorts.” Cyprknus

drove this lesson home, we are told, with arguments

drawn from Aft

v.

44-48.4

Commodianus utters the

brief precept

:

“

Do

no hurt.”

5

The

Didaskalia lays it

down

:

I‘

Those who injure you, injure not‘in return, but

endure (it), since Scripture says

:

Say not

:

I

will injure

my enemy since he has injured me

;

but bear it, that the

Lord may help thee, and exact vengeance from him’who

has injured thee.’ For again it says

in

the Gospel

:

‘

Love

those who hate you and pray for those

who

curse you,

and ye shall have no enemy.’

”

6

‘I

Be

prepared there-

fore to incur

a

loss, and

try

hard to keep

the

peace

;

for

if

thou

incurrest any loss in secular affairs for the sake

of

peace, there shall accrue

a

gain with

God

to thee

as

to

one

who

fears

God

and

lives

according to His com-

Cypr

PoMt

IO.

Gyp

Dcmcfr

17,

25.

3

Cypr

Bon

Pat

5.

‘

Didark

I

ii.

2

f:

cf

I

ii.

I

(on

blessing

those

who

curse)

and

V

xiv.

22

4

Pat

Vir

Cy@

9.

5

Comrnod

Insfr

ii.

22

(noli

noose).

(on

praying

for

enemies).

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

a8

mandment.”1 In the Clementine Homilies Peter dis-

,

claims all wish to destroy the heretic Simon,saying that

he was not sent to destroy men, but that he wished

to befriend and convert him

;

and he touches

on

the

Christian custom of praying

for

enemies in obedience to

Jesus’ example

:

and Clemens rehearses to his father the

teaching of Mt v.

39-41.’

Lactantius refers to the Christians

as

‘Lthose who are

ignorant of wars, who preserve concord with all, who

are friends even to their enemies, who love all men as

brothers, who know how to curb anger and soften with

quiet moderation every madness of the mind.3

. .

.

This

we believe to

be

to our advantage, that we should love

you and confer all things upon you who hate (us).”

4

Since the just man, he says,

“

inflicts injury on none,

nor

desires the property

of

others, nor defends his own

if

it

is

violently carried

off,

since he knows

also

(how)

to

bear

with moderation an injury inflicted on him,

because he is endowed with virtue, it

is

necessary et

the

just man should

be

subject to the unjust, and the

wise man treated with insults by the

fool,”

etcs

God

has commanded that enmities are never to be con-

tracted by

us,

(but) are always

to

be

removed,

so

that

we may soothe those who are our enemies by reminding

them of (their) relationship (to us).”

6

The just man,

once again, must return only blessings for curses

:

“

let

him

also

take careful

heed

lest at

ky

time he makes

an

enemy by- his

own

fault; and if there should

be

any-

one

50

impudent

as

to inflict

an

injury on

a

good and

11

xlvi.

2

;

cf

I1

vi.

I

@ip

not

to

be

angry

or

contentious).

a

Clem

Ha

vii.

[of,

xi.

za

fin,

N.

5.

Arnobius

(iv.

$1

also

mentionr

5

Lut

fast

V

xxii.

IO.

3

kct

z*rf

v

x.

IO.

the

C+iati.n

custom

of

pmyiq

regularly

for

enemies.

‘

L.a

Znrr

VI

z.

5-

4

Lact/nrtVrii.

4”

84

The

Early

Christian Attitd

to

War

just man, let him (i.e. the just man) bear it kindly and

temperately, and not take upon himself his own vin-

dication, but reserve (it) for the judgment of God.”

After more to the same effect, Lactantius proceeds

:

Thus

it

comes about that the just man is an object

of

contempt to all

:

and because it will be thought that he

cannot defend himself, he will be considered slothful and

inactive. But he who avenges himself on (his) enemy-

he

is

judged to be brave (and) energetic

:

all reverence

him, (all) respect him.”

1

A

little later comes the famous

passage, in which he deals with the divine command about

homicide, and interprets it as prohibiting both capital

charges and military service

:

I‘

And

so

in (regard to) this

commandment of

God

no

exception at

all

ought to

be

made (to the rule) that it is always wrong to kill

a

man,

whom

God

has wished to be

a

sacrosanct creature.”

Of

this application of the teaching we must speak

later.2

Probably

one

of

the first things that will strike

a

modern reader on surveying this remarkable body

of

evidence is the apparent absence

of

any treatment

of

the question

of

the

defeence

of

others

as a special phase

of

the general question concerning the treatment

of

wrongdoers. The silence of Christian authors on this

particular point is certainly remarkable. Tertullianus

even takes it for granted that, if

a

man will not avenge

his own wrongs,

A

fortiori he will not avenge those

of

others 3-a sentiment pointedly at variance with the

generally), and

xviii.

6

(about

speaking

the truth

to

one’s

enemy).

’

Lact

Zmt

VI

xviii.

10-13

:

cf

also

xi.

If

(against injuring

others

’

Lact

Inrt

VI

rx.

15-17.

The martyr

Pollio

told

his

judge

that

the

divine

laws

demanded pardon

for

enemies

(Parrio

Pollionis

2,

in Ruinart

435)

;

the

martyr

Lucianus

that

they

r

uired Christians

to

cultiwe

mildness, to

be

keen

on

peace,

to

ea-

purity

of

heart,

to

guud

patience

”

(Kouth

iv.

6).

a

Tert

Cor

11

(ii.

92)

:

Et

vincula

et

derem et

tomenta

et

suppiici

sdminisbbit,

ncc

suorum

ultor

injuriarum

?

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

85

spirit of modem Christianity; which is at times disposed

to accept (as an ideal at all events,

if

not always as

a

practicable policy) absolute non-resistance in regard

to one's own wrongs, but which indignantly repudiates

such a line

of

action when the wrongs

of

others-par-

ticularly those weaker than oneself-are in question.

It is on the validity

of

this distinction that the whole

case of the possibility of a Christian war is felt by many

to rest. The point

is

so

important that

we

may be par-

doned

for

devoting a few lines to it, even though it

carries

us

a little beyond the strictly historical treatment

of the subject. In the first place, it needs to be borne

in mind that the question

is

not the general one, whether

or

no the Christian should try to prevent others being

wronged. That question admits

of

only one answer.

The life of a Christian is a constant and effective check

upon

sin

;

and he

is

therefore at all times, in

a

general

though in

a

very real way, defending others. The ques-

tion is, Which is the right method

for

him to use-

the gentle moral appeal or violent physical .coercion

?

Whatever method he may choose, that method

is

not

of

course bound to succeed

in

any particular case,

for

circumstances may at any time be too strong

for

him

:

possibility of failure, therefore, is not

to

be

reckoned

a

fatal objection to

a

policy of defence, for it tells in some

measure against all policies. And be it remembered

that the restraining power of gentleness

is

largely

diminished,

if

not entirely destroyed, if the user of it

attempts

to

combine it with the use

of

coercion and

penalty.' We are therefore driven to make

our

choice

Consider how little influence

for

good would have remained to

Jesus

and the Apostles over the Gerasene

maniac,

the prostitute, the adulteress,

young

robber

of

Smyrna

(see

above,

pp.

43,

69,

71

f),

if

they had

tried

to

the extortlonate tax-gatherer,

the

thief on the

cross,

Onesirnos, and the

86

Tk

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

between two policies of conduct, which to all intents

and purposes are mutually exclusive.’

Now

in

the use

of

violence and injury for the defence

of

others, the

Christian sees a policy which he is forbidden, ex

hypothesi, to use

in

his own defence-and that for

a

reason as valid in the case

of

others’ sufferings

as

in

that of his own, viz. the absolute prohibition of injury

2

-and which is furthermore a less effective poIicy than

that

of

bringing the force

of

his own Christian spirit to

bear on the wrongdoer, as the Salvationist, for instance,

often does with the violent drunkard. If the objection

be raised that few people possess this powerful Christian

spirit capable of restraining others, I reply that we are

discussing the conduct of those alone who, because or

in

so

far as they are faithful Christians, do possess

it. Again, when the wrongs of innocent sufferers are

brought

in

in order to undermine obedience to the

Sermon on the Mount,

a

fictitious distinction always

has

to

be

made between wrongs inflicted on others

in

one’s

very presence and the possibly far more horrible wrongs

that

go

on

out

of

one’s sight. “Pity for

a

horse o’er-

driven” easily evaporates when once the poor animal

has

turned the corner. Many a man would feel

it

a

duty to use his fists

to

defend a woman from being

knocked about under his own eyes, but would not by

any means feel called upon to

use

either his fists or his

powers of persuasion on behalf

of

the poor wife being

combine with the spiritual means

of

regeneration

any

form

of

physical

coercion or pedty.

the behaviour of Christians towards

adult

and

responsible

human beings.

‘

It

may

be

mentioned in

passing

that

we

are here dealing

solely

with

God‘s

treatment

of

man,

and

man’s treatment

of

his children, are, in

some important respects, different problems.

must defend his neighbour, not

as

his

neighbour wishes,

but

as

hehipself

What

else

can

the

Golden Rule mean here but that the

Christian

“the

Christian--mpishes

to

be

protected,

VIE.

without

violence,?

beaten in her home

a

few

streets

off

or

on the other

side

of

the town. Still

less

would he admit ,it as a

general principle that he must not rest as long as there

is

any injustice going on in the world, which he might

feel disposed to rectify by the use of violence if

it

were

happening close at hand

:

and though he may allow

himself to

be

swayed by this particular plea

in

a poli-

tical crisis, it is obvious that it could never

be

taken and

is

never taken as a general guide for conduct. Unfor-

tunately, we have to recognize the fact that countless

acts of cruelty and injustice are going

on

every day,

all around

us,

near and far

;

and the practical demands

of Christian usefulness forbid the sensitive man to

allow his spirit to

be

crushed by the awful thought that

he cannot yet put a stop to these things. The senti-

ment which bids a man stick at nothing in order to

check outrageous wrongdoing is entitled to genuine

respect,

for

it

is

closely akin to Christian love

;

but

it is misleading when it comes into conflict with

a

considered Christian policy

for

combating sin, for,

as

we have seen, it operates only within the compass of a

man’s vision and

in

certain occasionally and arbitrarily

selected areas beyond, and, when erected into a general

principle of conduct, immediately breaks down. The

rejection

of

this sentiment does not mean the rejection

of the Christian duty

‘‘

to ride abroad redressing human

wrong”

:

it means the adoption,

not

only

of

gentler,

but

of more effective, tactics, calling--as the Christian per-

secutions show-for their

full

measure of danger and

self-sacrifice; it means too

a

refusal to stultify those

tactics under the impulse

of

a rush of feeling which

so

soon

fails to justify itself as

a

guide to conduct.

The early Christians therefore were not guilty, either

88

The

Early Christian

Attitude

to

War

of

selfish cowardice or

of

an error

of

judgment, in inter-

preting the Master’s words as ruling out the forcible

defence

of

one another against the manifold wrongs

which pagan hatred and cruelty and

lust

brought upon

them. It was clear indeed that the Master had

so

inter-

preted his words himself He did nothing to avenge

John the Baptist or the slaughtered Galilaeans

;

and

when he forbade the use

of

the sword in Gethsemane,

the occasion

was

one on which it had been drawn. in a

righteous cause and for the defence

of

an unarmed

and innocent man. The way

in

which the Christians

endured the injuries inflicted upon them in persecu-

tion had the effect-so Christian authors continually

tell us-of evoking pagan admiration and sympathy,

and even adding considerably to the number

of

con-

verts.

By

the time the victory over the persecutors

was

won: Christian ethics had largely lost their early

purity; but

we

see

enough to be able to say that

that victory was in no small measure due to the power

of the Christian spirit operating against tremendous

odds without the use of any sort

of

violent resistance.

It took time of course to

win

the victory, and during

that time countless acts of unthinkable cruelty and

horror were .endured

:

but would anyone seriously

argue that that suffering would have been diminished,

or better results achieved

for

the world at large or for

the

sufferers

themselves,

if

from the first Christian men

had acted

on

the principle that, while ready themselves

to submit meekly, it was their duty to defend others

if

.

need be by force and bloodshed? When Plinius tortured

the two Bithynian deaconesses, and when Sabina was

threatened at Smyrna with being sentenced to the

brothel, no Christian knight came forward to prevent

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

89

the wrong by force of arms

or

perish in the attempt.

Sabina said simply, in answer to the threat

:

“

The holy

God

will

see about that.” There must have been in-

numerable instances

of

Christians deliberately abstain-

ing from the defence

of

one another. Such conduct,

amazing as

it

may seem to

us,

does not argue callous-

ness, still

less

cowardice, for cowards could never have

endured torture with the constancy normally shown

by

the Christian martyrs. It simply means a strenuous

adherence to the Master’s teaching-an adherence based

indeed on a simple sense of obedience to him, but issu-

ing,

as

posterity can see, in the exertion

of

an immense

positive moral power, and involving,

in

a situation from

which conflict and suffering in some measure were

inseparable, probably

a

less severe conflict and a

smaller amount of suffering than any other course

of

conduct consistent with faithfulness to the Christian

religion would have involved.

THE

CHRISTIANS’

EXPERIENCE

OF

EVIL

IN

THE

CHARACTER

OF

SOLDIERS-Before we enter upon an

examination

of

the course actually pursued by Christians

in regard to service

id

the Roman legions, there is one

more introductory study

we

shall have to undertake,

viz. that

of

the unfavourable criticisms passed

by

Christians on the seamy side

of

the military character

as

they knew

it

in practical life, and the harsh treat-

ment they received at the hands

of

soldiers with

whom they came

into

conflict..

The

reader

will

of

course understand that what

we

are here concerned

with constitutes

only

one side of the picture

;

the other

side, showing

us

instances

of

kind treatment and

so

on

the

part

of

soldiers,

will

come

to light at

a

later stage

90

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

of our enquiry. At the same time, the aspect

now

before

us

was

a

very real and a very

painful

one, and

is not without

a

fairly direct bearing on the early

Christian attitude to war.

The main fact in the situation was that the soldier,

being

charged with ordinary police duties as well

as

with military functions

in

the narrower sense, was the

normal agent of governments in giving effect to their

measures of persecution. While the illegality of

Christianity did

not

become a part

of

the imperial

policy

until

64

A.D.,

numerous acts of persecution were

committed before that date. John the Baptist had been

beheaded in prison by one

of

Antipas' guards.1 Jesus

himself had been mocked, spat upon, scourged, and

crucified by soldiers.* James, the

son

of Zebedee, was

executed

by

one

of

Agrippa's soldiers.3 Peter

was

guarded

in

chains by others, and escaped a

like

fate

only by

a

miraculous deliverance.4 Paul endured long

confinement in the hands

of

the military; and, when

the ship in which he and other prisoners were being

taken to Rome was wrecked, the soldiers advised that

they should all

be

killed to prevent any

of

them

escaping.5 Both

Paul,

and Peter were eventually

martyred at Rome, doubtless by the hands of

soldiers.

In

64

A.D.

Nero's act

in

persecuting the

Christians in order to divert from himself the

sus-

picion

of

having set

Rome

on fire, inaugurated what

proved to be the official policy of the Empire

until

the

I

Mk

vi.

27

f.

jz

ff.

The soldiers

of

Antipas,

as

well

as

the

Roman

soldiers,

were

Mk

xv.

16-20,

24;

Mt

xnvil.

27

8;

Lk

sxiii.

11,

36f;

John ?tin.

2,

implicated.

3

Ac

xii.

z

:

this

is

surely

implied when it

is

said

that

Herodes

slew

him

witk

a

,-a.

"

Ac

xii.

6,

r8f.

5

Ac

xxvii.

42,

xxviii.

16,

etc.

Cf

xvi.

23f.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

U'ar

91

time of Constantinus.

That

policy was that the pro-

fession

of

Christianity was regarded

as

in

itself

a

crime

against society-like piracy, brigandage, theft, and

arson-and as such was punishable with death by

virtue

of

the ordinary administrative powers

of

the

Roman Governor. Refusal to participate in the

widely practised worship

of

the Emperor or to

recognize any other

of

the pagan gods, strong dis-

approval of idolatry and

all

other manifestations

of

pagan religion, dissent and aloofness from many of the

social customs of paganism, secret meetings, nocturnal

celebration of

'

love-feasts,' disturbance caused

to

family

life

by

conversions-all these had resulted

in

making

the Christians profoundly unpopular, and brought upon

them the suspicion

of

being guilty

of

detested crimes,

such as cannibalism and incest, and the stigma of being

regarded

as

thoroughly disloyal and dangerous members

of society. Such was the basis upon which the imperial

policy rested.

As

individual Emperors varied in their

attitude to Christianity (some even going

so

far

as

to

grant it a de facto toleration), as the popular hatred

would

flame

out and die down at different times and

in different places, and lastly as the provincial governors

had

large

discretionary powers and would differ widely

in their personal views, the imperial policy

of

stern

repression

was

not carried out consistently

or

uni-

formly. There would be extensive regions and lengthy

intervals in which it would lie dormant. Here and

there, now and then, it would break forth in varying

degrees of severity: and whenever

it

did

so,

the task

of

carrying out the state's decrees devolved upon the

soldiers, as the policemen

of

the Empire. More

than

that,

it

is

easy

to

see

that, inasmuch

as

the conduct

of

92

The

Early Christian Attitude

to

War

official proceedings against the Christians rested in the

hands of the military, they must often have borne the

main responsibility

for

the occurrence of persecution.1

We come across many traces of their activities in this

direction.

Thus

Ignatius of Antioch wrote

to

his friends

at Rome

:

“From Syria as far as Rome

I

am fighting

with beasts, by land and sea, night and day, having

been

bound to ten leopards, that is (to say), a squad of soldiers,

who become worse even when they are treated well.

By

the wrongs they do me,

I

am becoming more of a

disciple.”= The arrest and burning of Polukarpos at

Smyrna were evidently carried out by the military.3

When Karpos was burnt at Pergamum, it was a soldier’s

hand that lit the faggots.4

In

the dreadful persecution

at Lugdunum (Lyons)

in

177-5

A.D.,

we are told that

“all

the wrath of populace and governor and soldiers

fell

in

exceeding measure” upon certain

of

the martyrs,

whose appalling sufferings cast

a

sinister light

upon

the character

of

their torme11tors.j Clemens and

Origenes group soldiers with kings, rulers, etc.,

as

*

There

is

no need here to dtscuss in greater detail the legal aspect

of

persecution

or

to give a sketch of the different outbreaks. The reader will

find the former excellently dealt with in

E.

G.

Hardy’s.

Ckristianiry

and

tks

Roman

Government

(London,

1894),

and the latter in

any

good Church

History.

Ig

R,;.

I.

Gibbon, writing

in

1776,

said of the imperial Roman

armies

:

The common soldiers, like the mercenary

troo

s

of

modern

proAigate,

of

mankind” (Gibbon,

Dedine

and

iWZ,

i.

9

f, ed.

Bury).

Europe,

were

drawn from the meanest, and

very

frequently Eom the most

Hamack

says

:

“

The conduct

of

the soldiers during peace (their extortion,

their wild debauchery and

sports

@.x.

“

the Mimus”) at the

Pagan

their license, their police duties)

was

as opposed to Christian ethics

as

festivals”

(ME

ii.

52).

Marcus Aurelius

(Meedif

x.

IO)

called successful

ranks with gladiators, slaves, and Dalmatian brigands (Capitolinus,

His#.

soldiers

robbers

;

but he was a

soldier

himself, and

was

obliged to fill his

Aug.

Lijc

of

M.

Antonintrs

€‘kilosopitus

xxi.

6f).

fjdxwv,

4

id

XVOT+Y

rp‘pixovrq

;

xviii.

I

15

mvrupiov

burns

the

body.

3

M.

Polvii.

I

mentions

Gruypirnr

rai

irmir

pwu

riru

wui+v

nbrois

4

Kaq

40.

5

MLugdin

Eus

HE

V

i.

17

ff.

The

Early Christian Disapproval

of

War

93

one.

of

the parties regularly implicated in the futile

persecution of Christianity.'. Tertullianus numbers

them as strangers and therefore enemies of the truth,

their motive being the desire for gain.2 Christians

seem to have been exposed to as much danger from

the interference

of

the military as from the hatred

of

the mob.3 It seems to have been not .unusual for im-

perilled or imprisoned Christians or their friends to

secure better treatment or even release or immunity

by secretly bribing an influential soldier, justifying

their action by saying that they were rendering to

Caesar the things that were Caesar's

:

Tertullianus

dis-

approved of the practice.4 The apocryphal Acts

of

Thomas

(225-250

A.D.)

tell how the Apostle, being

sentenced to death, was struck

by

four soldiers and

slain.5 When Yionios was burnt at Smyrna in the

persecution

of

Decius

(250

A.D.),

a soldier nailed him

to

the stake.6 The sufferings of Dionusios of Alex-

andria in the same persecution were due to his treat-

ment by the military.7 In the-persecution

of

Valerianus

(258-9

A.D.)

the same story

is

told

:

the arrest, cus-

tody, and execution

of

Cyprianus at Carthago were

carried out by the proconsul's soldiers

*

:

the martyr-

acts

of

Marianus and Jacobus, who suffered in Numidia,

tell

us

that

in

the region of the martyrdom

"

the attacks

I

Clem

.%om

VI

rviii.

r67

;

Orig

CcIr

i.

3.

ex aemulatione

Judaei,

ex

comussione milites,

ex

natura ipsi etmm

Tcrt

Apd

f

(i.

308)

:

Tot hosta ejus quot extrnnei,

et

quidem

proprii

domestici nostri.

nque enim

statim

et

a

pcrpulo

eris tutus, si

officio

militaria redernens

3

Thus

Tertullianus

warns

those

who

wished

to

buy

themselves

off:

(Tert

Fng

14

(ii.

119)).

4

Tert

Fug

12-14

(ii.

110-120).

5

Acts

of

Thrncrs

168

(iii

282

;

Pick

360).

M

pionii

mi.

Z.

7

Dim

Alex

in

Eus

HE

VI1

xi.

22,

VI

XI.

2,

4.

8

Pont

VI?

Cy*

r5,rS.

Similarly

in

the

Parrio

Iliatrist

Lncii

iii.

I,

iv.

2,

pi.

3,

xi,

2,

si.

9

(Gebhardt

r46ff).

1

94

The

Early

Christian Attitude to

War

of

persecution swelled up, like waves

of

the world, with

the blind madness and military offices

of

the gentiles,’’

that

I‘

the madness of the bloody and blinded governor

sought for all the beloved

of

God by means

of

bands of

soldiers with hostile and aggressive minds,” that the

martyrs were guarded

by

“a

violent band of cen-

turions,” and that they were “assailed with numerous

and hard tortures by a soldier on guard, the executioner

of

the just and pious, a centurion and the magistrates

of Cirta being present also to help his cruelty.’,

I

Fruc-

tuosus,

who

suffered death in Spain, was hurried to

prison by the soldiers.2 In the interval

of

comparative

peace between

259

and

303

A.D.,

the bigotry

of

certain

pagan soldiers

was

more than once the cause

of

death

to Christians

in

the army.3 The great persecution

begun by Diacletianus and his colleagues in

303

A.D.

and continued in some parts

of

the Empire until

313

A.D.

opened with the sack

of

the

great

church

at Nicomedia by military and other officials, and the

complete destruction of the building by the Praetorian

Guards,

who

“

came

in

battle array with axes and other

instruments

of

iron.’’

4

In the account given by Euse-

bios

of

the sufferings

of

the Christians, particularly in

the East, soldiers appear at every turn

of

the story,

as

the perpetrators either

of

the diabolical and indescribable

torments inflicted on both sexes

5

or

of

the

numemus

other afflictions and annoyances incidental

to

the pcr-

I

Passw

Maria&

et

jarobi

ii.

2,

4,

iv.

3,

vi.

I

(Gebhardt

135

tr).

Ppcsw

Fnutuosi

I

(Ruinsrt

264).

3

See

the

facts

reported

by

Eusebios

in

HE

VI1

xv.

and

VI11

iv.. and

us

A’LIII

x.

3

E,

Mart

iw.

8-13,

vi.

2,

ir.

7

:

d

~arri~

~ik~

ctr.

z

(Ruinart

454).

It

is

faiily

safe

to

ans~me

that the

inflittion of

torture

refs&

to

in

other

passages

(Eus

BZi

VI11

iii.

r,

v.

2,

rri.

2-4,6.

riii,

ir.,

etc..

etc.)

WYLS

carried

out

by

soldiers,

even

though

they

ue

not

explicitly

mentioned.

cf

below,

p

151ff.

4 Lact

Mwt

Pcrs

xii.

The

Early

Christian

Disnpprovul

of

War

95

secution.1 In Phrygia, €or instance, they committed

to the flames the whole population

of

a small town

which happened to

be

entirely Christian.'

Resides these allusions

to

the iniquities of persecution

and besides the expressions of horror at the barbarities

of war

in

general, we come across other references to

the evil characters and evil deeds of soldiers. The

Didaskalia forbids the acceptance

of

money for the

church

"

from soldiers who behave unrighteously or

from those who kill men or from executioners3

or

from any

(of

the) magistrate(s) of the Roman Empire

who are stained in wars and have shed innocent

blood without judgment, who pervert judgments," etc.4

Lactantius alludes to the calamities caused by the

multiplication

of

armies under Diocletianus and his

colleagues,

j

to the misdeeds

of

the Praetorians at

Rome in slaying certain judges and making Maxentius

Emperor: to the terrible ravages committed by the

troops

of

Galerius in his retreat from Rome,7 and to

the rapacity of the soldiers of Maximinus Daza in the

East.8

Eusebios gives

us

similar information in regard

to

the

last-named ruler,9 and tells us of the massacre

committed

in

Rome by the guards

of

Maxentius.10

Let

us

repeat that the grim indictment of the

military character constituted by this long story

of

cruelty and outrage forms only one side

of

the

picture,

and obviously does not of.itself imply any view

as

to

the abstract rightfulness or otherwise of bearing arms

:

Eus

HE

VI11

iii.

3

f,

Mart

ix.

3,

xi.

6,

HE

IX

ir.

20.

Eus

HZ

VI11

xi.

I

:

cf lnct

frsrt

V

xi.

Io.

4

Dihk

IV

vi.

4

(sec

above,

p.

53

n

4).

3

I

suppose

this

is

the

meaning

of

speculatoribus

condemnationi~.

5

LactMortBwVii.

2

ff.

-

7

q#

rir

xxvii.

5.

1

Eus

HE

V&

xiv.

I

r

.

,:

us

HE

VI11

xir.

3,

op

tit

xxvi.

3.

cii

urvii.

5

f.

96

The

Early

Ch&kan

Attitude

to

War

on the contrary, its sharpest charges belong to a time

when there were certainly many Christian soldiers.

Nevertheless, our study

of

the Christian view

of

war

would be incomplete without the inclusion

of

this

aspect

of

the case

on

the debit side

of

the account,

an

aspect ‘which

is

more

or

less closely connected

with the central question

to

which we have

just

alluded.

It

is

to an examination

of

the view

taken

by the early

Christians

of

that question that we have

now

to turn.

THE

CHRISTIAN

REFUSAL

TO

PARTICIPATE

IN

\VAR.”The evidence as to the actual refusal

of

the

early Christians to bear arms cannot be properly appre-

ciated,

or

even fully stated, withoht a consideration

of

the parallel evidence touching the extent to which they

were willing to serve

as

soldiers. The material

of

the

present section will therefore be found to

a

certain

extent to interlace with that

of

the corresponding

section in

our

next part.

For

the sake, however,

of

simplicity

of

arrangement, it

will

be

best to marshal

the facts as we have them, first

on

one side, and then

on the other, and to postpone

our

final generalizations

until we have given full consideration to both.

It will probably

be

agreed by all that the substance

of

the last

four

sections creates at least

a

strong prima

facie presumption that the persons

who

expressed thern-

selves

in

the way explained in those sections would

decline

on

principle to render military service.

This

presumption becomes very much stronger when we

are

reminded that there was-practically nothing in

the

con-

ditions

of

the time which would put such

pressure

on

any early Christian as to compel

him

either

to

be

a

soldier against his

will

or

to

suffer

the

consequences

The

Early

Christian

Diaapproual

of

War

97

of

refusing to

do

so.

We

should expect therefore

to

find

these Christians, at all events during the first

few

generations, refusing to serve as soldiers. With that

expectation the little information that

we

possess is in

almost entire harmony.’ Apart from Cornelius and the

one or two soldiers

who

may have been baptized with

him by Peter

at

Caesarea

(?

40

A.D.)

and the gaoler

baptized by Paul at Philippi (circ

AD.

49)Ip

we have

no

direct or reliable evidence for the existence

of

a

single

Christian soldier until after

170

A.D.

Partly

in

justification, partly

in

amplification,

of

this

negative statement, a

few

words must be said in regard

to

one

or two incidents and epochs within the period

indicated. Thus it is stated that

Sergius

Paulus, the

proconsul of Cyprus,

‘

believed

’

as

a

result

of

the

teaching of Paul on his

first

mission journey

3

(47

AD.).

If this meant .that Sergius Paulus became

a

Christian

in

the ordinary sense, he would have to

be

reckoned

as

another Christian soldier, for the proconsul

of Cyprus was

a

military,

as

well as

a

civil, official

:

but the adherence of

a

man

of

proconsular rank to the

Christian faith at this early date would

be

a very extra-

ordinary occurrence

;

no other event

of

the same signifi-

cance occurs

till

nearly the end

of

the century; no

‘

Such is the conclusion of Harnack, who is not likely

to

be

suspected

of

exaggerating the evidence in its

favour.

See

his

ME

ii.

5s

(“The

pos,ition

of

a soldier would

seem

to

be

still

more

incompatible with Christ-

mlty than the higher oftices of state, for Christianity prohibited on prin-

ethic forbade war absolutely (tiberhaupt)

to the

Christians

”),

47

f

(“

Had

ciple

both war

and

bloodshed

’I),

MC

11

(I‘

We

shall

see that

the

Christian

not Jesus forbidden all revenge, even

all

retaliation

for

wrong, and

taught

complete gentleness and patience? and

ws

not

the

military

calling

more-

over contemptible on account

of

its

extortions,

acts

of

violence, and police-

service? Certainly

:

and from that it followed without question,

that

a

Christian

might not of his

free

will become

a

soldier. It

was

not however

di&lt to

keep

to

this rule,

and

certainly the

oldest

Christians observed it

”).

S

a

AC

X.

I

IT,

7

ff,

47

f,

xvi.

27-34.

3

Acxiii.

12.

98

The

Early Christian Attitude

to

War

mention is made of the baptism

of

Sergius Paulus

;

and

when it is said that he believed,’ what is probably meant

is that he listened sympathetically

to

what the apostles

said and expressed agreement with some of their most

earnest utterances.’ In writing from Rome

to

his

friends at Philippi

(60

A.D.),

Paul says

:

“

My bonds

became manifest in Christ

in

the whole praetorium and

to

(or

among) all the restJ’= Various opinions have

been held as

to

the exact meaning of praetorium

here

3

;

but, even

if

it means the camp of the Praetorian

Guards, the passage would not imply that some of the

guards became Christians, but only that

it

became

known to all of them that Paul was in custody because

he was a Christian, and not for any political offence.

A

more positive piece of information consists in the

fact that, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem by the

Romans

(70

A.D.),

the Christians

of

that city, in obedi-.

ence to a certain oracular response given by revelation

to approved men there,”4 left Jerusalem, and settled at

Pella in Peraea beyond the Jordan, thus taking no part

in

the national struggle against Rome. We are too

much in the dark as to the details to be able to

ascertain the motive that really prompted this step.

How far was it due to a disapproval of the national

policy of the Jews

?

how far to a sense of a final

break with Mosaism

?

how far to

a

simple desire for

personal safety; how far to a recollection of the

Master’s words,

I‘

Flee to the mountains

”?

or how far,

possibly, to a feeling that the

use

of the sword was

’

Cf.

Knowling’s

note

on

Ac

xiii.

12

in

The

Exposito~’~

Gm6k

Tats-

nwnt;

McGiffert,

Apastolic

&,

175;

htlet,

R@stolir

Agc,

68

n

2.

Bigelmair

(125)

believes

in

his

full

conversion.

3

See

Punru

in

6108

IV.

33.

Phil

i.

13

:

hv

6Xy

rp

rpawwpiy

rcri

roig

Xorroic

r&w.

4

Eus

HE

I11

v.

3.

The

Early

Christian

Disapprooal

of

FVar

99

forbidden them

?

None

of these reasons can

be

either

definitely affirmed or definitely denied. The one last

suggested

is

by no means impossible or unnatural. It

is in keeping with what we know of the facts

of

the

case. At all events the flame

of

Jewish patriotism was

extinct

in

the hearts of these Jerusalemite Christians.

Their policy on this occasion formed

a

contrast to that

of

a

certain section of the Essenes, who, despite the fact

that they were not usually over-patriotic and that they

abjured the use

of

arms on principle, yet joined with

their fellow-countrymen in the revolt against

Rome.'

The letter written about

I

12

A.D.

by Plinius, pro-

consul of Bithynia, to the Emperor Trajanus concerning

the Christians, does

not

refer either to their willingness

or

unwillingness to serve in the legions, and there would

therefore

be

no occasion to mention it in this connection,

were it not for the attempt which has been made

to

represent

its

silence

as

implying that the Christians

of

that time had no objection to bearing arms. Thus,

Professor Bethune-Baker says

:

"

Pliny's letter shows

that there was no complaint against the Christians

then with regard to their view of war"

;

and in this

judgment he

is

followed by the Venerable Archdeacon

of Ely.2 But inasmuch as there was nothing in the

circumstances of the time to bring about a collision

between the imperial government and the Christians

on the subject

of

military service, and very probably

nothing even to bring the views

of

the latter to the

governor's notice at all, the silence of the letter is

perfectly compatible with the supposition that the

Christians would not

serve

;

and the attempt to deduce

I

Holtzmann,

Ncutcsiurnmh'irhc

T&ok~gic

(I~II)

i.

147.

B.-Balrex

ZCW21;

Cunningham

251

(quoted

above,

p.

58

n).

100

The

Earlu

Christian

Attitude

to

War

the

opposite conclusion from it can only

be

described

as

entirely unwarranted. While we are speaking

of

the

reign

of

Trajanus, it may be mentioned that

in

the Acts

of

Phokas, who is said to have

been

put

to

death in Pontus under this Emperor, the martyr-bishop

baptizes a number

of

soldiers at their

own

request.1 But

the acts as a whole are

of

very questionable authority

as

history

a

;

and least

of

all

could an ornamental detail

like this

be

accepted

on

such slender grounds.

The idea has also been entertained that there

is

evidence

€or

the existence

of

Christian soldiers in the

time

of

the Emperor Hadrianus

(I

17-138

A.D.).

The

late Dr.

J.

Bass

Mullinger

of

Cambridgesays

:

“

Aringhi

(Antip.

Christianae,

i.

430)

gives an epitaph

of

a

soldier

of

the time of Hadrian, and (ii.

170)

that

of

a soldier

in

the praetorian guard

;

Boldetti

(Osscrvazioni

sopra

i

cimiteri,

ec.,

p.

432),

one

of

a

VETERANUS

EX

PRO-

TERIORIBUS

(?

‘‘

protectorioribus

”),

and

also

(p.

41

5)

one

‘I

Pyrrho militi,” and (p.

416)

that

of

one who

is

described as

“

felicissimus miles.” Marangoni

(Act.

S.

Vict.

p.

IOZ)

gives

’us

that of a centurion, and Ruinart

(Act.

Mart.

i.

50)

that

of

two brothers, Getulius and

Amantius,

who

were military tribunes under Hadrian.”

3

The first

of

these inscriptions, (which occurs, by the bye,

on

p.

525,

not

on

p.

430,

of

Aringhi’s first volume),

reads as follows

:

I‘

Tempore Hadriani Imperatoris

:

Marius adolescens dux rnilitum, qui satis vixit dum

vitam

pro

Ch(rist)o cum sanguine consunsit,

in

pace

tandem quievit. Renemerentes cum lacrimis et metu

3

fI&

(C

i

317

n

3)

says

th3t

Conybeare

has

not

convinced

him

1

Goybeare

118.

The

acts

were

rejected

even

by

the

Ballandists.

that

the

Armenian

text

of

these

acts

contains

a

genuine

ancient

document.

3

DCA

ii.

zq8b

(Art.

Wur).

posuerunt.” It is,

1

am informed on competent

authority, unquestionably a forgery. As regards the

second inscription from Aringhi, there is not only

no

evidence

of

its pre-Constantinian date, but none even

of

its Christian origin,

As

regards the three inscriptions

given by Boldetti, there

is

no evidence that any

one

of

them

is

as early as the second century. That given

by

Marangoni is probably post-Constantinian, as it contains

the nomen Flavius in the contracted form

FL.1

As

for

Getulius and Amantius, their existence rests

on

the

witness

of

the highly-coloured Acts of Symphorosa.

2

The names

of

Symphorosa and her seven

sans

are those

oi

real martyrs

:

but that apparently

is

all

that can

be

affirmed in ;upport

of

the historicity of the story.

Lightfoot, after

a

full

discussion, decides that “the

story condemns itself both in its framework and in its

details,” and that “there

is

no sufficient.

ground

for

assigning their martyrdom to the reign

of

Hadrian.”3

It

has already been remarked that the sentiments

expressed

by

Christian authors

in

regard to the iniquity

of war, the essentially peaceful character

of

Christianity,

the fulfilment of the great ploughshare prophecy

in

the

birth and growth

of

the Church, the duty of loving

enemies, and

so

on, all point to the refusal to bear arms

as

their logical implicate in practice. What has already

been said, therefore, on these various points has

a

certain

cf

RCA

ii.

2028

f,

Brace,

Gcstrr

Chrisfi,

91.

Harnack

MC

xax

n,

Bigelmair

’

On the evidence

of

the inscriptions

for

Christians

in

military service.

182

f.

’

Ruinart

7r

(ET

in

RNCL

ixb.

rp-rgq)

:

Symphorosa

says

to

Hadrianu,

Vir

meus Getulius, cum fntre

SUO

Amantio, tribuni tui

cum

ad

immohndurn.

.

Elegerunt

enim

magis

decollari

quam

vinci,

etc.

=t;pro

Christi nomine

passi

sunt

divers

supplicia,

ne

idolis consentirent

Lightfoot

At;

I1

i.

503-505.

102

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

place in the consideration

of

the concrete topic

nclw

before

us.

While this

is

so,

it would be merely tedious

to reiterate all the evidence previously adduced

:

but

there are certain pieces of that evidence which are more

direct and explicit than others, and which therefore

deserve to

be

either repeated

or

rdferred to here.

First

in order among these are one

or

two passages

in Justinus. What view, we may ask, in regard to

military service must have been taken by the man

who said

:

I‘

We who hated and slew one another, and

because of (differences in) customs would not share a

common hearth with those who were

not

of

our

tribe,

now, after the appearance

of

Christ, have become

sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade

those who hate

(us)

unjustly,

in

order that they,

living

according to the

good

suggestions of Christ, may share

our

hope

of

obtaining the same (reward) from the

God

who

is

Master of

all

”?

I

“We, who had been filled

with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness,

have each one-all the world over-changed the

instruments

of

war, the

swords

into ploughs and

the

spears

into farming implements, and we cultivate

piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope

which is from the Father Himself through the Crucified

One”

*

Hefele

3

maintains that the language of Justinus

in his (first) Apology,

ch.

xiv,

does

not necessarily imply

a

general disapproval

of

the profession of the warrior

;

and

Professor

Bethune-Baker, referring to ch.

xi

(where

Justinus denies that the Christians are looking

for

a

human kingdom) and xiv

ff,

remarks that he “expresses

one

another,

not

only

do

not

make

war upon

our

enemies,

but,”

etc.

*

Just

I

Ap

xiv.

3

:

cf

xxxix.

3

:

“We

who

were formerly slayers

of

(see

ahove,.p.

61).

Just

Dd

IIO

(729).

3

Quoted

in

DCA

ii.

~32%.

The

E0dg

Christian

Disapproval

of

Wm

108

no

definite view on the subject

of

war.

.

What he

says

.

really only amounts to a general repudiation

of

warlike

aims

or

methods

on

behalf of Christians.

Had he regarded war

a9

actually incompatible with

Christian sentiment he would probably have taken

this opportunity of disposing absolutely

of

the suspicion

to which the Christians were exposed by their Master’s

use

of

earthly metaphors to shadow forth eternal

spiritual relations.”

1

This reasoning

is,

in my opinion,

faulty. Justinus said

all

that

was

necessary

in

order

to controvert the suspicion

in

question, and also,

I

would add, quite enough to show where he std

on

the subject

of

military service: he would needlessly

have prejudiced the Emperor against his

main

plea,

viz.

for

toleration, had he gone out of his way to say

that, if ever the attempt were made to compel Christians

to serve in the legions, they

would

refuse to

obey

the

Emperor’s order. It is worth while to notice, though

Justinus does not mention the point

in

connection

with war, that he regarded the Christians as making

a positive contribution to the maintenance

of

peace

by

their very Christianity, and he commends them to

the

Emperor’s favour

on

this ground?

Tatianus,

as

we have

seen,

condemned war as

murderous,s and, as Harnack says, “was undoubtedly

opposed to the military calling.”

He

wrote:

“

I

do

not want to

be

a

king

:

I

do not wish to

be

rich

:

I

decline military command

:

I

hate fornication.”

4

B.-Baker

ZCW

21.

Just

I

A)

xii.

I

(see

above,

p.

60

n

4).

tmndated

‘

military

command

’

(njv

urpaqyiav)

to

indicate

the

praetor-

Tat

II

(829).

Harnack

(ME

ii.

5s

n

s)

understands

the

word

ship,

i.e.

a

magisterial

office.

But

Tatianus

has

dmdg

dealt

with

some

reference

to

military

life

is

almost desiderated.

magistracy

in

his

first

clause

@u&hru

ob

Ob)

;

and

in

a

list

of

this

port

3

See

above,

p.

50.

What again must have been the attitude of Athe-

nagoras, who declared that the Christians could not

I

endure to

see

a man put to death, even justly, consider-

ing

that to

do

so

was practically equivalent

to

killing

him, and that for this reason they could not attend

the gladiatorial games

?

I

The

heathen philosopher Celsus in the ‘True Dis-

course’ which he wrote against the Christians about

178

A.D.

(the approximate date

of

Athenagoras’

‘

Legatio’

also), not only exhorts the Christians to

take part in civil government,

but

“urges

us”

(so

Origenes said later, quoting Celsus’ words) “to help

the Emperor with all

(our)

strength, and to labour with

him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight

for

him and

serve as soldiers with him,

if

he require (it), and to

share military command (with him).” Celsus argued

that, if all did as the Christian, nothing would prevent

the

Emperor

being left alone and deserted and earthly

affa-irs getting into the hands of the most lawless and

savage barbarians,

so

that the glory neither

of

Chris-

tianity nor of true wisdom

would

be

left among men.2

“

It

is quite obvious from this,” Harnack says, ‘(that

Christians were charged with a disinclination to serve

in

the army, and the charge was undoubtedly well

founded.”

3

’

Athemg

LC@

35

(969).

Hefelr

(quoted

above) does not regard this

as

disapproving

of

the warrior’s profession

:

but

Bigelmair

(166)

recognizes

that it

IS

at

lest

possible that Athenagoras had

war

in mind.

a

Orig

02s

73,

68:

d

74,75

(.see

below,

p

131

tT).

3

Hprnack

ME

ii.

57

n

I.

Guignebert

(19

8

&gines that

Celsus

is

Pttacking

the

doctrines

of

the Christians rather than the “applications

piques

qu’ils

en

peuvent

dcji

hire.”

Professor

B.-3aker

(ICWa1

rr)

rgmres

the

evidence

of

Celsus

for the latter

part

of

the second century

:

he does

not

inention his date, but treats him along with Origenes,

as

if

they

were contemporaries

(id.

27

:

cf

29

:

“By

this rime, therefore,”

(it.

the

time

of

Origencs’ reply,

248

A.D.)

“many Christinns shrank

from military

SeMce

’3.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

105

The first reliable evidence

for

the presence

of

Christians in any number in the

Roman

army belongs,

as

we

shall

-see

later, to the reign

of

Marcus Aurelius

(161-180

A.D.),

more precisely to about the year

174

A.D.

This epoch is therefore an important landmark

in

the

history

of

the subject, and we may pause here for

a

moment to summarize one

or

two

aspects

of

the

situation. It

is

only in this period that the question

of

service or abstention becomes one

of

real and

practical significance to Christian people. Up to that

time the conditions had constituted no challenge for

anyone.

‘I

It

is

not therefore surprising,” says Harnack,

that until about the time

of

the Antonines, in

particular Marcus Aurelius,

a

question of military

service (Soldatenfrage) did not exist

in

the churches

:

the

baptized Christian did not become

a

soldier

;

and

those who were caught by the Christian faith in the

camp had to

see

how they could come to terms with

their military profession.”

1

The same scholar gives

a

useful

enumeration of the various features

of

military

life, which

could

not have failed to thrust themselves

on

the

Christian’s notice

as

presenting, to say the least,

great ethical difficulty. The shedding

of

blood on

the battlefield, the

use

of torture in

the

law-courts,

the passing

of

death-sentences

by

officers and the

execution

of

them by common soldiers, the

un-

conditional military oath, the all-pervading worship

of

the

Emperor, the sacrifices in which all were

expected in some way to participate, the average

behaviour

of soldiers in peace-time, and other idolatrous

and

offensive customs-all these would constitute

in

combination

an

exceedingly

powerful

deterrent against

any Christian joining the

army

on

his own initiative.2

I

Hanuck

MC

51.

Cf

Hnmrck

MC

4

f.

106

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

As

a

transition from this point to the

full

material

furnished by Tertullianus, we may recall in passing

the phrase in the Pseudo-Justinian Address to

the

Greeks,’ exhorting them thus:

I‘

Learn

(about) the

incorruptible King, and know his heroes who never

inflict daughter on (the) peoples,”

1

the passage in

Eirenaios, in which he applies the ploughshare prophecy

to

the Christians and says that they “now know not

how to fight, but, (when they are) struck, oHer the

other cheek also,”Z and the remark of Clemens of

Alexandria

:

“

We do not train women like Amazons

to

be

manly in war, since we wish even the men

to

be

peaceable.”

3

The writings

of

Tertullianus make it abundantly clear

that in his time there were considerable numbers

of

Christians

serving

in

the Roman army. This fact,

the nature and significance

of

which will be considered

later, is

one

of

great importance, but it

is

very far from

exhausting the contribution of this great writer to

our

subject. He testifies not only to the willingness of

many to serve, but also to the unwillingness

of

many

others

;

and the views he expresses

on

the question

are more than mere statements of a personal opinion

-they represent the convictions of a very large

pro-

portion

of

his fellow-Christians.

Our

best plan

will

be,

first, to quote the pertinent passages from

his

works

in chronological order, and then to add

a

few

necessary

comments. It may, however,

be

stated here that,

bound up with the problem

of

military service

was

the problem

of

undertaking public office as a magis-

trate. The police-work

of

society

was

done largely

by soldiers, and the magistrate

was

not

so

sharply

Eiren

LV

xxxiv.

4

fii.

271

f),

quoted

above,

pp.

61 f.

‘

Ps-just

Oral5-

3

Clem

S#mm

IV

viii.

61.

The

Earl9

Christian

Disapproval

oj‘

H‘ar

107

distinguished from the army officer as he is now. In

any case, the Christian difficulty was pretty much the

same with the one as with the other: common to both

were the two great stumbling-blocks of idolatrous

Contamination and the shedding

of

blood (either

judicially

or

in

battle).

It

will therefore help

us

to

understand the Christian position if we include a

few

passages bearing upon the question of

the

Christian’s

abstention from public office.

We recall first the passage

in

Tertullianus’

‘

Apolo-

geticus,’

in

which he tells the pagans that, though

the Christians are numerous and reckless enough to

avenge their wrongs, there is no fear

of

their

doing

so.

IC

For

what war,” he asks them,

‘I

should we not

be

fit (and) eager, even though unequal in numbers,

(we) who are

so

willing

to

be

slaughtered-if, accord-

ing to that discipline (of

ours),

it was not more law-

ful

to be slain than to slay?

’’1

It is doubtless

in

the light of this sentiment that we are

to

read the

assumption earlier in his apology that Caesars

could

not

be

Christians.2 In

his

De

Idololatria,’ written

*

Te?

!p”i

37

(i.

463).

The Latin runs: Cui bello non idonei, non

prompt1

fuwemus,

etlam impares copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur,

meaning

is

sufficiently clear,

viz.

that the Christians, though few, were

si non apud istam disciplinam

magis

occidi liceret quam occidere

?

The

so

careless of death that they would fight their pagan enemies, were it

not

for

their rule that it is better to be killed than to kill. Professor

lravc

not

bccn

useful and ready, even when inferior in numbers

;

ready to

be

B.-Baker, however, translates

(ICW23)

;

“Tell me

a

war for which we

cut down,

as

none would

be

whose tenets were not that it

is

more lawful

to

be

killed

than to

kill,”

and quotes it

as

showing that

‘‘

the chief thing by

which they

”

(Le.

Christians

in

the

hy)

“

were distinguished

from

their

greater readiness

to

encounter death,

in

floportion

as

fk

had

rcccavrd

a

Pagan

comrades-m

far

as

concerned their action in the field-was their

more

~+rcllCd

Rope

J%Y

tkc

fi+e”

(italics mine). This surprising

mis-

interpretation of Tertullianus

has

been

followed

by Cunningham

(251

f).

Tert

A@(

21

(i.

403)

:

Sed

et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si

aut Caesares non essent

saeculo

necessarii, aut

si

et Christtani potuissent

esse

Caecpreu.

Further reference will have to

be

made later

to

this

important

PBoJPpe.

108

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

Waf

while he

was

still a loyal Catholic, he states the con-

ditions under which he believes it to

be

possible for

a Christian to

be

a magistrate.

“

And

so

let

us

grant,”

he says, that it is possible for anyone to succeed,

in whatever office (he may happen to hold), in going

on under the mere name

of

the office, without sacrific-

ing,

or

lending his authority to sacrifices,

or

contracting

for sacrificial victims, or assigning (to others) the care

of

the temples,

or

seeing after their revenues,

or

giving

shows at his own (expense)

or

at that

of

the public,

or presiding at them when they have to

be

given,

or

making a proclamation or an edict for any solemnity,

or even swearing (oaths), or-as regards (his magis-

terial) power-judging anyone on

a

capital

or

criminal

charger-for thou rnightest allow

(him

to judge)

about

(questions

of)

money-or condemning (anyone),“ bind-

ing anyone, imprisoning anyone, or torturing (any-

one)

:

if

it

can be believed that these things are

possible.”3

In

the next chapter he brands all magis-

terial

garb

and pomp as idolatrous and diabolic, but

does not touch on the objection

of

violence and

bloodshed. In the following chapter he deals specifi-

cally

with

the question

of

military service.

‘I

(The

question) also concerning military service, which

is

concerned both with rank and power,4 might seem (to

have been) definitely settled

in

that (last) chapter. But

now the question is asked on that (very point), whether

a

believer may turn to military service, and whether

the military-at least the rank and

file

or (say) all the

inferior (grades), who are under no necessity

of

(offer-

’

Latin

:

neque

judicet

de

capite

alicujus vel

pudore.

neque

damnet neque

praedamnet.

3

Tert

Iddl

r7

(i.

687).

de

militia,

quae

inter

dipitatem

et

potestatem

est.

ing) sacrifices

Or

(pAssidg) capital sentetltes-may

be

admitted

to

the faith. There

is

no congrdity betweed

the

divine and human sacrarhentum,’ the

sign

of

Christ and the

sign

of

the devil, the

camp

of

iight

and the camp

of

darkness: one

soul

cannot

be

owed

to two,

God

and Caesar. And (yet, some Christians

say),

Moses carried a rod, and Aaron (wore) a buckle,

ahd John was girt with

a

leather belt,I and Joshua (the

son

of)

Nun

led a line

of

march, and the people waged

war-if it

is

yoQr pleasure to sport (with the subject).

But

how

will (a Christian) make war-nay, how

will

he

serve as a soldier in peace(-timc)-wlthout the sword,

which

the Lord has

taktn

away? For, although

soldiers had come to John and received the form of a

rule, although also a centurion had believed, (yet)

the

Lord

afterwards,

in

disarming Peter, ungirded every

soldier.

No

dress is 1awfd”among us which

is

assigned

to

an

unlawful

action.”Z

In

Adversus Judaeos,’ which

belongs roughly- to the same period as

‘

De Idololatria,’

Tertullianus

says

:

$‘The old law vindicated itself by

the vengeance of the sword, and plucked out eye for

eye, and requited injury with punishment

;

but the new

law pointed to clemency, and changed the former

savagery of swords and lances

into

tranquillity, and

refashioned the former infliction

of

war upon rivals

and foes of the law

into

the peaceful acts

of

plough-

ing and cultivating the earth.

And

so

. . .

the ob-

servance of the new law and

of

spiritual circumcision

has shone forth in acts of peaceful obedience.”s In the

treatise

‘

Adversus Marcionem,’ whish came a few years

later, about the time when Tertullianus broke with the

’

TWt

fa

rg

(i.

wfj.

3

Tert

[&

3

(ii

604)

:

see

above,

p.

62.

‘

The

dlubions

are

to

various

iterne

in

the

Roman

soldier’s equipment.

110

The

Early

Christian

Attitudt?

to

War

Church and became a Montanist, he asks

:

“

Who shall

produce these (results, viz. truth, gentleness, and jus-

tice) with the sword, and not rather that which is

contrary to gentleness and justice, (namely), deceit

and harshness and injustice] (which are)

of

course the

proper business

of

battles

?

”1

A

little later in the

same work, he says:

“

‘

And they shall not learn to

make war any more,’ that is, to

give

effect

to

hostile

feelings

;

so

that here too thou mayest learn that Christ

is promised not

(as

one who is) powerful in war, but

(as)

a

bringer

of

peace.”Z

In

‘

De Pallio,’ written about

210

AB.,

he confesses, in

the

person

of

his philosophic

mantle, that he is “no barking pleader, no judge, no

soldier.”3

We next come to his important treatise

‘

De

Corona Militis,’ written-in

211

A.D.,

some years

after his attachment

to

Montanism-in defence

of

a

Christian soldier who had refused

to

wear a garland on

the Emperor’s birthday. Tertullianus takes occasion

to touch

on

the prior question whether a Christian

ought to

be

a soldier at all.

“

And in fact, in order

that

I

may approach the real issue

of

the military

garland,

I

think it has first to

be

investigated whether

militaryservice

is

suitable

for

Christians at all. Besides,

what sort (of proceeding)

is

it,

to deal with incidentals,

when the (real) fault lies with what has preceded them

?

Do we believe that the human ‘sacramentum

’

may

lawfully

be

added to the divine, and that

(a

Christian)

may (give

a

promise

in)

answer to another master after

Christ, and abjure father and mother and every kins-

Tut

MWC

iii.

21

(ii.

351).

’

Tert

Mmc

iii

14

(ii.

~o),

d

yd

g

(ii.

621).

3

Tert

hi

5

(ii.

1047)

:

caussas

oon

elatro.

MM

iudim.

noa

milito,

The

Early

Christdcrn

Disapproval

of

War

11

1

man, whom even the Law commanded to

be

honoured

and loved next to

God,

(and) whom the Gospel also

thus honoured, putting them above all save Christ

only? Will

it

be

lawful (for him) to occupy himself

with the sword, when the Lord declares that he who

uses the sword will perish

by

the sword? And shall

the

son

of

peace, for whom

it

will

be

unfitting even

,

to

go to law,

be

engaged in a battle? And shall he,

who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs,

administer chains and (im)prison(ment) and tortures

#

and executions

i’

Shall he

now

go

on

guard for another

more than for Christ, or’(shal1 he do it)

on

the

Lord’s

Day,

when (he does)

not

(do it even) for Christ

?

And

shall

he keep watch before temples, which he has re-

nounced? and take a meal there where the Apostle has

forbidden it

?I

And those whom he

has

put to flight

by

exorcisms

in

the daytime, shall he defend (them)

at

night, leaning and resting upon the pilum with which

Christ’s side was pierced? And shall he carry a flag,

too, that

is

a rival to Christ?

And

shall

he

ask for

a

watchword from his chief, when he has already

received one from God

?

And (when

he

is) dead, shall

he

be

disturbed

by

the bugler’s trumpet-he who

expects

to

be

roused by the. trumpet of the angel?

And shall the Christian, who is not allowed to burn

(incense),

to whom Christ

has

remitted the punishment

of

fire,

be

burned according to the discipline

of

the

camp?

(And) how

many

other

sins

can be seen (to

belong)

to

the functions of camp(-life)-(sins) which

must

be

explained

as

a transgression

(of

God’s

law).

The

very

transference of

(one’s)

name from the camp

of

light

to

the camp

of

darkness,

is

a

transgression.

Of

An

Jltuion

to

J

Cor. viii.

IO.

112

The

Early

Chtisdari

At&&

ta

War

cmrse, the case

is

different,

if

the faith c011yes

subse-

Queht(ly)

to

any

(who

are) already occupied in military

service,

as

(was,

for

instance, the case) with those

a

whom John admitted to baptism, and with the most

believing .centurions whom Christ approves and whom

Peter instructs

:

all the same, when faith

has

been

accepted and

signed,

either the service must be

left

at

once,

as

has been done

by

many, or else

recourse

must

be had to all sorts

of

cavilling, iest anything

be

com-

mitted against God-(any, that is,

of

the

things)

which

dre

not

allowed (to Christians) outside the army, or

lastly that which the faith of (Christian) civilians

has

fairly determined upon must

be

endured for

God.’

For

military service will not promise impunity

for

sins

or

immunity from martyrdom.

The

Christian

is

nowhere

anything else (than

a

Christian).

.

. .

With

him

(Le.

Christ) the civilian believer is

as

much a soldier

as

the

believing soldier

is

a

civilian. The state

of

faith

does

not admit necessities.

No

necessity

of

sinning have

they, whose one necessity

is

that

of

not sinning.

. .

.

For

(otherwise) even inclination can be pleaded

(as

a)

necessity, having

of

course an element of compulsion

in

it.

I

have stopped up that very (appeal to necessity)

in regard to other cases

of

(wearing) garlands of

office,

for which (the plea

of)

necessity

is

a

most familiar

defence

;

since either (we) must

flee

from

(public) offices

for

this

reason,

lest

we

fall into

sins,

or

else

we

must

‘

dum

tamen,

suscepta

fide

atque

signata,

aut deserendum

statim

sit,

ut

a

multis

actum, aut

omnibus

modis

cavillandurn,

ne

quid

advcrms

perpetidurn

pro

Deo,

quod

wque

fide5

Deum

committatur,

quae

nec

extra

militiam

pemittuntur, aut

wvissimc

condixit.

The

phrase

6

quae

ncc

extra

rnilitiam

permittuntur

I

is?%Lt

to

construe

:

but

b

retaining

this

reading

instead-of the

ruggtsted

‘ex

militia’

(so

RigalLme

and

Migne),

one

does

uot

get

rid

of

the

propcmal

to

desert,

85

the

Trans&

in

ANCL

xi.

348

n

ms

to

imsgine.

endure martyrdoms, that we 'may break

(off

our tenure

of public) offices.

On

(this) first aspect

of

the question,

(namely) the illegitimacy of the military

life

itself,

I

will not add more, in order that the second (part

of

the

question) may be restored to its place-lest,

if

I

banish

military service with

all

my force,

I

shall have issued a

challenge to

no

purpose in regard to the military gar-

land."' In the following chapter, he asks

:

"

Is

the

laurel

of

triumph made up of leaves, or of corpses? is

it decorated with ribbons,

or

tombs

I

is

it besmeared

with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers,

perhaps those of some men even (who are) Christians-

for Christ (is) among the barbarians as well?

''2

The clear, thorough-going, and outspoken opinions

of Tertullianus have naturally attracted a

good

deal of

attention and criticism

;

and

there are one

or

two

points

in connection with them which it

will

be well briefly

to consider

and

emphasize.

I.

The

'

De Idololatria'

(198-202

A.D.)

is the earliest

evidence

we

have for the enlistment

in

the army

of

Christians who were already baptized.3 Any Christian

soldiers mentioned

in

documents of an earlier date

may well have consisted, for aught

we

know to the

contrary, of men converted when already engaged in

military

life.

2.

He

recognizes only two practicable alternatives

for

the converted soldier

:

he must either leave the

'

Tert

Cor

XI

(ii.

91-93).

Tert

Cor

IZ

(ii.

94

f).

3

It

will

be

seen

@.

108)

that

he

asks

the question

"

whether a believer

behevers

had

already

done

so.

Similarly

in

De

Cm

(211

A.D.)

(see

my

turn

to

military

service," which

almost

certainly

implies

that

me

p.

t

I

I)

he

speaks

of

'

transferring

one's

name

from

the

camp

of

light

to the

camp

of

darkness,'

and

mentions

the converted when they were

already

soldiers

os

a

speclnl

closs,

thus

making

it

evident

that

there were others

who

had

enlisted

ofter

conversion.

9

114

The

Early

Chrbtian

Rita'totcde

to

War

service,

or

suffer martyrdom. Harnack indeed says

that Tertullianus displays some uncertainty in regard

to converts who were already soldiers, and that he

does

not present them this dilemma

of

either leaving

the army

or

dying as martyrs, "but opens to them

yet a third possibility, namely that

of

avoiding

'pollu-

tion by heathenism as much as they can."' Hut it

has

to

be

remembered that the pollution was,

in

Ter-

tullianus' view, practically inseparable

from

military

life

;

he

runs

over

a

large

number

of

the commonest

duties of the soldier, and raises objections

to

them

one

after another; and

his

third alternative must there-

fore

be

regarcled as an ironical concession

of

a bare

abstract possibility, which would

be

obviously impos-

sible

in

practice, like his concession that a Christian

may hold office, provided he has nothing to do with

sacrifices, temples, public shows, oaths, judgment

of

capital or criminal cases, pronunciation and infliction

of

penalties, and

so

on.

3.

The emphasis

which

he

lays

on the danger

of

contamination by idolatry has led some authors

to

represent this

as

his one real objection

to

military

service and to use it for the purpose

of

dissociating

him

from

those

who

in later times have objected

to

war on humanitarian grounds. Thus Professor Rethune-

Baker says

:

"

It

is

important to notice what

Ter-

tullian means by those offences against

God

which

are inseparable from the soldier's

life.

ft

is

not

the

modern

idea

at

all.

The special objections which

he

feels,

tkp

0.4

ofmces

against

Chrzitian

sentiwtzt

that

seem

lo

real&"weiglz

with

him,

are the military oath-

over which the heathen gods presided-and the

pagan

Harnack

MC

67.

ceremonial with which

so

many military acts and

operations were invested,”

I

This remarkable state-

ment

is

approvingly quoted by Archdeacon Cunning-

ham.* The passages just quoted from Tertullianus

are sufficient proof of its amazing inaccuracy. Great

as

was

his horror of idolatry, his conviction

of

the

illegitimacy

of

all bloodshed and violence was equally

great. Nor can

I

understand how Gass can say:

“

Tertullian

was

prepared

to

put

up

with Christian

soldiers, only without the ostentatious crown

of

vic-

tory.”

3

Even Troeltxh falls a victim to this error:

he says that Tertullianus and Origenes, “despite the(ir)

contention that the soldiers’ handiwork

of

blood

was

absolutely unchristian, would have acquiesced,

if

service

in

the army had not brought the Christians into

con-

tact with the worship

of

the Emperor and

(the

religious

customs)

of

the camp.”

4

This statement

is

unwar-

ranted even in regard to Tertullianus, and still more

so

in regard to

Origenes,

who never raises the difficulty

of

idolatrous contamination

in

the

army

at all.5.

4.

Tertullianus has

been

accused of lack of ’candour

in

boasting to pagans

in

one

treatise

6

of the large

number of Christians in the army, and after that arguing

G+&ri&zu*

ad

Pditics,

253.

What

is,

I

think,

the

one

solitary

allusion

to

the

early

Christian

attitude

to

war

in

Dr:

Forsyth’s

C!rirti.m

Zthi

of

Wor

contains

a

serious

over-statement,

d

not

a

accuracy.

He

wys

(Sf)

:

‘6

The

demand

from

Christian

mG.2

zi

militarg

oath

. .

.

was

objected

to

less

on

the

grounds

of

the

Sermon

on

the

Mount

than

because

it

invotvcd

a

conkion of

the

Emperor’s

deity

inconsistent

with

the

place

of

Christ

in

His

Gospel.”

3

Gass,

GsschirAlc‘de+

chistlichen

Ethik,

i.

93.

4

Trodkh

II~

n

+.

5

The

remarks

of

Ramsay

(2%

Church

im

t&e

Roman

Empire,

pp.

435

fj

on

the

subject

imply

that

fear

of

~)articip&ing

in

heathen

rites

ala,

MilmPn,-&Ks&yrf

Cbistk&y,

ii.

142.

was

the

one

ground

for

the

early

Christian

refusPl

of

military

mice.

Cf

I

B.-Bakcr

TCCW

25.

Italics

mine.

‘

Tert

Apslq,

37,

Nd

i.

I,

(see

klow,

p.

0341.

with

his

feliow-Christians .that there ought not to be

any Christians in the army at all.1 But unless candour

requires a writer to explain his whole mind on a

subject every time he mentions it in a purely incidental

way, the charge

of

disingenuousness

is

unwarranted.

Each time that Tertullianus spoke to pagans

of

Christian

soldiers without reproaching them, he was simply ad-

verting to an obvious and admitted fact,

in

order to

prove the numbers and ubiquity

of

the Christians and

their readiness to take part in the activities

of

society.

It would have been not only futile, hut out of place;

to introduce

a

topic upon which Christian opinion was

divided, unless the course of the argument distinctly

called for its treatment.

5.

Again, Tertullianus’ attempt to find an applica-

tion

of

Christianity to. every department

of

life has

been criticized as in itself a mistake.

His

earnestness,

it

is

admitted, was commendable

;

but he was

on

wrong lines

:

“he failed, as every man is

-

bound to

fail,

who conceives

of

Christianity in the light

of

a

Rule,

as

a law

of

commandments contained

in

ordi-

nances, rather than

as

a law

of

the spirit

of

life in

Christ Jesus.”= We may concede that the province

of Christian casuistry is a strictly limited

one,

and that

the limits are at times overpassed

both

by

Tertullianus

and others.

But

even the Pauline Epistles, not

to

mention the Synoptic

Gospels,

teach

us

that there

is

such a thing

as

the Law

of

Christ, which, while spring-

ing

from

#

the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ issues in

certain very definite and concrete principles

of

conduct.

This king

so,

it

becomes

the duty

of

every Christian,

So

Hunrck

MC

59f:

cf

B.-BPker

ICW

23;

Guignebert

rp;

Bigelmrir

I&

;

De

Jong

9

ff.

SeullPrd

112.

not

only to

work

out the application of these principles

to

his own life, but also-and this

is

particularly the

duty

of

the Christian teacher and writer-to assist

others to do the same.

6.

It

is

interesting to notice in Tertullianus

the

idea

already suggested by Justinus

I

of

the 'alternative

service' rendered by the Christian to society and the

State, despite the fact that he does not engage officially

in

public affairs. The idea forms, as we shall see later,

a

ve'v

important item in the apologia

of

Origenes.

Tertullianus

does

not work

it

into any organic system

of

thought

;

but his expressions of it, such

as

they are,

are interesting.

"

I

might deservedly say," he argues,

Caesar is more

ours

(than yours), inasmuch

as

he is

appointed

by

our

God.

So

that

I

do more

for

his

(health

and)

safety (than ye

do),

not only because

I

demand it of Him who

is

able

to

give

(it),

nor

because

I

who demand it am such

as

to deserve to obtain it,

but

also

because,

in

reducing the majesty

of

Caesar

below

God,

I

the more commend him to

God,

to

whom

alone

I

subject

him."

a

He

makes his philo-

sophic cloak say in reply to the charge

of

idleness

and neglect

of

public affaifs:

"

Yet to me also

it

will

be

to some extent allowed that

I

am

of

advantage

to the public.

I

am wont, from every boundary-stone

or

altar,

to

prescribe

for

morals medicines that

will

confer

good

health more happily on public affairs and

,

states

and empires than your

works

(will).

. .

.

I

flatter

no

vices

;

I

spare no lethargy,

no

scabbiness

;

I

apply

the cautery to ambition," and

so

on.

3

7.

Lastly, it is

a

mistake to regard Tertullianus

a5

'

See

above,

pp.

60,103.

3

Tert

Pd

5

(ii.

1047

f).

*

Tcrt

ANI

33

(i.

448).

an

individual dissenter from the Church

as

a whole

on

this question of whether Christians ought to serve

in the army

or

not. Harnack, for instance, urges (in

my opinion, without sufficient ground) that

the

Christ-

ian soldiers in the army had up

till

then never agitated

as

malcontents (frondiert)

on

account

of

their Christian

profession, and that

his

“attack on the service

of

Christians in the army was something new, hitherto

ynheard of: easy as

it

was for him to prove the

essential incompatibility

of

the service of Christ and

service in the army, even in peace(-time),

it

was just

as impossible

for

him to appeal to a rigorous custom

and practice already

in

force hitherto.”

I

It is true

that’

no

general or authoritative ruling on

the

point

had yet been given-circumstances not having called

for it, that Christian conviction

in

regard to it

was

never absolutely unanimous, that many of Tertullianus’

Christian contemporaries (how many we do not know)

differed from him,

and

that the Church

on

the whole

ultimately agreed

with

them rather than with him.

It

must however be

borne

in

mind that this last fact

would have its own effect

in

submerging to

some

extent earlier utterances

of

a contrary tendency

;

and

this effect must

be

allowed for

in

explaining whatever

paucity there is

in

records of this

kind.

Tertullianus

.clearly tells

us

that

‘

many

’

soldiers, when converted

to Christianity, immediately left

the

service”

His

own

views are not to

be

set aside as those

of

a Montanist,

for

his objection to military service is as clear and

emphatic

in

‘De

Idololatria,’ written before

be

had

Harnack

MC

67.

Seep.

1x2

n.

I.

*k

(MC

66)

waters

down

Tertuliianus’

QUI&’

into

‘

vielleicht

viele.

adopted Morltanism,

as

it

is in

‘

De Corona,’ written

after he had adopted it.1 And when

we

consider that

these views,

as

will

be

shown presently, agree with the

testimony

of

Origenes and the oldest Church-Orders

as

to the normal Christian practice in the earlier part

of the third century, and were apparently endorsed by

so

representative

a

churchman

as

his own fellow-

countryman and admirer Cyprianus, we shall hardly

be

inclined

to

believe that at this time he was voicing

the opinion of

a

minority

of

Christians, still

less

that

he represented the views of

a

mere handful of fanatical

extremists2

We have now to consider the evidence of the Canons

of

Hippolutos

;

but

in

order to do

so,

it

is

necessary

to say something,

by

way

of

introduction, on a tiresome

and

as

yet urlsolved literary problem. Hippolutos was

a learned Roman Christian, who flourished during the

first

thirty years

of

the

third century. He

was

the

critic and rival

of

Pope

Kallistos

(21s-223

AD.),

and

for

a

time headed

a

separate congregation, as opposition-

bishop;

in

235

A.D.

he was exiled to Sardinia, where

probably he died. He is

known

to have interested him-

conflicting and difficult to

follow.

I-le

knows the date

of‘

De

Idololahia,’

’

Professor B.-Baker’s treatment

of

this point

(ZCW22-26)

is peculiarly

and quotes what

is

said in it about Christ disarming every soldier, and

so

on: yet he

makes

much

of

the distinction between

’‘

Tertullian

(a)

Who-

lic

”

and

“

(61

Montanist,” quotes the former

as

teslifying to the presence

of

Christians

In

the army, adding that “in the opinion

of

Tertullian this

redounded to their credit,”

speaks

of

“

Tertullian’s change

of

mind,” pints

that “the opinions recorded

in

them must be proportionately discounted.”

out

how his Montanism is

revealed

in _his later writings,

and

concludes

Some remarks have already been’ dered

(pp.

1x5

f)

on

the real bearing to

Tertullianus’

boasts

in Apol

37

and

Nd

I. I.

They cannot be taken

as

showing that in his Catholic period he approved

of

Christians

acting

as

soldiers.

a

Ramsay

(Thc

Church

in

fAc

Roman

Emfi’re,

pp.

435

f)

spes?

as

if

it

was

only

a

few individuals here

and

there

who

objected

to

Chnshaus

serving

as

soldiers.

120

The

Early

Christian

Attitu.de

to

War

self

in ecclesiastical regulations and to have written

mpi

Xaptmp&rwv

&TOUTOXLIC~

rap68omc.

Whether this

is

the title of one work

or

of

two (‘Concerning

Ministerial Gifts’ and

‘

Apostolic Tradition

’1

we

do

not know

;

neither do we know the

exact

meaning

he

attached to

Xapiupara.

These uncertainties have added

to the difficulty of identifying Hippolutos’ composition

among the various extant works. possessing some sort

of claim to embody

it.

The works concerned are

members

of

a large family

of

documents and frag-

ments in different languages and

of

different dates,

but all closely related

to

“ne another and

all

dealing

with rules and regulations to

be

observed

in

the

government

of

the Church. Without attempting to

enter into the tangled details

of

the problem,

we

may

briefly outline the chief points. Three documents are

in question

:

(I)

the so-called

‘

Hippolytean Canons,’

which cannot have come from Hippolutos

as

they

stand, but must

in

any case have been, heavily in-

terpolated

:

1

(2)

the so-called

‘

Egyptian Church-

Order,’ the contents

of

which closely resemble those

of

the Hippolytean Canons, and which

is

usually

assigned

to

the first half of the fourth century, though

it has recently been claimed

(by

Dom

Conolly)

as

virtu-

ally the composition

of

Hippolutos himself2

:

(3)

‘

The

Testament

of

our

Lord,’

a Syrian or Cilician

version

of

the same general collection

of

rules, dating about

Achelis, in

Tcrte

u7rd

Unfcru;hutzgm

VI

4

(38-1371

gives

a

Latin

b-ersion

of

the Canones Hlppolyti,

and

argues

for

the

authorship,

io

the

Alczandricn

(Leipzig,

IF)

(193-230),

gives

a

German

version

based

on

msin,

of

Hippolutos.

Riedel, in

Die

Kirchnrcchtrgucl&?~

hs

PdrkrchbCr

better

MSS

than

those

used

by

Achelis.

StudicJ

VI11

4

(1916).

The

text

is

given

in

the

last-named

work,

*

See

KrUger

360

;

Maclean

160

f

:

nom

R.

H.

Conollp

in

Texis

4

pp.

175-194,

and

also

by

Funk

in

Dhcalia

et

Cm/itw‘iorrrsAps&hm

(Paderborn,

1905)

ii.

97-119.

the middle of the fourth century,I but

in

some respects

prese~ng older material than either

of

the two last-

named works. Even ifwe cannot take Conolly’s theory

as

proven, we may yet

well

believe that Hippolutos

did actually compose detailed regulations for Church-

management, particularly

if

&romoXt~ij

rapt48oa~~

is to

be

regarded as the title of a separate work, distinct

from

Xaptuphrwv,

and that these regulations found

their way to the East and are contained in a more

or less modified form

in

the

‘

Egyptian Church-Order,,

and the

‘

Hippolytean Canons and also lie at the

basis of ‘The Testament

of

our Lord

’

and the still

later Apostolic Constitutions (circ.

375

A.D.).

It

would

be

difficult to account for the connection

of

Hippolutos’

name with this body of documents, unless we could

regard

him

as the author

of

some of the material

contained in them.= The reader will easily see that

no

investigation

of

the ruling given by Hippolutos

on any point

is

adequate without a

full

quotation

of

what

is

said

on

it in each

of

the three documents

mentioned. We must therefore proceed next to quote

their respective regulations

on

the subject of Christiaps

acting as magistrates and soldiers. These regulations

occur in that part

of

each document which deals with

the acceptance of newcmembers into the Church and

with the question

of

the trades and professions which

it is legitimate

or

otherwise for Church-members to

follow.

As

several versions are

in

question,

I

have set

forth their contents

in

tabular fork (pp.

122, 123)

to

facilitate the comparison

of

one with another.

’

The

subject

is

more

fully

dealt

with

by

the authors

already

quoted

;

cf

also

Kruger

341

f;

Harnack

C

ii.

50t-jI7

;

Funk

op

cif

ii.

xix-xxviii

;

Cooper

and

Maclean

41

;

Maclean

r66.

Bardenhewer,

Pdrologie,

219,

353-357

;

Maclean

156

ff.

#

22.4

Thc

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

.

It will

be

observed that only

‘

The Testament

of

our

Lord’

is

consistently rigorous in refusing baptism to

soldiers and magistrates except

on

condition

of

their

quitting their offices, and forbidding a Christian

to

become a soldier

on

pain of rejection.

All

the other

documents introduce some sort of modification. The

Ethiopic version of the Egyptian Church-Order seems

to

allow a soldier already received

to

remain as such

in

the Church,

on

condition that he kills

no

one

;

but

immediately afterwards it

goes

back

on

this concession by

.

requiring a soldier among the believers to leave

off or

be rejected. The Coptic version of the Egyptian Church-

Order first forbids the Christian soldier to kill men, and

then says that,

if

he is commanded to kill men, he is not

to thrust himself forward

;

but, like ‘The Testament,’

it

refuses to admit a magistrate, and forbids the Christian

to become a soldier on pain

of

rejection. The ‘Hip-

polytean Canons’ in one form forbid soldiers and

magistrates to

kill,

even when commanded to do

so,

and prescribe

‘

unarmedness’ for the latter

;

in the

other form they first forbid the admission of magis-

trates and soldiers, and then apparently accept soldiers

who have fought but who have neither used bad

language nor worn garlands, and magistrates who are

clothed with

the

adornment

of

justice.

While we are unfortunately

not

able

to

extract with

any confidence

from

this bewildering maze of con-

tradictions and modifications the exact words

of

Hippolutos himself, or of the original regulation, by

whomsoever it was framed, it

is

not very difficult to

see

what the provisions of that original regulation must

have

been.

All

that

we

know from

other

sources-and

from

the inherent probabilities

of

the case-goes to

show that the constant trend

of

Christian thought

on

this and similar questions

was

from strictness towards

relaxation, from an almost complete abstention to an

almost equally complete freedom to participate.I An

incidental confirmation

of

this

view comes from the

Apostolic Constitutions, which are certainly later than

the Egyptian Church-Order and almost certainly later

than the other two documents we have been dealing

with. In those Constitutions we can see that the

movement towards leniency has got

still

further, and

all that

is

required

of

a soldier applying for Church-

membership is that he shall

“

inflict injury on

no

one,

make no

false

accusation, and

be

content with the pay

given to him.”a This is of course simply a repetition

of the precepts of John the Baptist, and clearly does

not imply that soldier-candidates would have to leave

the army. We shall therefore not

go

far wrong

in

seeking for the original terms

of

Hippolutos’ Church-

Order in the most stringent of the requirements still

embedded in

the

documents

as

we have them.

As

the

demand for a relaxation

of

this

stringency made itself

felt, the terms

of

the original would

be

little by little

abbreviated, added to, or otherwise modified,

so

as

to provide loopholes in favour

of

a

laxer policy.

Hence would arise that weird mixture

of

inconsistent

objection

to

war

on

the

ground

of

bloodshed

as

a

compPrrttively

new

Professor

B.-B&er

is

undoubtedly mistaken

in

treating

the

Christian

development

belonging

to

‘‘

the

tnct

forty

years

of

the

third

century,

when

the

pre.ctiCs1

life

md

example

of

Christ

and

the

Apostles

wps

receding

far

into

the

background,”

etc.

(ICW

31

;

cf

zg

:

I‘

By

this

time,

therefore,”

=

Apps4olk

cmM&u$i##s

VI11

ruii.

10.

12%

The

Ea.rly

Chhstian

Attitude

to

War

permissions and pr"ohibitions which gives such a curious

appearance

of

vacillation

to most

of

the existing cades.

The only

one

of them which has kept the

full

strictness

-whether

or

no

in

the actual words-of the original

is

'

The Testament

of

our Lord,' which dates in its present

form from the middle of the fourth century or a little

later, and arose among the conservative Christians

of

Syria

or

south-eastern Asia Minor.1 The substance

of

that original regulation must have been that a soldier

or

a magistrate who wielded the power

of

the sword

could not

be

admitted by baptism to membership in

the Christian Church, unless he had first resigned

his

military

or

quasi-military calling, that if

a

catechumen

or a baptized Christian became a soldier, he must give

it

up

or else suffer exclusion from the Church, and that

similarly a mere desire

on

his

part

to

become

a soldier,

showing,

as

it

was thought, contempt

for

God,

must

be

.

relinquished

on

pain

of rejection

or

excommunication.

That some such regulations

as

these should

have

emanated-as they probably did-from

so

influential

and representative

a

Churchman

as

Hippolutus

of

Rome, that the document embodying them should

have

been made the basis

of virtually

all subsequent

Church-

Orders, including some

that

were apparently

highly

esteemed and. closely

followed

throughout whole

regions

of

eastern Christendom,

and

that these particular

rules

should

have survived unmodified in

at

least

one

such

Church-Order until

late

in the

fourth

century

and

should still

be

so

clearly visible as they are, under

the

'

moss-growths

of

successive editions, in

other

Church-

Orders

of

approximately the same

date-are

facts

of

the first importance

in

the

history

of

our

subject,

and

ad

hdrda~

41-45.

facts, too, which as yet have not received anything like

the attention they deserve. The compafative recency of

the investighion

of

the Church-Orders accounts, in part

at least, for the total omission of all reference to them in

many of the writings that deal with this topic.’ But

even

in

the most recent and scholarly works

the

place

assigned

to

them is scarcely adequate. Bigelmair quotes

the passages

from

the Egyptian Church-Order, the

‘

Hippolytean Canons,’ and The Testament of our Lord,’

and admits that they mark clearly and distinctly the

views

which prevailed in wide circles”

:

but he describes

them as emanating from circles where “tertullianic

views

”

were prevalent (aus tertullianischen Anschau-

ungskreisen), and says that they

possessed

no

generally

binding power.* Even Harnack, whose work

is

that

of

an

impartial, thorough, and accurate scholar, confines

himself

to

a quotation

of

the Hippolytean Canons,’

Nos.

13

and

14

as given by Riedel, combining it in

a

single paragraph with quotations from Origenes and

Lactantius, and then remarks

:

“

But these injunctions

of the moralists were

by

no

means followed

in

the

third

century,” adding as his grounds for this statement sundry

pieces

of

evidence showing that many Christians

of

the

contends

that

nothing more

can

be

gathered from those

sayings

(of the

Grotins

goes

so

far

as

to

argue from the

dsdtzcc

of

regulatik.

I-Ie

Fathers)

than

the

Fate

opinion

of

certain people, not the public (opinion)

come to the public (authorit

)

of the

Church,

which ought to

be

of

the

of

the

chwches,’

and

says

:

“But setting

aside

private authorities,

let

us

soldiers were never rejected

from

baptism

or

excommunicated

by

the

greatest.

weight (with

us).

P

say

therefore that those

who

served

as

Church, which nevertheless ought

to

have been done

and

would have

been done, if military service conflicted with the conditions

of

the new

faith

”

(Grotius,

Dc

jurc

Bc&

ac

Puri~,

I

ii.

ix,

2

and

x,

2).

CfRamsay,

Ci&s

aR$

Bhbp&s

cf

Ph~y&,

ii.

7x8

(“The Church

as

a

whole never

?lancpioned

this

prohibition,

or

called

w

its

converts

to

abandon the ranks

or

on

its

adherenb

to

rehe

to

enter them

”).

~~hlk

133,

E71-173.

128

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

third century and later were either in the army them-

selves or knew of

no

objection to Christians being

there.

I

But this latter fact, the nature and extent

of

which we shall have to examine later, in no wise

invalidates the conclusion to

be

drawn from the

Church-Orders, viz. that in the third century the con-

viction that Christianity was incompatible with the

shedding of blood, either in war

or

in

the administra-

tion

of

justice,

was

not only maintained and vigorously

defended by eminent individuals like Tertullianus

of

'.

Carthago, Hippolutos of Rome, and Origenes

of

Pales-

tine

and-

Egypt, but was widely held and acted on in

the Churches up and down Christendom.* For reasons

to

be

stated later, the conviction was not unanimous

;

but the various indications

of

its absence can quite

easily

be

explained without adopting Harnack's view

that

it

was simply the personal opinion

of

a few uninflu-

entia1

'

moralists.' That view

seems

to me, in face

of

the evidence

we

have just had before

us,

and even in

face

of

the facts on the other side

of

the case, not only

unnecessary, but also erroneous.

Minucius Felix

says

:

"

It is not right for

us

either to

see

or

hear

of

a man being slain

;

and

so

careful are we

(to abstain) from human blood, that we do not even

touch the blood

of

eatable animals in

(our)

food.

.

Even though we refuse -your official honours and

purple, yet we do not consist

of

the lowest dregs of

the population."

3

2

Cooper

and

Maclan

209

:

"

The

Church-Odes

lean

to

the

stricter

I

Harnack

MC

72

f.

view.

But

we

cannot

therefore

ascribe

them

to

sectarian

bodies,

who

kept

therndves

aloof

from

ordw

Christian

life

"

;

etc.

3

Minuc

PLX.

6,

uri.

6.

The

Earlg

Christiun

Disapproval

of

War

129

We turn next to Origenes, the prince of early

Christian thinkers. Apart from his general eminence

as scholar, theologian, apologist, and practical Christian,

he

is

far and away the most important writer who

handles the question before

us.

Though he yields

to

Tertullianus

in

rhetorical brilliance and to Augustinus

in his influence over posterity, his defence of the early

Christian refusal to participate

in

war is the only one

that faces at all thoroughly

or

completely the uItimate

problems involved. He has however been strangely

misunderstood and misinterpreted, and certainly never

answered. Our procedure

will

be,

as

before, to let our

author first speak for himself, and then add a few eluci-

dations and comments of

our

own. We

begin,

there-

fore, with

a

series

of

passages from Origenes' reply

to

Celsus

(248

A.D.),

some of which we have already had

occasion to quote in another connection.

How would it have been possible for

this

*peaceful

teaching

(of

Christianity), which does not allow (its

adherents) even to defend themselves agaikt

I

(their)

enemies,

to

prevail; unless at the coming of Jesus the

(affairs) of the world had everywhere changed into

a

milder (state)

?

"2

"

If a revolt had

been

the

cause

of

the Christians combining, and

if

they had derived the(ir)

origin from the Jews,

to

whom

it was allowed

(;&)

to take arms on behalf

of

the@) families, and to destroy

(their) enemies, the Lawgiver

of

(the)

Christians would

not have altogether forbidden (the) destruction of man,

teaching that the deed

of

daring

(on

the part) of

his

own disciples against

a

man, however unrighteous he

be,

is never right-for he did not deem it becoming

to

his

Or

possibly

'

take

vengeance

on

'"ipd~~~080~.

aorigmii.p.

10

130

The

Early Christian

Attitude

to

War

own divine legislation to allow the destruction of any

man whatever.”

1

‘I

To

those who ask us whence we

have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say

that we have come in accordance with the counsels of

Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of

argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles

the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no

longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn

‘any more to make war,’ having become sons of peace

for the sake

of

Jesus, who is our leader, instead‘ of

(following) the ancestral (customs) in which we were

strangers to the covenants.””

“

It would not

be

pos-

sible for the ancient Jews to keep their civil economy

unchanged, ic let us suppose, they obeyed the constitu-

tion (laid down) according to the gospel.

For

it would

not

be

possible for Christians to make use, according to

the

Law

of Moses,

of

(the) destruction of (their) enemies

or

of

those who had acted contrary to the Law and were

judged worthy

of

destruction by fire or stoning.

.

Again,

if

thou wert to take away from the Jews

of

that

time, who had

a

civil economy and a land oftheir own,

the (right) to go out against the(ir) enemies and serve as

soldiers on behalf

of

their ancestral (institutions) and to

destroy or otherwise punish

the

adulterers or murderers

or

(men)

who had done something

of

that kind, nothing

would

be

left but for them

to

be wholly and utterly

destroyed, the(ir) enemies setting. upon the nation, when

they were weakened and prevented by their own law

from defending themselves against the(ir) enemies.”

3

We ought, however, to despise currying favour with

men and kings, not only if

we

curry favour with

them

1

Orig

CeZs

iii.

7.

=

Orig

Celr

v.

33

(see

above,

p.

63

n

3).

3

Orig

CSLr

vii.

26.

by means of acts of blood-guiltiness and licentiousness

and savage cruelty, but also if (we do

it)

by means

of

impiety towards the God of all or any speech (uttered)

with servility and obsequiousness, (which is) foreign to

brave and high-principled men and to those who wish to

join

to the(ir) other (virtues) bravery

as

(the) highest

virtue.”

I

Origenes, however, does not set himself seriously

to grapple with the difficulties

of

the problem until

near the end of his eighth and last

book,

Celsus

having placed

his

criticism on this particular point at

the end of his work and being followed in the matter of

arrangement by his Christian opponent. Practically the

whole df the eight chapters that come last but one

in

Origenes’ reply are taken up in justifying the Christian

attitude of aloofness from all forms of violence in the

service of the state. We shall confine our quotations

to the most pertinent passages. First, in replying to

the objection that,

if

all did the same as the Christians]

the

Emperor

would be deserted] and the Empire would

fall a prey

to

the barbarians, Origenes says

:

‘‘

On this

supposition

”

(viz. that all did the same as himself and

took no part in war or magistracy)] the Emperor will

not

be

left alone’ or deserted,] nor will

‘

the world’s

(affairs) fall into the hands of the most lawless and

savage barbarians.’ For

if,

as

Celsus

says,

all

were

to

do the same

as’

I

(do), clearly the barbarians also, coming

to the Word of God, will

be

most law-abiding and mild

;

and every religious worship will

be

abolished, and

that

alone

of

the

Christians

will

hold

sway

;

and indeed, one

origmes

alludes

to

rdoht

as

a

bar

to

state-service.

Bigelmair

(I#)

I

Orig

CCLS

viii.

65

fiis

is

the

only

p~ssage

I

have

noticed

in

which

reoogruas

tbat

the

risk

3

idolatrous

contamination

was

not

brought

promineatly

forward

by

OrQems.

132

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

day it shall alone hold sway, the Word ever taking

possession of more (and more) souls.”‘ Then in the

next chapter

:

“Since he puts the question

:

‘What

would happen if the Romans, persuaded by the argu-

ment

of

the Christians, should neglect the (services

owed) to

the

recognized gods and the laws formerly

in force among men, and should worship the Most

High

7,’

hear our answer

on

this. We say that if two

of

us

agree

upon

earth concerning anything that

they

shall

ask,

they shall receive it from the heavenly Father

of the righteous

:

for

God rejoices over the agreement

of

rational beings, and turns away from discord. What

must (we) believe

if,

not only-as now-very few agree,

but

the whole Empire (governed)

by

the Romans

?

For

they will pray to the Word,

who

said of old to the

Hebrews when they were pursued by the. Egyptians

:

‘

The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall be silent’

;

and, praying with all concord, they

will

be able

to

over-

throw far more enemies who pursue them than those

whom the prayer of Moses-when he cried to God-

and of those with him overthrew.

.

.*

But if, according

to Celsus’ supposition, all the Romans were to be per-

suaded, they will by praying overcome their enemies;

or (rather) they will not make war at all, being guarded

by the Divine Power, which promised to save

five

whole

cities for the

sake

of fifty righteous. For the men

of

Gad

are the salt that preserves the earthly order of the

world

;

and earthly things hold together (only)

as

long

as

the salt

is

not corrupted.”

3

The next chapter

is

an

fought for

the

Hebrews.

because

they

had

not

always

falfilled

the

conditions

a

Orig

CeL

viii.

6g.

He

goes

on

to

explain

that

God

had

not

always

of

receiving

such

help

by

observing

His

law.

3

Orig

Cdr

viii.

70.

On

the

strength

of

this

thought

of

the

protective

providence

of

God,

he

says

that

the

Christians

look

forward &ly

to

the

possible

recrudescence

of persecution.

Orig

Ccls

viii.

68.

The

Early

ChTistian

DisqprovaE

of

War

153

obscure one. Origenes quotes Celsus as saying to the

Christian the following

:

It

is absolutely intolerable

that thou shouldst say that,

if

those who now reign over

us, having been persuaded by thee, should be taken

captive, thou wilt persuade those who reign after (them.

and) then others,

if

they should be taken captive, and

others again, (and

so

on), until, when all who have

been persuaded by thee have been taken captive, some

one ruler who is prudent and foresees what is happening

shall altogether destroy

you,

before he himself

is

de-

stroyed.” Origenes replies that no Christian talks like

this, and attributes it to the nonsensical invention of

Celsus himself; and unfortunately we cannot get any

further with

it.

I

He then proceeds

:

L‘

After this, he

utters a sort of prayer

:

‘Would that it were possible

for

the Greeks and barbarians that occupy Asia and Europe

and Libya unto the ends (of the earth) to agree (to

come) under one law’

;

(but) judging this to

be

impos-

sible, he adds

:

He who thinks this (possible) knows

nothing.’

If

it

is

necessary to speak of this, a few

(words) shall be said on the subject, though it needs

much

investigation and discussion, in order that what

was said about the whole rational (creation) agreeing

(to come) under one law might appear to

be

not only

possible but certain. Now the Stoics (say) that, when

the strongest

of

the elements prevails, the conflagration

will

occur,

all

things being changed into fire

:

but we

say that the Word (will) one day master the whole

rational creation and transform every soul into his own

*

0%

Cds

viii.

71.

Hamack

(ME

i.

264

n)

says:

I‘

I

do

not

under-

stand,

any

more

than

Origen

did,

the

political twaddle which

Celsus

(hi)

professes

to

have

hard

from

a

Christian.

It

can

hardly have

come

from

a

Christian,

and

it

is impossible

nowadays

to

ascertain what underlay

it.

I

therefore

pass

it

by.”

134

The

Earl9

Christian

Attitude

to

War

perfection.

.

. .

For the Word

is

stronger than all the

evils

in

a soul, and the healing that is in

him

leads it

(the

soul)

forward

for

each man according to the will

of

.God

:

and the end of things is the destruction

of

evil.”

He then has a long passage on the Christian anticipa-

tion of the complete destruction

of

evil, and concludes

:

“This

I

thought it reasonable to say, without exact

statement (of details), in answer

to

Celsus’ remark, that

he thought it impossible for the Greeks and barbarians

inhabiting Asia and Europe and Libya to agree. And

perhaps such (an agreement) is really impossible to those

still in bodies, but not impossible to those who have

been released from them.”’

He then turns to the concrete appeal of Celsus

that the ChristianS should serve in the army and

take part in the business of government. Celsus

next urges us to help the Emperor with all (our)

strength, and to labour with him (in maintaining)

justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers

with him,

if

he require (it), and

to

share military corn-

mand (with him).

To

this it has to

be

said that

we

do

help the Emperors as occasion (requires) with a help

that is,

so

to say, divine, and putting on the whole

armour of God.’ And this we do

in

obedience to the

apostolic voice which says

:

I

therefore exhort

you

firstly that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanks-

givings,

be

made for all men, for Emperors and all

who

are in high.station’

;

and the more pious one

is,

so

much

the

more

effectual is he

in

helping the Emperors

than

(are)

the

soldiers

who

go

forth in battle-array and kill

as

many as they can of the enemy. And then

we

should

say this to those who are strangers to

the

faith and

who

Orig

Cels

viii.

72.

ask

us

to serve as soldiers on behalf of the community

and to kill men

:

that' among you the priests

of

certain

statues and the temple-wardens of those whom ye

regard

as

gods keep their right-hand(s) unstained for

the sake of the sacrifices,

in

order that they may

offer

the appointed sacrifices to those whom ye call

gods,

'

with hands unstained by (human) blood and pure from

acts of slaughter

;

and whenever war comes, ye do

not

make the priests also serve. If then it is reasonable to

do

this,

how much more (reasonable

is

it,

that), when

others are serving in the army, these (Christians) should

do their military service as priests and servants

of

God,

keeping their right-hands pure and striving by prayers

to God

on

behalf

of

those

who are righteously serving

as soldiers and of him who is reigning righteously, in

order that all things opposed and hostile

to

those that

act righteously may be put down

?

And we, (in) putting

down by our prayers all demons-those who stir up

warlike feelings, and prompt the violation of oaths, and

disturb the peace, help the Emperors more than those

who &to

all

appearance serve as soldiers.

We

labour

with (him) in the public affairs-(we) who

offer

up

prayers with righteousness, with exercises and practices

that teach (us) to despise pleasures and not to be

led

away by them. And we fight for the Emperor more

(than others

do)

:

and we do not serve as soldiers

with

him,

even though he require (it)

;

but we

do

serve as

soldiers

OH

his

bel&

training a private army

of

piety

by

means

of

intercessions

to

the Deity.' And

if

Cehs

wishes

us

to exercise military command

on

behalf

of

(our)

country, let him

know

that

we

do this also, not

in

order to

be

seen

by

men

and to obtain empty

glory

in

'

Orig

Cerls

viii.

73.

136

The

Early

Christian Attitude tu

War

their

eyes

by

doing

so:

for in secret (and) under the

control of our inner reason are our prayers, sent

up

as

from priests on behalf

of

those in our country. And‘

Christians benefit the(ir) countries more than do the

rest

of

men,

educating thesitizens and teaching them to

be

devout towards the

God

of the State, and taking up

into a

sort

of divine and heavenly State those who have

lived well in the smallest states.

.

.I

But Celsus urges

US

also to (take part in) govern(ing) the country, seeing

that this has to

be

done for the sake of the safety of

the laws and of piety. But

we,

knowing in each state

another organization of a country ’“(an organization)

founded by the Word

of

God-exhort those

who

are

powerful in speech and who lead a wholesome (moral)

life to rule over churches, not accepting those who are

iond

of

ruling, but constraining those who through

’

(their) great modesty are unwilling rashly

to

accept the

public charge

of

the Church of

God.

.

And

(it

is) not

(for the sake

of)

escaping from the public services of life

that Christians shun such things,

but

(because they are)

reserving themselves for a diviner and more necessary

service, (namely that) of (the) Church of God, both

necessarily and rightly taking the lead for the salvation

of

men, and having taken charge of all-of those within

(the

Church), in order that they may

daily

live better

(lives),

and of those who are apparently without, in

order

that

they

may become (engaged)

in

the serious

words and works

of

piety, and thus, truly worshipping

God

and

training

as

many as they have

power

to,

may

be

mingled with the Word of

God

and

the

divine

Law

and may thus

be

united

to

the

God

who

is

over all

through

the

Son of God-Word and Widom

and

Orig

Ccls

viii.

74.

The

Early

Christian

fisapprovnl

of

War

137

Truth and Righteousness-who unites to Him every

one who is bent on living in all things according to (the

will

of)

God.”

There are several points

in

the teaching set forth in

these passages ,which call for special comment.

I.

It will have been noticed that Origenes speaks

of the Emperor as

‘

reigning righteously

’

and

of

his

soldiers as

‘

righteously rendering military service,’ that

as a Christian he

was

prepared to pray for their victory

in‘ a righteous conflict,Z and that he recognized the

right of the ancient Jews to fight against their enemies.3

Elsewhere he speaks

of

‘I

people everywhere being com-

pelled to serve

as

soldiers and to make war on behalf

of the(ir) countries

”

in the times before Augustus,

“when there was need that there should be war, for

instance, between Peloponnesians and Athenians, and

similarly between others.”4 He also says that the

wars

of

the bees perhaps constitute

a

lesson

for

the

conduct of just and orderly wars among men, if ever

there should

be

need

(for

them).”

5

All these passages

but the last explicitly refer to the warfare

of

some set

of

non-Christians: and in the last there

is

no indica-

tion that Origenes has Christians in mind. When the

fact is once clearly grasped that his allusions to

justifi-

able wars are always, either explicitly or implicitly,

to

wars waged by non-Christians, many

of

the criticisms

levelled

at

his teaching

will

be seen to

rest

on a mis-

apprehension

.6

Orig

Ceis

viii.

75.

Orig

CcZs

ii.

30

(see

below,

p.

ZOJ).

3

Orig

Ccis

iii.

7,

vii.

26

(p.

130).

5

Orig

Ccis

iv.

82.

In

the

follhmg

chapter he rebukes Celsus

for

his

attempt

to

depreciate the

political

institutions

and defensive

wars

of

men

Orig

Ceb

viii.

73

(p.

135).

(=e

below,

p.

W).

The

question

is

more

fully

discussed

below,

pp.

21

I

ff.

138

The

Early

Christian

-Attit&

to

War

2.

His candid recognition of the temporary place and

value

of

what was good in pagan and Mosaic ethics

must not

be

taken as stultifying

or

cancelling

his

equally candid declaration that Christians ought

not

to and would not take part in

war.

Several modern

writers have fallen into this fallacy. Thus Grotius says

that Origenes and Tertullianus are not consistent, and

he quotes in regard to the former the passage about the

bees.1 Guizot,

in

a note on Gibbon,* says

:

‘‘

Origen,

in truth, appears to have maintained a more rigid

opinion (Cont. Cels.

1.

viii)

;

but he has often renounced

this exaggerated severity, perhaps necessary to pro-

duce great results, and he speaks of the profession of

arms as an honourable one (1. iv. c.

[83]

2

18

.

.).”

Pro-

fessor Bethune-Baker writs

:

“

From all these passages

together it is perhaps fair to conclude that Origen

considered the Christian ideal incompatible with war,

but would in practice have permitted Christians to

engage in war. It is clear he regarded it as a

Christian duty to pray for ‘those that

are

warring

justly.’

Further,

as it

is

quite certain that there were

many Christians

in

the armies at the time when Origen

was writing, it is not improbable that in his specific

answer

he

is thinking particularly of the Christian

clergy.

Several

of

his phrases suggest this limited

application.”s

This

guardedly expressed,

but

never-

theless quite erroneous, suggestion

is

invested

by

Arch-

deacon Cunningham with dogmatic certainty

:

“It

is

clear that the Great Alexandrian did not regard War

as

a

thing

in which the Christian was wrong to take

Wm.

Smith’s

edition

of

the

Decline

and

FaU,

ii.

1%.

Grotius,

De

Jure,

etc.,

I

ii.

ix,

2.

3

B.-Baker

ICIV

30.

The

Early Christian

LXsapproval

of

War

139

part.”I Guignebert remarks

:

But

already Origenes

seems to admit at least defensive war

”

2:

and similarly

Bigelmair

:

“Even Origenes at times gave a less

rigorous judgment,” for he meets

a

point brought for-

ward by Celsus “with the remark-which contrasts

curiously with his position elsewhere-that the wars

of

the bees were

a

pattern for the righteous and orderly

’

wars

of

men.”3 All this misses the point. Origenes’

view

of

the Christian’s duty

in

regard

to

war is put as

clearly

as

words could make it: and though he com-

pares the intercessions of the Christians to the sacrifices

of the pagan priesthood and

speaks

about the duty

of

the Christian clergy

in

training and governing others, the

supposition that he meant to limit the abstention from

bloodshed to the clergy

is

quite out

of

keeping with

his actual statements. It

is

abundantly clear that he

regarded the acceptance of Christianity

as

incompat-

ible with the use

of

arms

;

and his relative justification

of

the wars

of

non-Christians cannot

be

made

a

ground

either for doubting that

his

rigorism was seriously

meant, or for accusing him

of

inconsistency in

rnain-

taining

it4

3.

Origenes accepts as true the charge implied in

the

appeal made by Celsus seventy years before, that

Christians did

as

a

body refuse

to

serve in the army

and to hold magistracies.

“We

do not serve as

soldiers with the Emperor, even though he require (it).

.

. .

Christians avoid such things

”

&e.

public offices).5

a

Guignebert

1g6

:

P

note

refers

to

Orig

Ceh

iv.

82

f.

’

Christianity

and

Polifis,

p.

252.

3

Bigelmair

&

f.

The

same

view

is

su

ested

by

Schmidt

(zQ).

4

BarMyrac

(Mi&

dcs

Phs,

p

19

fnrmcogrks

that

0rig-e~

does

5

Orig.

CcLr

viii.

73,75

(see

pp.

135

f).

not

contradict

himself

in

this

matter.

140

The

Early Christian Attitude

to

War

He speaks

as

if

he was not aware that Christians

ever took any other line

I

:

’

and though this cannot

be

construed as showing that none

of

them ever did

so-for there is evidence to prove that many did-

or that Origenes dishonestly concealed what he

knew

to be

a

fact-for the dishonesty would have been

so

patent as to serve

no

purpose, yet it proves that even

at

this date, the middle

of

the third century, the pre-

dominant opinion among Christians was that their

religion forbade them to serve in the legions.2

4.

It

is

often urged that the early Christian disap-

proval

of

all violence has

to

be

read in the light

of

early

Christian eschatology. For

if

you could assume that

within the near future, possibly almost immediately,

the existing world-order was gaing to fall to pieces with

a crash, the wicked were going to be rooted out and

punished, and the reign of righteousness set up-all

by

the exercise

of

a special Divine intervention-then

obviously there would not

be

much difficulty

in

proving

all fighting, and indeed all judicial procedure, to

be

useless. Now whatever weight must

be

assigned

to

this consideration in criticizing the views

of

primitive

Christians,

or

even of a man like Tertullianus, it is

highly significant that the most gifted thinker

of

the

early Church, the man who maintained the

Gospel-

principle of non-resistance as earnestly and explicitly

as any, was unique also in this other excellence-that

*

Neumann (241)

is

surely mistaken in

sl~pposiug

that Origenes’

refer-

ence

to

soldiers as opponents

of

Christianity implies the presence of

Christians

in

the army.

’

Jong

15.:

“Considering that Origenes

is

here defending, not

only

hu

own opmion, but Chritendom in general,

we

must

=me

that

also

in

his

time

.

. the great majority

of

Christians

was

opposed

to

military

service,

and

that principally

out

of

aversion

to

bloodshed,

and

archaeological

data,

negative

on

this

point,

also

lead

us.”

that

only

a

small number took part in it-a

conclusion

to

which

in

fact the

The

Early Christian

&approval

of

War

141

his mind was not fettered by the crude obsessions of

orthodox Christian eschatology

:

he had little

or

nothing

to say

of

a bodily return of Christ, or of an end

of

the

world due to occur in the near future

;

he contemplated

an indefinite prolongation of human history under the

divine control; he had his eyes open to the needs

of

society, and, though keen on the spiritual side of

things, suffered from

no

blind

‘

otherworldliness

I-

from none

of

what Weinel aptly calls

‘

Jenseitsfanatis-

mus.’ Eschatology, it is urged, invalidates the early

Christian witness in regard to war: it cannot however

invalidate the witness given by Origenes, for he did not

share even the weakened eschatological

beliefs

of his

Christian contemporaries. Yet none gave a clearer or

more intelligent witness

on

the subject of Christian

gentleness than he.

5.

Note further that fear

of

idolatrous contamination

had nothing

to

do

with Origenes’ disapproval

of

military

service. He does indeed once mention ‘impiety towards

God’

as

a means

of

currying favour

with

kings,

but

never

as

a bar to service in the army.

His

view was

based-as his analogy with the pagan priesthood, as

well

as

many other passages, clearly shows--on the

Christians’ determination

to

keep their hands

free

from

the stain

of

blood.

Yet

the late Dr. Gwatkin, in his

criticism

of

Origenes’ reply to the charge

of

disloyalty,r

altogether ignores this

aspect

of

the

case,

and

speaks

as

if

squeamishness

on

the subject

of

idolatry were the

only difficulty that had

.

to

be

considered. Even

Troeltsch,

as

we have seen,= says

that,

if

it

had not

been

for

this

difficulty,

Origenes

would

have

acquiesced

in

Christians

serving’as soldiers.

s

Gwatkin,

Ear&

Chud

R&q,

i

~gr

(d

236).

Above,

p.

I

15.

142

Th

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

6.

Origenes happily lays great stress on the positive

service which the Christians render to the State, a service

which he claims is diviner, more needful, and more

effective than that of the soldier or magistrate.

(‘

We

do help the Emperors as occasion (requires)

. . .

We

labour with (him) in the public affairs

.

. .

we fight for

’

the Emperor more (than others do)

.

Christians

benefit the(ir) countries more than the rest of men,”

and

so

on.1

Of

this service he specifies two forms.

(a)

Intercessory prayer, which he rightly regards as

exceedingly effective when coming from Christians

:

this prayer is that the Emperor and those associated

with him may be successful in their efforts, in

so

far

as

their purposes are righteous, in order that

all

things

opposed and hostile to those that act righteously may

be

put down”

(d3apOp7).

It assumes that the Emperor

has

a standard

of

righteousness which

is

valid relative

to his

own

sub-Christian condition, and it does not

commit the Christian who offers it

to

an approval of

the same standard for himself. The Christians, more-

over, by their prayers, put down the demons who rouse

warlike passions and disturb the peace.

(6)

Influence

for good over others by the activities

of

the Church and

the power of Christian life,

‘I

educating the citizens

and teaching them to be devout towards the

God

of

the

State,” taking charge

of

those within and those without

the Church, and working effectually for their moral and

spiritual salvation.

No

criticism of Origenes, which

does not give

full

weight to this positive side of

hi5

plea,

is

either fair to him or worthy

of

a

Christian

critic. The words

of.

the late Dr. Gwatkin

unfortu-

nately

fail

in

this -respect.

“

Even Origen only

quib-

x

Orig.

Cek

viii

73

f

(pp.

134-1361.

The

Early

Christian.

Disapproval

of

War

143

bles,” he says,

(‘

in his answer that they do not serve in

the army because they support the emperor with their

prayers, that they fight for their country by educating

their fellow-citizens in true piety, that they help to

govern it by devoting themselves to the nobler and

more needful service of the church of God. All this

evades the point-that men have

no

right to renounce

at

pleasure their duties to their country.”I Now the

party guilty of evading the point in this case is not the

ancient apologist, but the late lamented historian him-

self; for in speaking

of

military service as a duty to

one’s country, he

is,

of course, simply assuming without

argument the very point under debate

:

he has not a

word to say on the very serious question as to how

slaughter

in

war is to

be

reconciled with the teaching

of Jesus. Not only does he assume that military ser-

vice is a duty, but he calls the Christian refusal

of

it a

renunciation of duty

at

pZemre.

He

does not realize

that the early Christian, in refusing the use

of

arms,

more than compensated

for

his withdrawal from the

army by the moral and spiritual power for good which

he exercised as a Christian, that he did-as Origenes

claimed-really and literally help the Emperor in’ the

maintenance of peace and justice, and really did benefit

his country more than the rest’of men.

71

This

brings us to

our

last point, namely the

question whether the Christian ethic

as

interpreted by

Origenes can

be

safely advocated as

a

practical policy,

or

whether it is open to the fatal charge of anarchy.

What

is

going to happen, Celsus had asked,

as

people

are

asking now, if

this

sort

of

thing

spreads

7

Will not

civilization

become the prey of barbarians and

savages

?

*

Gwatkin,

LC.

I

144

*

Tk

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

On

the score of the results which, it is assumed, would

follow from tfie adoption

of

his teaching, the political

views expressed by him have been criticized as extra-

vagant.1 The criticism is in my judgment unwarranted.

To

foresee accurately the future history

of

Christianity

is under no conditions and at

no

period an easy task,

even when one is emancipated-as Origenes happily

was-from the crude obsessions

of

orthodox eschatology.

It

is

therefore not to

be

wondered

at

that

he

should

hesitate to affirm positively.that all the- inhabitants of

the world would be able, while

still

in

the body, to come

together under one law, though he does not rule out

this contingency as impossible, just as, in repudiating

the extravagant utterance attributed by Celsus to a

Christian, he does not rule out ,absolutely the possibility

of an Emperor’s conversion.2 His

task

was to show that

a Christianity, which sets its adherents

to

work in the

varied external and internal activities of the Church,

which endows them with moral purity and energy

and

spiritual power, and which forbids them to pardcipate

in

the penal bloodshed and violence which pagan society

finds necessary for

its

own preservation and well-being

“that such a Christianity can

be

allowed to spread

indefinitely among mankind, without any fear

of

a

I

kky

ii.

39

c‘

The

opinions

of

the Christians

of

the first

three

cen-

turies

were

usudly

formed

without

any

regard

to

the necessities

of

civil

or

political

life”);

Harnack

ME

i.

263f

(“How

extravagant

[hochfliegend)

are

his

id-

!

”

Yet

Harnack

recognizes Origenes

as

I‘

a

great

and

sensible

statesman

”-‘I

ein

grosser

und ehichti

er

Politiker

”)

;

Troeltsdr

123

f

(“With

such

presuppositions

[as

those

of

8rigenesI

every venture

in

regard

10

social

possihilibes

(and) every

idea

of

the Christian criticism

of

society

having

to

be.

also

an

or@k

reformation

of

it, were

out

of

the

uestion.

God

wdd

take

care

that

society

held

together.

The

cutting+%

of

the

hW&n

caw

eces

;

the

rest

will

rem$in

standing.

.

Elsewhere

there

are

not

wanbymgromises

and

compositions

which

recognize

the

necessity

of

these

cal

’

gs

r

the

social

system,

and

therefore

enjoin

here

too

continuance

in

the

di

‘I).

Sqe

above,

pp

133

f.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

145

disastrous breakdown of civilization being occasioned

by its expansion. That task he performs with admir-

able common-sense and insight. He does not desire

or

advocate or expect a sudden and wholesale abandon-

ment by society of its usual methods of dealing with

internal and external enemies, without any of those

compensating safeguards and improvements which the

gradual and steady growth of Christianity would ensure.

And it is as a gradual growth that he thinks of the

expansion of Christianity--as a growth consisting

of

the accretion of one individual after another,

''

the Word

ever taking possession of more (and more)

souls"

until

it

has

mastered the whole rational creation,' as a growth

going

on,

not

only

among

the civilized inhabitants

of

the Empire, but

also

among the uncivilized barbarians

beyond its borders,2 not only among the virtuous, but

also

among the sinful and criminal people, and therefore

as

removing steadily the wrongdoing which evokes wars

and calls for penalties, while supplying steadily pari

passu a more effectual cure for that wrongdoing

in

the

shape

of

the mighty spiritual and moral influence of the

Church. His programme thus consists of two gradual

processes going on

side

by side as the result

of

the

spread

of

Christianity: firstly, the gradual diminution

of crime and the risk

of

foreign aggression, and secondly,

the gradual substitution of spiritual influence for physical

coercion,

i.e.

of

a more for

a

less effective remedy

for

crime and aggression.3 What ground

does

such

a

x

Orig

Cds

viii.

68

fin,

72

(see

pp.

132-134).

Ccls

i.

53,

viii.

6

68.

rnisbing a

modern

instance

of

the

soundness

of

this

plea,

I

tran-

scribe

the

bllo

the

Rruinv

of

Americans

who

constituted

the

driviig

force of

the

Universal

Peace

August

rSgo

(p.

IO^):

"

Tbe

enthusiastic

Congress

which

mct

at

Wdmter

in

July,

were

provided

with

a

very

I1

from

w.

T.

Stead's

p.og.crs

4

the

WWIdin

146

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

programme give for the charge

of

anarchy? Celsus

actually made such a charge, but had to contradict

himself in doing

so.

He

first professed to posit the

conversion

of

all

to Christianity-in itself a legitimate

supposition-but immediately had to make an exception

of

the barbarians

in

order to manufacture some

sort

of

a bogey. Origenes had

no

difficulty in pointing ‘out

that Celsus’ assumption of

all

doing the same

as

the

Christian presupposed the conversion

of

the barbarians

as well

as

the subjects of the Empire. Some modern

writers have pointed

to

the attacks later made on the

Empire by Christianized barbarians as

if

they proved

the shortsightedness of Origenes

I

:

but they do nothing

of

the sort,

for

the Christianity given to these barbarians

was not the same article as that for which Origenes was

bargaining; it was the Christianity

of

a Church that

had made

a

compact with the powers that be and was

accordingly obliged to sanction for its adherents the

striking

illustration

of

the fashion

in

which the practical impunity with

years the Modoc Indians, thanks to their occupancy of the

lave

beds,

a

which the individual can kill has told

for

peace in the Far West. For

natural stronghold where a handful

of

men could hold an army at bay,

defied the utmost efforts of the United States army. The Modocs.

although only

a

few hundred strong, baffled all the efforts to subdue them.

The

war cost millions.

Only

twelve

Mod-

were

killed,

but General

an end than it

was at

the beginning. In

their despair the Americans

Canby

was slain

and

160

of

his

men. After

all, the war seemed no nearer

abandoned the bullet and took to the Bible. Then, according to Mr.

Wood,

the Secretary

of

the Amen& Christian and Arbitration Society,

in

the providence

of

God

one little Quaker women,

‘‘

‘believing in the

Lord

Jesus

Christ’s power, and in non-resistent principles,

has

converted

the whole

Modoc

tribe to non-resistent Quakers, end they are now

most

harmIess, self-supporting

farmers

and preachers

of

the

Gospel

of Christ.”’

skins

and

the United

States

Government

by

substituting Christian for

The

story

of the transformation effected in

the relations between the

Red-

military

principles

is

one of the strangest

of

the true stones

of

our

day.

It

ir

not

surprising

that the

men

who

have

found

the

Gospel

a

talisman

for

avilising

a

Modoc

and

M

A

he

should cross the Atlantic

full

of

faith

that

it

would

be

equally e&ow in

staying

the blood-feud

of

the

Germans

and

the French.

x

Neumann

240;

cf %igelmair

177.

The

Early Christian

Disapproval

of

War

147

use

of

the sword at a ruler’s bidding. It was the

Church‘s failure to remain true to the full Christian

ethic advocated by Origenes, which made possible the

scene

of

Christian barbarians invading the Empire.

The extraordinary supposition-which forms part of

Origenes’ apologia-of a united and converted Empire

holding its barbarian

foes

at bay by the power

of

prayer,

’

was no part

of

his own programme

:

it concludes his

reply to the illogical challenge of his opponent. Extra-

vagant as that challenge

was,

he shows himself fully

equal to. meeting it, by a grand profession of the

Christian’s confidence in God-a confidence not

so

foolish a5 it sounds to worldly ears, as the history

of

many a mission-field would

be

amply sufficient to

prove.

The position of Cyprianus, bishop

of

Carthago,

a

universally respected and highly influential Churchman,

is

somewhat uncertain. On the one hand, he includes

in

his

general complaint over the degeneracy and

calamities

of

the time the fact that the numbers

and

efficiency

of

the soldiers were decreasing,I and never

says

in

so

many terms that a Christian ought not to Serve

in the legions, even when he

ha5

occasion to refer

to

two

who had done

s0.2

On the other hand, he says some

Cypr

D&r

3

(decrescit

ac

deficit

in

aruis

agricola,

in

mari

nauta,

miles

111

castris),

17

(deminutione

castrorum).

Referring to a certain

Celerinus,

who had suffered

in

the

persecution

of

uncles, hnrentious

and E

tius,

themselves at one

time

serving

as

Decius

(250

AD.),

he

says

(E9

39

(33)

3):

“His

paternal

and

maternal

soldien

in

the

secular

cam

(being)

true and spiritual soldiers

of

God,

in overthrowing

the

devipby

the confession

of

Christ,

earned

by

their

famous

passion

the Lord‘s

palms

and

crowns.”

We

shBU

have to refer

to

this

passage

later;

but

here

we

may

note

that

it

is

at

least

possible that

humtinus

end

Epatius

su5ered

because

they

wished

to

leave

the

service

on

the

ground

either

of

idolntry

or

bloodshed

or

both.

We

shall

meet

several

similar

instances

later

on.

148

The

Eadt~

Christian

Attitude

to

War

remarkably strong things about war, which mgre than

overbalance his casual and rhetorical allusion to the

deficiency of soldiers. He speaks

of

the

I‘

wars scattered

everywhere with the bloody horror

of

camps. The

world is wet with mutual blood(shed): and homicide

is

a

crime when individuals commit it, (but) it

is

called

a virtue, when

it

is

carried

on

publicly. Not the reason

of innocence, but the magnitude

of

savagery, demands

impunity for crimes.”

1

“

God wished iron to be for the

cultivation of the earth, and for that reason acts

of

homicide ought not to

be

committed.”z (‘Adultery,

fraud, homicide is mortal sin (mortale crimen)

. .

.

after

celebrating the eucharist, the hand is not (i.e. ought not

to

be)

spotted with (the use

of)

the sword and with

blood.”

3

Further than that, his immense respect

for

his fellow-countryman Tertullianus, whom he called his

‘

master’ and

whose

ardent antipathy

to

secular things

in general he evidently shared, creates a

very

strong

presumption that he agreed with him

as

to

the ille-

gitimacy of military service for Christians. This pre-

sumption

is

supported by the fact that the body of

Maximilianus, who was martyred at Teveste

in

Numidia

in

295

A.D.

for refusing to allow himself to

be

enrolled

as

a soldier, was conveyed by a Christian matron to

Carthago, and buried near Cyprianus’ tomb.4

The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinos, writing about

268

AD.,

said

:

“God

Himself ought not

to

fight

on

behalf of the unwarlike; for the

law

says that (men)

ought

to

be

brought safe out of

wars

by

being

courageous,

but

not

by

praying. For

it

is

not

those

who

pray, but those

who

attend to the

earth,

that

I

Cypr

Dotad

6.

3

Cypr

Bun

Pat

14.

(ought to) reap its produce.”

I

When we consider

the

connections

of

Plotinos with Egypt and Alexandria,

the fact that both he and Origenes had been pupils

of the philosopher Ammonios Sakkas, the reputation

of Origenes

in

philosophic circles, and the standing

hostility

of

the Neoplatonists to Christianity, we

can

hardly doubt that the passage just quoted is an allusion

to the closing chapters

of

Origenes’

Contra

CeZ’sum,

wk

re the author defends the Christians for refusing

milltary service

on

the ground of the intercessory

prayers they offer. Such an allusion would

be

some-

what pointless, unless Plotinos believed that the position

he

was

criticizing was at least fairly widespread among

Christians.

In

295

A.D.

occurred the famous and oft-told martyr-

dom of Maximilianus, to which allusion has just

been

made. He was a young Numidian Christian, just over

twenty-one years old, and was brought before Dion

the proconsul of Africa,

as

fit for military service. He

refused to serve, or to accept the soldier’s badge, saying

repeatedly that he could not do

so,

because he was a

Christian and served Christ. Dion tried again and

again to overcome his objections, but without success.

It is fairly clear from the martyr‘s own words that

his

objection was largely,’

if

not solely, to the business ’of

fighting. The question

of

sacrificing to idols or to the

Emperor

is

not mentioned by either party.

‘‘

I

cannot

serve

as

a

soldier,” said Maximilianus

;

“

I

cannot do

evil

;

I

am

a Christian.” Dion told

him

:

“In

the

sacred retinue of our lords Diodetianus

and

Maxi-

mianus, Constantius and Maximus, there are Christian

De

Jmg

(4.

4

I

Piotinos,

Em+

111

ii.

8

(Tcubner

i.

237).

I

owe

this

reference

tq

150

The

Earl9

Christian

Attitude

to

War

soldiers, and they serve.” Maximilianus replied

:

“

They

know what is fitting for them

:

but

I

am a Christian,

and

I

cannot do

evil.”

“

What

evil

do

they do who

serve

?

”

asked the proconsul.

‘I

Thou knowest what

they do,” was the reply.* Nothing more could

be

done,

and Maximilianus

was

sentenced to and suffered the

death-penalty. His body, as has been stated,

was

taken

to Carthago and buried near the tomb

of

Cyprianus

;

his

father returned home thanking God that he had sent

forward such a gift to the Lord

2;

the story of his trial

and death were speedily committed to writing; and he

was

ultimately received among the saints

of

the Church.

All this shows what a large measure of sympathy and

approval

was

evoked by the stand he took, among the

Christians

of

his own and the immediately succeeding

perid.3

There are, as far as

I

know, no grounds

for

*

Ruinart

(MI).

to whom we are indebted for an edition of the

Actu

are absent ‘in editis,’ the reason for the omission apparently being that the

&m#i

MuximiXztai

Mu*&,

tells

us

that this last question and answer

words contradict the traditional Roman Catholic view of

war.

Ruinart

reject military service

as

if

it were evil in itself, but on account

of

the

inserts the words,

but

suggests

that

they

mean that Maximilianus

“

did not

opportunities

of

sinning

which soldiers often meet with.” This is clearly

insufficient to account for the language used; and the Roman Catholics

remain faced

with

the awkward

kt

that one

of

the canonized saints

of

the

Church died

as

a

conscientious objector

!

It

is

significant that Bigelmair,

throughouthi

full

treatment

of

the Christian attitude to military service,

makes no mention

of

Maximilianus at

all.

He

is

certainly an awkward

Romanist and a German.

martyr

for

a

Romanist to deal with, but doubly

so

for one who is both

a

*

Maximilinus’ father, Fabius Victor, is somewhat

of

an

enigma

:

though

he refused at Dion’s bidding

to

persuade his son to give

way

and rejoiced

finding

a

recruit) he had himself presented Maximilianns before the

pro-

over

the latter’s witness, yet

as

‘

temonarius

’

(?

=

person responsible for

exact

situation

is

a little

obscure

:

but

I

do

not know what grounds Hamack

consul,

and

had got him a new coat in anticipation of

his

enlistment.

The

remained

so

after

his son

s

death. The

‘

temonarins,’

as

far

as

I

can

dis-

(MC

85)

has

for

assumiy that

Fabius

Victor

was

himself

a

soldier

and

cover, was not necessarily a soldier

:

De

Jong

(194

discusses

the meaning

of

the word at length.

3

The

geminmess

of

the

Actu

HmimiZzbni

is

generally admitted

(Gibbon,

ch

mi,

note

146

(ii.

120,

ed.

Bury)

;

Harnack

C

ii.

473,

MC

&

n

2).

Harnack

reprints

them (MC

I

14

ff)

from Ruiraart.

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

151

supposing that Maximilianus had come more under

the influence of Tertullianus than other Christians of

northern Africa, or that Christians who refused to serve

belonged for the most part to Montanistic sects1 It is

probably true that such instances of refusal were suffi-

ciently numerous to have helped to bring about that

imperial suspicion and dislike,

out

of

which sprang the

great persecution

of

303

A.D.*

In the latter part of the third century, the difficulty

over idolatry, etc.,

in

the army became acute. Regu-

lations had long been in existence which forbade any

who would not sacrifice to the Emperors to hold a

commission in the army. While these regulations had

been allowed by the authorities to fall into desuetude,

the fact that they were still technically in force made

it possible for any one to appeal

to

them, if a favourable

opportunity arose

;

and when that was done, they had

to

be

enforced. It

is

possible that the two soldier-

martyrs mentioned by Cyprianus were the victims

of

some such occurrence.3 However that may

be,

a

clear instance occurred at Caesarea in

260

AD.,

when,

after the cessation of persecution,

a

distinguished

military officer named Marinus was about to

be

pro-

moted to the rank of centurion, but, being denounced

as

a

Christian by the next claimant to the vacancy

and declared ineligible for promotion

in

view

of

the

ancient laws, was given three hours for reflection,

I

These

are GuiGebert’s

suggestions

(rgg).

Church

History,

ii.

328f.

a

Gibbon,

ch

xvi

(ii.

Izof,

ed.

Bury);

Lecky

i.

460;

Gwatkin,

Ear&

says

(hp~

2)

:

“

(Your)

forehead,

pure

with

God’s

sign,

could

not

bear

3

See

p.

147,

n

2.

It

is

also

just possible that the

martyrs

to

whom

he

the

devil’s

crown,

(but)

kept

itself

for

the

Lord’s

crown,”

were soldiers

who

had

refused

some

pagan

rite

(so

apparently

B.-Baker

ICW31)

;

but

more

probably

the

phrase

is

simply

metaphorical,

152

The

Early

Christian

Attitd

to

Wur

returned at the end

of

that time from an interview

with his bishop (who told him he must choose between

his sword and the Gospels), reaffirmed his Christianity,

was sentenced to death, led away, and beheaded.1

Marinus waited for the occasion of conflict to arise,

and when it arose he seems neither to have had nor

to

have sought a chance

of

retiring from the service.

But Marcellus the centurion] who was martyred at

Tingi (Western Mauretania) in

zg8

A.D.,

took the

initiative himself, and insisted on resigning his

office.

On the occasion of the Emperor’s birthday,

he

cast

off

his military belt before the standards, and called

out

:

I‘

I

serve (milito) Jesus Christ, the eternal king.”

Then he threw down his vine-staff and arms, and

added

:

“I

cease from this

military

service of your

Emperors, and

I

scorn

to

adore your gods of stone

and wood, which are deaf and dumb idols. If such

is

the position of those who render military service,

that they should be compelled to sacrifice to

gods

and emperors, then

I

cast down my vine-staff and

belt,

I

renounce the standards, and

I

refuse to serve

as a soldier.” While the objection to sacrifice thus

appears as the main ground for the bold step

Marcellus took, it is clear that he was also exercised

over the nature

of

military service as such

:

for his

last words to the judge were

:

I‘

I

threw down

(my

arms)

;

for it

was

not seemly that a Christian man,

who

renders military service to the Lord Christ, should

render it (also) by (inflicting) earthly injuries.’]

*

When

Ruinart

344

(Projeci.

Non

enim

deceht

Christianum

hominem

Eus

HE

VI1

xv.

Cf

the

remarks

of

Harnack

ME

8.

58

f,

MC

78

ff.

molestiis snecularibus

militare,

qui

Christ0

Domino

militst)

;

cf

345

(cum

MarCeltus

.

prodamaret, summa

auctoritate

constantw

molestus

saecularibus milltare non

posse).

The

Early

Christian

Disapproval

of

War

153

he was sentenced to death, Cassianus, the clerk

of

the

court, loudly protested, and flung his writing-materials

on the ground, declaring that the sentence was unjust

:

he

suffered death a few days after Marcellus.’

In the years preceding and following the outbreak

of persecution in

303

A.D.,

we come across several cases

of

Christian soldiers leaving the army or suffering

martyrdom, either on the ground of

a

general sense

of the incompatibility of their official functions with

their religious duty, or else on the specific ground

of

refusing to offer heathen sacrifices. The doubtful ‘Acts

of Typasius’ tells

us

that he was a soldier

of

Mauretania,

who had served with credit, but, desiring to devote

himself wholly to religion, refused

a

royal donative, and

shortly after obtained from Maximianus an honour-

able discharge. Some years afterwards

(305

A.D.

or

later) he was recalled to the ranks, but as he refused

to re-enter the service, he suffered martyrdom.2

Seleukos,

a

stalwart Cappadocian, who held a dis-

tinguished position in the army, at the beginning of

the persecution had to endure scourging, but then

obtained his discharge.3 Tarakhos of Cilicia also

obtained

his

discharge on the outbreak

of

perse-

cution

:

at his subsequent trial at Tarsus, he told the

governor that he had been

a

soldier, “but because

I

was

a

Christian,

I

have now chosen to be

a

civilian

”

4

-words

which suggest rather

more

than

a

mere objec-

tion

to

offer

pagan sacrifices. The martyrdom

of

Nereus

and

Achilleus at Rome also probably falls to

Anal

BoiM

ix.

I

16

8.

The

historical

reliability

of

the

story

is

very

I

See

the

Passio

S.

Cassicrni

in

Ruinart

345.

doubtful

;

cf

Harnadr

C

ii.

481

f,

MC

83

n

4.

3

EUB

NUY~

xi.

20-22.

4

Acta

Tqrarhi,

etc.,

in

Ruinart

452.

154

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

be included here. Pope Damasus

(366-384

A.D.),

who

took a great interest in the records and tombs of the

martyrs, put up an epitaph (which has

since

been

discovered) to two praetorian soldiers, Nereus and

Achilleus, who, he says, “had given (their) name(s)

to military service, and were carrying

on

(their) cruel

duty,” but

‘I

suddenly laid aside (their) madness,

turned round (and) fled

;

they leave the general’s

impious camp, cast down (their) shields, helmets, and

bloodstained weapons

;

they confess, and bear (along)

with joy the triumph

of

Christ

’I

:

they were put to

death with the sword. Uncertain as

we

are

of

the

date

of

their martyrdom, the most reasonable supposi-

tion is that it fell

in

or shortiy before the time of the

persecution of Diocletianus-a supposition which is

confirmed by the various other cases of a similar kind

which

we

have just noticed. The references to the

‘

impious camp

’

and the ‘bloodstained weapons

’

remind

us

both of the offence

of

idolatry and also of

that

of bloodshed.1

The office of the judge and magistrate] though

it

shares with that of the soldier the infliction

of

bodily

damage and death upon other men, yet exhibits this

infliction

in

a less wholesale and indiscriminate] a less

objectionable and shocking, form. Further than that,

it

resembles far more closely than the soldier’s position

does

those

numerous and useful public services which

involve nothing in the way of violence to others.

While the element common to the law-court

and

the

full

study

of

the fictitious Acta

of

these

martp,

BS

well

as

of

the

historic

See

Achelis

in

Texte

und

Untcrrzuhunp

XI

2

(esp.

pp.

44

f),

for

a

groundwork.

Harnack

(MC

83)

says

:

“The

Acts

of

Nereus and

Achillells

.

are

to

be

left

on

one side

””but

thesame

need

not

be

said

of

Damasus’

epitaph.

The

Early Christian Disapproval

of

War

155

army made Christians sensitive in regard to the former

as

well as to the latter, the dissimilarity between them

caused the objections

to

the one to

be

far more strong

and definite than the objections to the other. The

views of Christians in the latter part of the third

century in regard to law-courts, magistracies, death-

penalties, and

so

on, would form an interesting supple-

ment to their

views

on military service. The evidence

unfortunately is more scanty than we could wish. Two

passages, however, of some interest may be quoted.

The Didaskalia definitely forbids the Christian

to

sue

a wrongdoer in a pagan court.

“

It is very high praise

for a Christian to have no

evil

dispute with anyone

:

but if, through the work

of

an enemy, temptation

arises against anyone,I let him try earnestly to be

freed from him, even though he has to suffer some

harm

;

only let him not

go

to the judgment of the

gentiles.

.

Let

not

the gentiles know

of

your legal

disputes; and do not accept evidence from them

against yourselves

:

nor in your turn prefer suits in their

courts.”

2

We have seen that the Canons of Hippolutos

in their original form forbade the admission to the

Church of a magistrate

who

wielded the power

of

the

sword. We do not know how long this original

regulation remained unmodified. Very probably the

modifications took place at different times and rates

in

different places. We know that in the latter part

of

the third century

it

was certainly not universally

observed

;

for

in

the times preceding

303

AD.,

there

were Christian governors

of

provinces

3

:

at

Alexandria

I

omit the words

Ir

eique

fit

iudicium,” which follow here in

Funks

Latin version

:

they are out

of

keeping with the context, do not appear in

the padlel

Greek

of

the Apostolic Constitutions, and

are

clearly

a

gloss.

Didruk

I1

xlv.

I,

xlvi.

I.

3

Eus

HE

VI11

i.

2.

+

156

The

Early

Chsuistian

Attitude

to

War

there was a Christian official who daily administered

justice attended by a guard of soldiers

I

:

in Spain

there were Christian magistrates. But a regulation

may remain in existence a long time after people have

begun to break

it,

as the long survival of the Eastern

Church-Orders proves

;

and even where

it

was felt that

such

a

rule, however desirable

as

an ideal, could not

be

enforced

in

practice and ought not therefore to

be

authoritatively laid down, the sentiment

of

repulsion

towards the penal and bloody side of a magistrate’s

work still made itself felt. One of the Canons of the

Synod

of

Illiberis (Elvira, in the south

of

Spain), which

apparently met about

300

A.D., ran

:

‘I

Resolved] that

it

be

laid down that

a

(Christian) magistrate, during the

one year in which he holds the office

of

duumvir, should

keep

himself away from the church.’]

*

Hefele regards

the patronage of idolatry connected with the office as

the ground

of

this decision,3

but

Dale rightIy

views

this

as insufficient.

‘I

Tertullian,” says Dale,

‘I

enumerates

acts which, though part of the cornmo~~ experience of

all

magistrates and rulers during that age, were inadmissible

in the true servant of Christ.

“As

to

the duties

of

civil power,” he says, “the Christian must not decide

on any one’s life or honour-about money

it

is

per-

missible; he must bind

no

one,

nor

imprison and

torture any.”

It

was considerations of this nature,

rather than the idolatrous associations connected with

the office, which

led

the

Synod

to exclude the official,

during

his

year

of

tenure, from communion

with

the

Em

RE

VI11

ix.

7.

Cmt

IUib

56.

The duumvir

in

a

provincial

town

was

roughly

whst

the

umsul

wns

at Rome,

viz.

the

chief

magistrate. The

same

Synod

penalized

Christians

who

acted

as

‘

informers

I

(Can

/Zib

73)-

3

He€ele

r61.

The

Early

Chhtian

Disapproval

of

War

157

Church

:

for

to

sentence even a slave to death, to

imprison the debtor, or to put the household of

a

suspected criminal to the rack, though the duty

of

a magistrate, would in the Christian be a sin.”

I

The

sense

of

the incongruity of Christianity and political

life in general, more particularly

on

its punitive and

coercive side, expressed itself in the strong disapproval

that was felt-even down to mediaeval and modern

times-to the direct participation of the Christian

clergy in any activities of this kind.*

We conclude our study

of

this section

of

the subject

with

a

few

passages from two Christian authors who

flourished towards the close of our period,

viz.

Arnobius

and Lactantius. Arnobius speaks as if abstention from

warfare had been the traditional Christian policy ever

since the advent

of

Christ. The amount of

war

had

been

diminished, he said, not increased, since Christ

came. “For since we-so large a force of men-have

received (it) from his teachings and laws, that evil ought

not

to

be repaid with evil, that it

is

better to endure a

wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one’s

own

(blood)

rather than stain one’s hands and conscience with the

blood of another, the ungrateful world

has

long

been

receiving a benefit from Christ, through whom

the

madness of savagery has been softened, and

has

begun

to

withhold

its hostile hands from the blood of

a

kindred

creature. But

if

absolutely all

.

were willing to lend

an

ear

for a little while

to

his healthful and peaceful

A.

W.

Dale,

2%

Symd

of

Elvira,

234

f.

The

Synod

of

Arclate

(Arles,

314

A.D.)

provided

that

Christian

magishates,

who

‘‘

agin

to

act

contrary

to

the

discipline,

then

pt

last

should

be

excluded

from

corn-

rrtunion

;

and

similarly

witb

those

rho

wish

to

EDke

up

political

Life

”

(Can

Ani

7).

Cf

Cypr

Laps

6

for

nn

early

expression

of

this sentiment.

decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arro-

gance, trust to their own senses rather than to his

admonitions, the whole world would long ago have

turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living‘

in the softest tranquillity, and-would have come together

in

healthy concord without breaking the sanctions of

treaties.”

I

Lactantius

is

still more definite and uncompromising.

He explicitly rules out both military service and capital

charges

on

the ground that, involving homicide, they are

a violation of justice. We may recall a few salient

passages. Referring

to

some indefinite earlier time, he

says

:

“

Fire and water used to

be

forbidden to exiles

;

for up till then it

was

thought

a

wrong to inflict the

punishment of death on (those who,) though (they were)

evil, (were) yet men.”

2

“

If God alone were worshipped,

there would not

be

dissensions and wars; for men

would know that they are sons of the one

God,

and

so

joined together by the sacred and inviolable bond of

divine kinship; there would

be

no

plots, for they would

know what sort of punishments God has prepared for

those who kill living beings.”

3

Latterly the gentiles

had banished justice from their midst by persecuting

the good

;

but even

“if

they slew the evil only, they

would not deserve that justice should come to them

;

for

justice had no other reason for leaving the earth than

the shedding of human blOOd.”4 “Someone will say

here

:

‘What, therefore, or where, or of what sort

is

piety? Assuredly it

is

among those who are

ignorant

of

wars,

who

keep concord with

all,

who

are friends even to their enemies, who love all men

3

Iact

Znst

V

viii.

6.

I

bob

i.

6

:

see

above,

pp.

65

f.

4

Lact

Imt

V

ix.

2.

a

kt

Inst

I1

in.

23.

The

Early

Christian

Dispppoval

of

War

159

as brothers, who

know

how to restrain (their) anger,

and to soothe all fury

of

mind by quiet control”‘

In controverting the argument that the just man is

foolish, for, to save his

own

life, he

will

not

in

warfare

take a horse away from

a

wounded man, Lactantius

answers that, for one thing, the just man

will

never

be

faced with these circumstances. “For

.

. .

why should

he wage war, and mix himself up in other

people’s

passions-he

in

whose pind

dwells

perpetual peace

with

men?

He

.

. .

who regards it

as

wrong, not

only to inflict slaughter himself, but even to be

present with

those

who inflict it and to look on,

will

forsooth

be

delighted with

.

human blood

!

”2

In

criticizing patriotic wars, he says

:

“

In the first

place, the connection

of

human society

is

taken

away

;

innocence is taken away; abstention from what

is

another’s is taken away; in fact, justice itself

is

taken

away, for justice cannot bear

the

cutting asunder

of

the

human race, and, wherever arms glitter, she must

be

put

to flight and banished.

.

For how can he be

just

who injures, hates, despoils,

kills?

And those who strive

to

be

of advantage to their country do

all

these things.”3

“Whoever reckons it

a

pleasure that a man, though

deservedly condemned, should

be

slain in his sight,

defiles his own conscience, just as if he were

to

become

spectator and sharer

of

a murder

which

is committed in

secreL”4

.

“

When God prohibits killing,

He

not only

a

Lact

Imt

V

xvii.

12f.

The

gaps

in

my

quotation

deal

with

the

drowning

compnion.

htantius

absurdly

argues

that

the

Just

man

will

parallel

case

of

the

just

man

who

in

a

wreck

will

not

take

a

plank

from

a

never

need

to

take

a

voya$le, being

content

witb

what

he

has.

Though

in

this

point

he

allows

his

r

etoric

to

get

the

better

of

his

common

sense,

it

dQes

not

follow

chat

his

argument

on

the other int,

ill-adapted

as

it

was

to

the

immediate

purpose

in

h~m~,

was

equally

Kpvolous.

Lact

Inrt

v

x.

10.

3

Lust

Inst

VI

vi.

20,22.

4

Lact

IIPICVI

xx.

IO.

160

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

forbids

us

to commit brigandage, which is not allowed

even by the public laws; but He warns

(us)

that not

even those things which are regarded as legal among

men are to be done. And

so

it will not be lawful for

a

just man to serve as

a

soldier-for justice itself

is

his

military service-nor to accuse anyone

of

a

capital

offence, because it makes

no

difference whether thou

kill with

a

sword or with a word, since killing itself is

forbidden.

And

so,

in this cpmmandment

of

God,

no

exception at all ought to

+

made (to the rule) that it is

always wrong to kill

a

man, whom God has wished to

be (regarded as) a sacrosanct creature”

1

Lactantius

does not either claim or suggest that there were

no

Christiahs in the army when he wrote

;

and his language

may perhaps

be

held to imply that he is counteracting

the opinions of other Christians: but he could hardly

have written as he did, if his views were merely those

of

an inconsiderable handful of extremists. One

would

rather gather that he must have been conscious

of

having at his back

a

very

large

body

of

Christian senti-

ment and conviction.

I

hCt

In&?

VI

XX.

15-17.

PART

I11

FORMS OF THE EARLY

CHRISTIAN

ACCEPTANCE

OF

TVAR

HITHERTO

we have concentrated our attention on the

various ways in which the Christian abhorrence and

disapproval

of

war expressed itself. We have now to

study the reverse side

of

the picture-the various con-

ditions and connections in which war

was

thought of by

Christian people without that association of reproach

which

so

frequently attached to it. The contents of

this reverse side of the picture are very heterogeneous,

ranging from the use

of

military metaphors and similes

up to the actual service

of

Christians in the legions. It

will

be

our

task to examine each phase

of

this

side

of

the subject candidly and carefully, and to attempt an

estimate of the precise value

of

each in its relation to

that strong antipathy towards

war,

the

various

mani-

festations of .which we have just been reviewing, We

begin

with

THE

CHRISTIAN

USE

OF

MILITARY

TERMS

AND

PHRASES TO ILLUSTRATE THE

RELIGIOUS

LIFE.-It

was apparently Paul who introduced

this

custom of

drawing from the military world metaphors and similes

iliustrative

of

different aspects of

Christian,

particularly

apostolic, life.

He

urged

the

Thessalonians to

put

on

I2

m

162

The

Early

Christian

Attitud.e

to

Wm

the breastplate of faith and love, and to take the hope

of

salvation as a helmet.1 He supported his right to

subsist at the expense of the Church by asking

;

“

Who

ever engages

in

military service at his own expense?”

2

He spoke of his spiritual and disciplinary powers

ir!

the Church in the language

of

one

holding a military

command and suppressing a mutiny.3

He

spoke of

his

weapons

of

righteousness

on

the right hand and

on

the

left, i.e. for attack and defence.4

He

called Epaphro-

ditos and Arkhippos his fellow-soldiers and

others

his

fellow-captives5

In

a detailed enumeration of the

items that make up the offensive and defensive equip-

ment of a soldier, he elaborated the parallel between

human warfare and the Christian’s struggle against evil

angelic powers.6 Further use of military metaphors is

made in the Pastoral Epistles. There the author bids

Timotheos join him in bearing hardship as a good

soldier of Jesus Christ.

“

No

one going

on

military

service gets entangled

in

the affairs

of

(civil) life,

(for

his

aim is) to please him who enrolled him.”7 It

is

important to notice that Paul,

as

if

aware

of

the liability

of

such language to misconstruction, twice went out of

I

Thess

v,

8.

I

Cor

ix.

7

;

cf

z

Cor

xi.

8.

3

z

Cor

x.

34.

4

2

Cor

vi.

7

;

cf,

for

other

military

egpresions,

Rom

vi.

13,z3,

xiii.

12.

5

Phil

ii

25,

Philemon

2,

23,

Rom

XVI.

7,

Col

iv.

IO.

7

2

Tim

YL

3f;

cf

I

Tim i.

18.

It

is

to

be

observed

that

the

language

of

I

Tim

vi.

12,

2

Tim iv.

7,

from

which

we

get the

familiar

phrases

about

race-course

(cf

I

Cor

ix.

25,

Heb xii.

I).

IIamack

discusses

these

NT

‘6ghting

the

good

fight,’

is

drawn,

not

from

the batlle-field,

but

from

the

military

metaphors

in

great

detail

(MC

12-18).

He

finds

their

origin

“y

the

‘ctuns

of

the

Old

Testament

prophets

”

{

rz),

having

ap

minrsuch

pwsages

as

Isa

xi.

4

f.

xlk

2,

lix.

17,

Hoses

vi.

5

K?z::

that

while every

Christian

has

to

fight,

it

is

not

usaslly

the

ordinary

He

points

out

that

the

analogy

became

more

tban

a

mere

anal

when

it

Chrictian

who

is

described

as

a

soldier.

but

only

the

apostle

and

misiionarg.

was

used

to

prove

that

the

missionary

should

be

sopported

byx

Church,

and

should

not

engage

in

the

business

of

civil

life.

Eph

vi.

rz-18.

The

Early

Christian

Acqtanct

of

War

163

his way to remind his readers that in

using

it he was

not referring to earthly warfare. “Though we walk in

the flesh, we do not serve as soldiers according to the

flesh; for the weapons

of

our military service are not

those of the flesh, but powerful through God for the

demolition

of

strongholds, demolishing theories and

every rampart thrown up against the knowledge of,

God, and taking prisoner every project (to bring it) into

obedience to Christ,” and

so

on.1 Again,

“

Our struggle

is

not against flesh and blood, but against the (angelic)

rulers, against the (angelic) authorities, against the

world-potentates of this darkness, against the spiritual

(forces) of wickedness

in

the heavenly (regions).

Wherefore take

up

the armour of

God,”

and

so

on.=

explicitly military parable

of

Jesus, that of the two

kings preparing for war.3 Clemens of Rome says to

the Corinthians

:

l1

Let

us

render service then, brothers,

as strenuously as we can, under His faultless orders.

Let us consider those who serve our governors as

soldiers,

in

what an orderly, obedient, and submissive

way they carry out their instructions. For all are not

prefects or chiliarchs or centurions or captains of

fifty,

and

so

on

;

but each one in his own rank carries out

what

is

ordered by the Emperor and the governors.

The great cannot exist without the lower, nor the lower

without

the

great. There is a union

among

all,

and

that is why they are

(so)

useful

”

(m2

dv

TO~TOIS ypij~~4-).4

Ignatius writes: “Please Him whom ye serve as

soldiers, and from whom ye receive wages.

Let

no

The

Gospel

of Luke preserves for

us

the one

.

2

cor

x.

3-5.

a

Eph

vi.

126

3

Lk

nv.

31-33

:

see

above,

p.

38,

and

cf

Mt

xi.

rzf

(=

Lk

xvi.

16),

aii.

7.

4

I

Clem

xmii.

1-4

164

The

Early

Ch&tian

Attitude

to

Was

one of you

be

found (to be) a deserter. Let pour bap-

tism abide as (your) weapons, faith as

a

helmet, love as

a spear, patience as armour. Let

your

works

be

your

,

deposits, in order that ye may receive the recompense

due to you.”

1

It

will

be

seen that, while Ignatius does

not do more than use military metaphors, Clemens goes

a good deal further.

In

two respects his allusion to

military life is a novelty. Firstly, he draws from his

illustration the lesson

of

subordination of Christians

to

Church-leaders

;

and secondly, he unquestionably feels

a

real admiration for the Roman army

as

such. We

shall have occasion

to

refer later

to

this second point.

Justinus uses the military analogy

in

rather a strik-

ing way. “It would

be

a ridiculous thing,” he says to

the Emperors, “that the soldiers engaged and enrolled

’

by you should respect their agreement with you in

preference to their own life and parents and country

and all their friends, though ye can offer them nothing

incorniptible, and that we, loving incorruptibility, should

not endure

all

things for the sake of receiving what we

long for from Him who is able to give (it).”a In the

apocryphal ‘Martyrdom

of

Paul,’

both

the author him-

self

and the characters he introduces speak

of

Chris-

tians as soldiers in the service of God

3

:

similar lan-

guage

is

put into Peter’s mouth’

in

his apocryphal

‘

Martyrdom.’

4

In the Gnostic

‘

Excerpts from

Theo-

dotos,’ it is said

:

(We) must

be

armed with the Lord’s

weapons, keeping the body and the soul unwounded.”

5

Eirenaios refers, chiefly in Scriptural language, to the

achievements

of

Christ under the

figure

of miIitary

*

Ig

PV~.

2

:

cf

s

i.

2.

We

may

remember

that

Ibatius

was,

at

the

a

Just

I

Ap.

x-

5.

4

h4Pch.7=&tP#tr36(i.g0;

P1ck116).

3

blpSsrZ2-&

6

(i.

xoS-116;

Pick

44-48).

5

3scm-j

TW85.

time

of

writing,

in

the

charge

of

a

squad

of

ten

soldiers.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

165

exploits.1 Clemens

of

Alexandria has

a

large number

of military expressions and comparisons designating

various features

in

the Christian

life.2

The pugnacious

Tertullianus, despite his aversion to military service in

actual life, was especially fond of using language of

this sort.

3

It was adopted in fact far more readily and

extensively in the Western than in the Eastern Church.

The use

of

the one Latin word

‘

sacramentum

’

for the

,

soldier’s oath and for certain important Christian ob-

servances facilitated the introduction of the military

conception of Christianity. While nothing was further

from Tertullianus’ real meaning than that Christians

should actually take arms on behalf of their religion,

yet the thought of Christians as soldiers was sufficiently

vivid and real to him to enable him to play with the

idea

of

an actual revolt.4

Origenes found the idea of the Christian life as a

spiritual warfare

of

great value in that it furnished a

key to much in the Old Testament that would have

been repugnant to him, had he felt obliged to accept it

in

its literal meaning. Military metaphors appear

in

his best-known works, but are naturally most fully

worked out in

his

Homilies

on

the

books

of Numbers,

Joshua, and Judges.

In

the Homilies on Joshua, he

Eiren

IV

xx.

I

(ii.

223)

(quotation

of

Ap

xk

I

1-17),

xxxiii.

I

(ii.

265)

Balaam

was

the

Word)

:

cf

I1

ii.

3

(i.

255)

[world

to

be

referred

to

God

(quotation

of

Ps

xlv.

44,

frug

21

(ii.

490)

the

armed

angel

that

met

as

victory

to

the

king

who

planned

it).

Clem

Protr

x.

93,

100

fin,

I

IO,

si.

116,

Paed

I

vii.

9,

nii.

65,

Sirom

I

xi.

51,

xxiv.

15?ff,

I1

xx.

110,

120,

IV

iv.

14,

16,

viii.

60,

xiii

91.

xsii.

141,

VI

x11.

103,

xiv.

112,

VI1

iii.

21,

xi.

66,

xiii.

S3,

xvi.

loof,

Quis

Divts

25,

34

f.

3

Tert

Murf

I,

3,

AQoi

p

init,

Nkt

ii.

5

(i.

592f),

Spect

24

fin,

Cul

ii.

5,

Pan

6,

Orat

19,

jud

7,

Pmesm

I

2,

41,

Cad

12

init,

Marc

v.

5

(ii.

480),

Fug

IO

f,

Kcs

3,

Scwp

4

fin,

Aldic

2.2

fin,&ynn

IO,

17.

subject

wrth

great

thoroughness in

MC

32-40.

4

Tert

+pol

37

(i.

463)

(see

above,

p.

107).

Harnack

treats

the whole

166

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

says

:

‘‘

If

those carnal wars did not carry a figure

of

spiritual wars, the books

of

Jewish history would,

I

believe, never have been handed down by the apostles

(as)

fit

to be read

in

the churches by the disciples of

Christ, who came to teach

peace."^

Other writings

of

the first half of the third century

containing military phrases and illustrations are Hippo-

lutos’

treatise against Noetos,2 the apocryphal

‘

Acts of

Thomas,’3 the Pseudo-Cyprianic ‘De Pascha

CO~PU~US,’~

and the

‘

Octavius

’

of Minucius Felix, which has a fine

rhetorical comparison

of

the steadfast martyr to a

victorious soldier.

5

From

the middle of the third century onwards the

frequency with which military language

is

used to

describe phases of Christian life and experience

becomes very noticeable, particularly

in

Latin writers.

Christians are spoken of as Christ’s soldiers

;

Christ is

the imperator

;

the Church

is

his camp

;

baptism

is

the

sacramentum

;

heretics and schismatics are rebels and

deserters, and

so

on.

A

multftude

of

military phrases

occur in the portrayal of Christian trials and achieve-

ments, particularly in connection with persecution.

A

detailed analysis

of

the passages would tell us very

little in regard

to

our

main enquiry

:

some of them are

simply edifying rhetoric

;

in some the parallel

is

carried

ii.

5

(milites

Christi),

IV

14

(see

below,

p.

ITS),

24,

Or&

x+

3

f,

Orig

Horn

in

/os

xv

init

(Migne

PG

xii.

897).

Cf

also

Orig

Prim

111

xxiv,

4,

CeZs

vii.

21

f.

Harnack

collects

the

passages

from

Orlgenes’

ex

etical

works

in

MC

26-31,

99-104.

Westcott

says

of

the Homilies

onToshua

:

“

The

parallel

between the leader

of

the

Old Church

and

the

Leader

of

the

New is drawn with great ingenuity and

care.

The

spiritual

interpretation

of

the conquest

of

Canaan,

as

an

image

of

the Christian life,

never

flagp

”

(DCB

iv.

107h).

Hipp.

Nost

tS

(quotation

of

Ap sir.

11-t3).

4

Ps-Cypr

Path

IO.

3

Acrs

of

Thus

39,

126

(iii

157,

234

;

Pick

260

f,

328).

5

Minnc xrxvii. 1-3.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

167

out

in great detail

;

in others it consists of

a

bare illus-

trative analogy.1 We observe that the military metaphor

commended itself most strongly to Cyprianus and those

who corresponded with him,* Commodianus,s and the

authors

of

the martyr-acts,4 that

it

was on the whole

more popular with the Latin or Westerns than with the

Eastern

6

writers

;

and that fondness for

it

was greatly

stimulated

by

persecution.7 The way in which the

word

'

paganus,' which originally meant civilian

as

dis-

tinct from soldier

-

a sense which it kept till after

300

A.D.,

came eventually to mean non-Christian,

indicates how strongly .the idea

of

the Christian as

the soldier par excellence permeated the mind of

Latin Christianity.*

Most

of

the passages in which military metaphors

and similes are used are obviously quite non-committal

as to the writer's attitude to earthly warfare, though

there are certainly some in which the analogy

is

put in

such a way

as

to suggest that the writer accepts the

rightness

of

war.

Thus

Cyprianus says

:

“

It is a good

soldier’s (business) to defend the camp

of

his com-

mander against rebels and enemies

:

it is the business

of a proud general to keep the standards entrusted to

him,” and he

goes

on

to plead accordingly

for

the

re-

baptism

of

heretics.1

Or

again

:

“

If

it

is

a glorious

thing for earthly soldiers to return

in

triumph

to

their

country after conquering the enemy, how much more

excellent and great is the glory of returning in triumph

to Paradise after conquering the devil

!

”

2

Lactantius

reinforces a strong appeal

to

the reader

to

enter upon

the toilsome spiritual warfare against the devil by draw-

ing an elaborate parallel between the demands of that

conflict an! the wisdom of enduring,

for

the sake

of

peace and security in the future, the bother

of

having

to prepare to defend oneself and one’s home against an

earthly foe.3 But despite appearances] passages like

these cannot be taken as more than mere illustrations.

For

the purpose

of

pointing an argument

or

decorating

a lesson,

a

writer will sometimes

use

rhetorical analogies

which seem likely to carry weight, but which do not

represent his

own

considered opinions

on

that from

which the analogy

is

drawn. We know,

€or

instance,

that Lactantius, despite these glowing words on the

obvious need of self-defence,

as

a matter of fact totally

disapproved

of

all bloodshed, including capital punish-

ment and military service: and

it

seems

practically

certain that Cyprianus did the sarne.4

At

the same time, the frequent and unrestricted

use

of

military metaphors

was

not without

its

dangers.

3

Lact

znst

VI

ir.

’5

R.

4

See

above

pp.

147

f,

159

A

CYPr

ZP

73

(74

10.

a

Cypr

Fwt

g.

Hamack remarks:

“

When the forms

of

military life

are taken over into the higher religions, the military

element appears at first to be thereby converted into

its

exact opposite,

or

to be changed into a mere symbol.

But the

form

too has a logic of its own and its own

necessitates consequentiae.’. At first imperceptibly,

but soon more and more clearly, the military element,

which was received

as

a symbol, introduces also the thing

itself, and the ‘spiritual weapons of knighthood’ become

.

the worldly (weapons). But even where

it

does not get

as

far

as

that, there enters in

a

warlike disposition which

threatens >the rule

of

meekness and peace.”I And again

later, of

the

Latin Christianity

of

the third century

:

I‘

A

tone that was on the one hand fanatical and on the

other hand bombastic entered into the literature

of

edification in the West. The Christian threatened to

become a ‘miles gloriosus.’ Even though it might

all

through be a

question

of

spiritual warfare, (yet) an

earthly delight in battle and strife, in plunder and vic-

tory in the ordinary sense, could (quite easily) develop

itself in this fashion. Military speech was not by any

means justified by

the

actual circumstances, apart from

the intermittent persecutions: it (just) became the

fashion. The martyr-acts that were written in the great

persecution

under

Diocletian and

his

colleagues, and

still more those that were written later, are often enough

lacking

in

the

peace and prudence which

was

prescribed

to the Christians

in

their classic documents”except

the Apocalypse. But who can criticize

the

attitude of

people

who were handed over to the executioner and

’

went

to

meet a dreadful death? Their biographers

only

are

open to criticism.”g We may

say

therefore, with

’

Hamack

YC8.

opcirqzf.

170

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

io

War

regard

to

this first department

of

Christian thought in

which war stood for something good, that while it lent

itself to abuse and misconstruction, particularly in the

case of the cruder minds and harsher spirits in the

Church, it dealt strictly speaking only with warfare in

its purely spiritual sense, and comprised nothing that

was necessarily at variance with the most rigid absten-

tion from the use of arms.

THE

WARS

OF

THE

OLD

TESTAMENT

AND

OF

HEBREW

HISTORY.-The broad fact that meets

us

here is the

ease

with which the early Christian was

able, whenever necessary, to keep his

own

ethic and

that

of

the Old Testament in different compartments

of

his mind, without being seriously disturbed by-and

even without noticing-the discrepancies between them.

The Scriptures were for him divinely inspired

;

the

history they recorded had been divinely controlled

;

whatever was narrated and approved by the Biblical

authors was regarded as sacred, and as such not a proper

subject

for

human criticism-it was accepted with child-

like and unquestioning reverence. The reader had no

trained historical sense

with

which

to

discern develop

ment in man’s knowledge of God’s Will: hence he

lacked, not only the inclination, but also the means,

of

properly relating the ethic

of

his

own

faith to that

of

a long distant foretime. The soundness

of

his

own

moral intuitions saved

him

from

presuming to follow

indiscriminately the example

of

those great ones

of

old,

of

whom he read and spoke with such genuine

reverence and admiration.

No

greater mistake could

be

made than to suppose that the early Christian would

have permitted himself or his fellow-Christiatls

to

do

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

171

whatever he could peruse without censure or even

with approval in the pages of Scripture.

An

instance

will suffice to make this point clear. Concubinage and

prostitution were practices which early Christian senti-

ment strongly condemned as sinful. Whatever might be

the frailty of his flesh,

no

early Christian ever seriously

thought

of

advocating or even defending such practices

in his own day-least of all from the pages of Scripture.

Yet we find Paul referring to the concubinage of

Abraham without

a

hint that it was sinfu1,I and James

and the author of Hebrews alluding to Rahab the

harlot, not only without censure, but even

in

terms

of

high

praise.2 Similarly with the subject of war.

For

the

early Christian the warlike habits of the great

of old

’

and his own peaceful principles formed two

separate realms, both

of

which he recognized without

attempting-or feeling any need to attempt-to har-

monize them. He could recall with complacency, and

even with

a

devout admiration, the wars

of

the ancient

Israelites, totally unconscious

of

any problem presented

to him

by

their horrors, and without

in

any way

committing himself to

a

belief in the propriety

of

similar action on his part. Thus it was that Stephen

and

Paul both recalled with

a

glow

of

patriotic

enthusiasm

how

God

had

subdued and destroyed the

Canaanites before their ancestors under Joshua,s and

the author

of

Hebrews spoke proudly of Abraham

returning from the slaughter

of

the kings, reminded

his readers how “by faith the walls

of

Jericho fell

down,

. . .

by faith Rahab the hariotwas not destroyed

with the disobedient, because she had received the spies

in

peace,”

and mentioned in his catalogue of the heroes

Gal

iv.

zz

ff.

’

Jas

ii.

25

;

Heb

xi.

31.

3

-4c

vii.

45,

xiii.

rg.

of

faith

“

Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David,

Samuel, and the prophets, who by means of faith

subdued kingdoms,

. . .

escaped the edge

of

the sword,

out

of

weakness were made strong, became mighty

in war,, routed armies

of

foreigners.”

I

Clemens

of

Rome tells in detail the story

of

Rahab and the spies,

making the

scarlet

thread she bound in the window

a type of the Lord’s redeeming blood.*

‘

Barnabas’

finds

a

type of the cross in the hands

of

Moses

extended

above the battle between Israel and Amalek, and a

type

of

Jesus himself in Joshua, whom Moses ordered

to

record God’s determination to’ destroy Arnalek.3

Justinus quotes to Truphon the words

of

Moses

:

“

The

Lord thy God, who goeth before thy face,

He

shall

destroy the nations,” and says

:

“

Ye,

who derive your

origin from, Shem, came, according to the judgment of

God,

upon the land of Canaan, and took possession

of

it

I’

4

:

he reminds him how the angel

of

the Lord slew

185,000

Assyrians before Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s

time.5

Like the other writers just mentioned, he

sees

types

of Christ, the

cross,

etc., in military incidents, objects,

and

persons

that appear

in

the Old Testament,

in

Joshua,

in

Moses’ outstretched

arms,

and

the stone he

sat

on,

in

Rahab‘s scarlet thread, and in the horns with

which Joseph would push the nations (Deut. xxxiii.

17).6

While the juxta!!osition

of

the discrepant standards

of

Scripture and

of

the Christian life created no difficulty

x

Heb

vii.

I,

xi.

312-34.

It

is

quite

a

mistake

to

use

this

passage,

as

Professor

B.-Baker

does

(ICW6,

IS),

in

sapport

of

his

view

that

‘‘

war

immedmte

disci

Is,”

if

by

that

is

meant

that

war

is

something

in

which

is

sanctioned

.

by

the

teaching

and

practice

of

Christ

and

of

His

the follower

of

yeus

was

permitted to take

part.

a

I

Clemxii.

‘

Just

Dzkl126

(772).

139

(796).

3

Barn xii.

2,

9.

5

09

cit

83

(672).

0.5

(2

90

f(692

09

111

(734,

113 (736

9,

11.5

(741,

7441,

x31

(781).

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

173

for

the

childlike mind of the first generations of Christ-

ians] yet it was obviously bound sooner

or

later to attract

attention.

As

soon

as

the Church began to develop her

thinking powers and to face the tangled and perplexing

problems

of

practical 1ifK the antinomy had

to

be

reckoned with. That the sanction

of

war in the Old

Testament had some influence on Christian practice

by the time

of

Tertullianus, we know; though we

cannot say how soon that influence began to

make

itself felt. In the realm

of

theology, however, the

difficulty came to a head in the heresy and schism

of

Markion, about the middle of the second century.

Markion’s theory was that

all

divinely ordained wars,

judgments, penalties] and

so

on, were to

be

referred, not

to the Supreme Being, the good God who was the

Father

of

Jesus, but to an inferior Deity, the just God

of

the

Jews. This dualism the orthodox Christians

rejected and resisted with horror, and indeed it

was

as

easy to find disproof

of

it,

as support for it, in Scripture.

Neither Markion nor his opponents had the modern

key,

viz.

the theory

of

the progressive revelation

of

the Divine character to men

;

and the orthodox,

in

meeting his arguments, were driven to seek for warlike

features

in

the

God

of the New Testament, and thereby

gravely imperilled one of the most essential features

of

the Christian

gospel.1

*

Had

o~ys

(MC

26)

:

lr

Marcion’s

rasp

of

the

Christian

idea

of

God

w~ui

without

doubt

essentially

accurate.

But

the

thought

of

a

demlop-

ment

of

the

Jewish

conception

of

God

into

the Christian

was

BS

remote

from

him

as

from

hirj-opponents

;

so

that

he

had

to

break

with the

historicnl

an~enrs

of

the

Christian

id=

with

what

waf

aut-J&te.

Both

fell

into

error.

ty.

and

his

Catholic

o

ponenb

bad

to

adulterate

for

there

ws

110

other

way

out

It

will

however

days

remain

a

credit

to

the

Ihzionite

Church,

which

long

maintaiued

iwtf,

that

it

to

reject

the

Old

T-t,

than

to

tsrnish

the

picture

of

the

l!%s

Jew

Christ

by

the

intmxture

of

traces

of

a

warlike

God.”

174

The

Early

Christian

Attitu.de

to

War

Forty

or

fifty years later, the situation had developed.

We find indeed, as before, many allusions to the ancient

Hebrew wars without any question being raised as to

their incompatibility with Christian usage. Joshua

continues to be represented as a type of Jesus, and

the massacres he is said to have perpetrated are com-

placently referred to. Moses is praised as a great

general, his outstretched arms are taken

as

a sign of

the cross, the Maccabees’ decision to fight on the

Sabbath is quoted, and

so

on.1 But the importance

and urgency of the question raised

by

Markion were

more than ever realized, for his church was still strong

and flourishing. Lengthy exposures of his errors were

.

penned by Eirenaios, Tertullianus. and Hippolutos.

More significant for our immediate purpose-for these

replies to Markion deal only incidentally with the

question

of

wars-is the fact revealed by Tertullianus,

that the Old Testament was now being used by certain

Christians in order to justify themselves for bearing

arms. The plea

does

not seem to have been always

very intelligently framed, for we are told that these

Christians appealed not only to the wars of Joshua and

the Israelites, but also to Moses’ rod, :Aaron’s buckle,

and John the Baptist’s leather girdle!

2

How

utterly

and seriously misleading this reverence for the Old

Testament could

be

for

simpleminded Christians-

particularly

of

the less scrupulous and puritanical sort

-we gather from a treatise belonging to about

the

in

Eiren

I11

mi.

6

xvii.

3,

IV

K~V.

I,frqf

18

f,

44

(ii.

86,

93,

232,

4Sf,

The

reader

who

cares

tostudy these

dlUSi0nS

in

detd

will

find

them

I1

xviii

82,s

;

Tat

/dq,

9

f

(ii.

605,622

f,

627f),

Maroc

iii.

r6

(ii.

34311

sog),

Ammzsh

20

(IT),

27

(IS),

zg

(17)

;

Clem

Strom

I

xxiv.

158-164,

I11

xsiv.

8,

IV

rhv.

IS

fii.

3471,

iv.

36

(ii

451)~

Motpnrg

6

fin,

&wrr

7,

IO

;

Hipp

h

I

viii.

3,

a

Tert

I&(

rg

(i.

6go)

:

see

above,

p.

109.

The

Early Christian

Acceptance

f

of

War

175

middle of the third century, and probably written by

Novatianus, in which certain Christians are referred to

who justified themselves for attendance at the public

shows

in the amphitheatre

on

the ground that David

had danced before the ark and Elijah had been the

charioteer of 1srael.I But even among the more

intelligent and sincere Christians,

who

lived in the

times when participation

in

warfare had ’become

a

Christian problem, the fact that the Old Testament

wars were traditionally justified had some effect in pre-

venting a+unanimous decision against such participation.2

One way out

of

the difficulty

was

to regard the

Old

Testament wars as parables, allegories, and types,

descriptive of the spiritual life. Many Christians,

we

are told, regarded these difficult narratives as types,

though they were not

quite

clear

as

to what they were

types of.3 It needs a special insight, Origenes con-

tends,

to

enable

one

to

interpret these passages aright

:

“

strangely enough, by means

of

the history of wars and

of

conquerors

and

of

(the) conquered, certain mysteries

are made clear to those that are able to test them.”

4

What large use Origenes himself made of this method

of

interpretation

we

have already seen. We may note

that, great as was his confidence

in

it, his historical

sense

prevented him from applying it completely

;

and

=

not having the one clue to the problem,

he

had even-

tually

to

leave the discrepancy between the two dis-

pensations unresolved. Thus, when Celsus pointed out

the contradiction between the Old Testament promises

of

wealth

and

dominion

and precepts for the conduct of

et

annga

at

Israel

Helias

et

ate

grqm

huid

ipse

snltaait.

I

No-t

S’t

P

:

ubi,

inquiunt,

scripta

Sunt

ista,

ubi

prohibita

?

alioquin

Cf

Hmwk

MC

11

f.

3

0rigAincIVi.gfin.

4

Orig

ptinc

IV

14.

176

The

Earl2

Christian.

Attitude

to

War

war,

on

the one hand, and the teaching

of

Jesus on the

other, Origenes argued that the former, are to

be

taken

in

a spiritual sense, as the Jews themselves eventually

took them, the literal sense being in many cases obviously

impossible. The promises

of

the Law were never

literally fulfilled; the Jews therefore would not have

remained

so

zealous for the Law, had they understood

it-as Celsus does-literally. At the same time, Origenes

recognizes that the Law had a literal, as well as a

spiritual, meaning, that the Jews understood the laws

permitting them to punish offenders and to fight against

their enemies literally and not spiritually, and that they

were allowed to do

so,

as otherwise they would have

perished

as

a

nation. Yet he also argues that

the

promise that the Jews should hay their enemies cannot

be

taken literally, and points out that the destruction

of

Jerusalem proved that

God

did not wish the Jewish

State to stand any longer.1 It is easy enough to see

the unresolved contradiction in Origenes’ psition-

indeed, one can hardly believe that he himself could

have been quite satisfied with

it:

but further advance

’

was impossible without the more modern ideas

of

the

part played by man’s subjective conditions in the deter-

mination

of

human duty and the consequent necessity

of

a

progressive, Le.

a

changing, revelation

of

the divine

Will.

A

further point along this very line was reached

by

a Christian writer (the author

of

the

‘

Dialogus de

Recta Fidei

’)

of the early years

of

the fourth century,

in connection with the closely allied problem of the

contradiction between the Mosaic Law

of

Retaliation

and the Sermon on the Mount. That problem,

how-

ever,

is

still more closely connected

with

the

question

r

ong

CCLZ

iii.

7,

vli.

18-26.

of

the justifiability of judicial penalties than with the

question of war, and

will

accordingly have to be

con-

sidered later.’ We

may,

however, notice here the full

approval which this author gives to the spoliation

of

the

Egyptians by the Israelites and to

Moses’

punishment

of

the rebels

:

“

It does

not

therefore seem at all

undeserved that those, who had waged war unjustly,

should

be

despoiled like enemies

by

the laws

0:

war.

. .

.

It was just that those who had revolted should

be

slain

like enemies and conspirators.

. .

.

We have shown

concerning those, who wage war unjustly, that the

proper result is that they should receive what is

(usually) given (ea quae

. .

.

referuntur) by the law

of war; whence we have taught that Christ also

ordered (his) enemies to

be

thrust into outer darkness,

where there

will

be

weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

2

Apart from this author and Origenes and those who

touch on the problem

of

the

Lex

Talionis, no other

writer makes any contribution to the settlement of the

difficulty

of

Old Testament wars.3 This difficulty how-

ever did not bulk

so

large but that authors

of

even the

latest part

of

our period could refer to those wars

in

the same happy and unconscious way as their pre-

decessors. Minucius Felix speaks

of

the military

successes of the Jews, as long as they worshipped

God

:

‘‘

(though) unarmed, they pursued armed men as they

fled, (and) overwhelmed (them) by the command

of

God and with the help

of

the elements.”

4

In Cypri-

’

see

below,

pp.

218

K.

a

Adamant

i.

IO,

12,

13.

righteousness

from

its

rudiments

in

the

natural

fear

of

God,

through

L

Tertullianus

(

Vaq

I)

has

mme words

about

the development

o1

infSncy

in

the

Law

and

the Prophets, youth

in

the

Gospel,

hnd

maturity

in

the

work

of

the

Paraclete,

but

he does not

work

the theory

out.

4

Minuc

xxsiii.

3.

I3

178

The

Edy

Christian

Attitude

io

War

anus

we once more find mention

of

Moses making the

sign

of

the

cross

I

and other allusions to Old Testament

‘wars,=

as

well

as

commendations

of

Cornelius, the

centurion-convert

of

the New Testament.3 Lastly,

Joshua appears

as

a type of

Jesus

in the ‘Divine

Institutes

’

of Lactantius.4

Summing up, we may say that all orthodox

Christians agreed in regarding the wars waged by the

ancient Hebrews as having been waged with the

Divine sanction,

if

not always at the Divine bidding;

that few

of

them were concerned, and none fully suc-

ceeded, in harmonizing the divergent views

of

the Old

and New Testaments in regard to the

use

of

violence,

but that, inasmuch

as

the approval accorded to ancient

Hebrew wars was-whether the Christian

fully

recog-

nized the fact or not-relative to the ancient Hebrew

mind,

i.e.

relative to subjective

human

conditions

which were very different from those of the Christians

themselves, the instinct which withheld the latter from

copying the military precedents of Scripture was per-

fectly sound, and could have been logically justified if

the requisite philosophical apparatus had been available

;

that the use normally made of these stories

of

ancient

times was simply that of edifying types

or

allegories

of

Christ and the Christian life; that the use

of

them

in order to justify Christians

in

bearing

arms

was in

many cases the product

of

an

extremely crude habit of

mind

;

that it satisfied both sides

of

the

question even

&ss

than did the view

of

the rigid abstentionist (in

that

it

could give

no

account of

its

departure

from

Routh

ui.

45%.

3

Cypr

E3

72

(71)

I,

Dm

0-

p.

4

Lact

znsi

IV

xvii.

12

f.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptanee

of

War

179

the teaching

of

Jesus), and that

it

involved the subtle

fallacy

of

supposing that what

God

permits

or

enjoins

for men in one stage

of

development, He equally

permits or enjoins for men in quite a different stage.

APOCALYPTIC

WARS.”But Scripture spoke of other

wars than those

of

past history. The Jews looked

forward

to

an approaching cataclysm,

a

great inter-

vention

of

God

in

human affairs, involving

a

general

resurrection and judgment, the reward

of

the righteous,

the punishment

of

sinners, and the establishment

of

a divine kingdom under the regency

of

the Messiah.

It

seems

to have been generally expected that the

occurrence of terrific wars, involving the overthrow

and

slaughter

of

the enemies of the Chosen People and

their

Messiah, would form

a

part

of

this series

of

events,

though there was no unanimity as to the details

of

the

programme. The Christian Church practically

took

over the Jewish apocalyptic

beliefs

epl

masse: hence

we

find war entering into their hopes and expectations

of

the future. Mark includes in the apocalyptic discourse

of Jesus

the

following passage

:

“

When

ye

hear

(of)

wars

and rumours

of

wars,

be

not amazed

:

(this)

must happen,

but the end

is

not yet. For nation shall rise against

nation, and kingdom against kingdom

;

there shall

be

earthquakes

in

divers places

;

there shall

be

famines.

These

things (are the) beginning

of

(the Messianic)

birth-pangs.” Matthew and Luke report the same

or

similar words.1 Luke represents Jesus in the Parable

of

the Pounds

as

describing the

king

on

his

return

summoning into

his

presence

for

execution those

who

Mk

xiii.

7

f

[Is.

According

to

‘The

Vi00

of

Isaiah,'

the

war

mn-

tinues

inctssvrtiy from

the

Creation

to

the

Faro&

(see

above,

pp.

490.

180

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

did not wish him to reign over them.’ Paul says that

the Lord Jesus will destroy the Lawless One (i.e.

Antichrist) with the breath

of

his mouth, and bring him

to

nought

by

the manifestation

of

his coming.*

This

theme of Messianic warfare appears

in

a

multitude

of

different shapes in the Apocalypse, The openings

of

the first, second, and fourth seals usher in disastrous

wars.3 Christ

is

represented

as

a conqueror,4 having

a sharp two-edged sword issuing from his mouths: he

threatens to make war with it upon the Nikolaitans?

and to slay Jezebel’s children.7

A

tremendous conflict

is

about to come, in which he will conquer the Beast

and the kings of the earth with terrific slaughter.8

After his millennia1 reign, there will

be

further wars

against

Gog

and Magog.9 The Book

of

Elkesai, written

apparently during the reign of Trajanus, prophesied

that, when three more years

of

that reign had elapsed,

war would break out among the ungodly angels

of

the

north,

and

a

convulsion

of

al!

ungodly kingdoms would

ensue.10 Justinus quotes several passages from the

Old Testament, speaking of

a

warlike triumph

on

the

part

of

God or

of

the Messianic King.”

In

the apo-

cryphal

‘Acts

of Paul,’ the apostle tells Nero that

Christ

“

is

going one day to make war upon the world

Lk

xix.

27,

cf

11.

*

2

Th

ii.

8.

3

Apvi.

1-8.

5

Ap

i.

16,

ii.

12,

xk.

15.

4

Ap

iii.

01,

v.

5

:

cf

John

xvi.

33.

Ap

ii.

16.

7

Ap

ii.

23.

Li

Ap

xiv.

14-20,

xvi

13

f,

16,

xix.

11-21.

9

Ap

xx.

7-10.

I’

Brandt

m

Hastings’

Encyciopatdzk

of

Reiigdon

ami

EiRics,

v.

263b.

Justinus

in

Daial

26

(532),

Dan

vii.

11

(destruction

of

rh

Beast)

and

26

*l

Iss

lsiii.

1-6

(the

one

in

dyed garments

from

Bosrah)

is

quoted

by

(overthrow

of

the

Horn)

in

Did

31

(5@fl,

Ps

xlv.

5

(arrows

in

the heart

enemies

thy

footstool,”

etc.)

and

5

(kings

crushed

in

the

day

of

God’s

of

the

king’s

enemies)

in

Dial

38

(5571,

Ps

cx.

I

(‘‘until

I

make

thine

wrath)

in

Dial

32

(545).

From

Dial

32

(544)

we

gather

that

Justin-

regarded the

putting

of

Christ’s enemies under

his

feet

as

a

process

going

on

from the

time

of

the

Ascension.

The

Ea.rly

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

181

with fire."

I

In the Gnostic

'

Excerpts from Theodotos,'

we read of a great battle going on between the rebel

a

powers' and the angels, the former fighting against,

the latter-like soldiers-for, the Christians

:

God

rescues the Christians from the revolt and the battle

and gives them peace.* The Montanist prophetess

Maximilla foretold wars and anarchy.3 Tertullianus,

in

his Apology, assures the pagans that the events

going on around them--" wars, bringing external and

internal convulsions, the collision

of

kingdoms with

kingdoms, famines, and pestilences, and local mas-

sacres ""had all been foretold in Scripture

4

;

and in his

reply

to

Markion

he quotes Jesus' announcement

of

eschatological wars, etc., as demonstrating his con-

nection with the severe and terrible Creator, inasmuch

as he says that they must come to pass, and does not

concern himself to frustrate them,

as

he would have done

had they not been his own decrees.5 Hippolutos quotes

the passage in Daniel where Michael

is

said to have

been

sent

to

make war on the prince

of

Persia

6

;

he

speaks in some detail of the warlike character and

doings

of

Antichrist,7 and refers generally to the

wars that are to be the prelude of the Last Things.8

The Didaskalia quotes for the guidance of the

Christian bishop the passage in Ezekiel, where the

watchman is bidden warn the people when

God

is

bringing

a

sword upon the earth, and adds:

'I

So

the

swgrd

is

the judgment, the trumpet is the gospel, the

watchman is the

bishop

appointed

over

the Church"

9

'

MPad3

(i.

110ff;

Pick45).

Exccrp

Thwd

72.

3

Eus

Ha

V

xvi.

18

f.

4.

Tert

Ape1

20

(ii.

389

f).

s

Tat

Mun

iv.

39

(ii.

455

f,

4580.

Hipp

Dun

IV

d.

3

(Dan

x.

13,

mf).

7

Hipp

DM

IV

xlix.

I,

4,

H~pp

Daa

IV

xvii.

8

f.

9

aidas&

I1

vi.

&IF,

182

The

Eurly

Christian

Attitu.de

to

War

Cyprianus told his people that the wars and other

calamities, which had been foretold

as

due to occur in

the Last Times, were then actually occurring, showing

that the Kingdom of God was nigh.’ Victorinus

of

Petavium, in his Commer,tary on the Apocalypse,

said

:

“

Now the white horse and (the One) sitting on

it shows our Lord coming with a heavenly army to

reign

;

and at his coming all the nations will be

gathered together and will fall by the sword. But the

other (nations), that were more noble, will be kept

for

the

service of the saints, and they themselves also

will

have to

be

slain at the

last

time when the reign of the

saints is over, before the judgment, when the Devil

has been again sent. away. Concerning

all

these

things the prophets uttered predictions in like

manner."^

Lactantius refers to the wars and troubles of the Last

Times, particularly those

of

the time

of

Antichrist,s

and quotes

in

connection with them a passage

from

the Hermetic writings, which says that God, “having

recalled the wandering and purged away the wicked-

ness, partly (by) flooding (it) with much water, partly

(by) burning (it) up with sharpest fire, sometimes cast-

ing

(it) out by wars and pestilences, led

his

own world

(back) to (its) ancient (state) and restored it.”

4

The vague idea

of

a

victorious war

to

be waged

by

the

Messiah against the wicked was thus taken

over

from

Jewish apocalyptic and

seems

to have be-

come

a

fairly regular element in Christian belief. With

the

Jews,

who had

a

land and a Holy City

of

their

Victorinus

in

Haussleiter,

Theobgisches

Literuturblaft,

April,

1895,

x

Cypr

Mi

2.

col.

195.

3

Lact

Inst

VI1

XI.

IO

f,

xri.

1-5,

12-14,

xvii.

6ff,

xix,

4

Lact

lust

VI1

xviii.

4.

The

Early

Christian Acceptance

of

War

183

own, and whose Messianism was consequently of

a

materialistic and political kind, such

a

belief might at

any time

take

practical form

in

the proclamation of

a

holy war against the enemies

of

God’s Chosen People.

When however it was transplanted to Christian

soil,

the risk

of

an attempt to anticipate by force of arms

the Messiah’s final triumph virtually disappeared.

It

was not until the time of Constantinus that the success

of Christianity appeared to be bound up with a military

victory-and not till long after that that a

lioly

war’

was proclaimed

in

Christendom. The Christian took

no part as an earthly warrior in fighting for Messiah’s

victories. Those victories were expected to be won

with armies of angels, or better still were interpreted

in

a

spiritual sense. Tertullianus.went out

of

his way

several times to explain that the military character

ascribed to Christ

in

Scripture

was

to be understood

spiritually and figuratively, not literally

:

war, literally

understood, he said, would produce deceit, and harsh-

ness, and injustice, results

the

very reverse of what

was

foretold as the work

of

Christ.1 The expectation,

therefore, of the- quasi-military triumph of Christ, like

the

respectful view taken of the Old Testament wars, was

not likely to encourage the Christian to take arms on

behalf

of

his faith, except perhaps in the case

of

crude

intellects that had bareiy grasped the essentials

of

Christianity, and here and there in

the

earliest times

when the Church had hardly emancipated herself from

the

sway of the apocalyptic and Jewish political spirit.

“One

must

not forget the psychological fact that

the

Tert

MUYC

iii..r3

init

(u.

3370

(a

ridiculous picture

of

the

infant

Immanuel

acting

as

warrior),

14

(ii.

340)

(see

above,

p.

511,

iv.

20

(ii.

406

f),

v.

18

(ii.

516f),

Res

20

(ii.

821).

184

The

Burly

Christian

Attitude

to

War

world of imagination and

the

world of actual life are

separate, and that under (certain) conditions

a

very

quiet and very peaceable man can at times give himself

up to extravagant imaginations, without their actually

influencing his own inner attitude. History proves

that the military

Jesus

Christus redivivus of apocalyptic

never in the (course

of

the) first three centuries turned

the Christians into warlike revolutionaries.”

I

Never-

theless, this belief in

a

warrior-Christ who would

conquer

his

enemies, played a certain part in prevent-

ing

a

unanimous and uncompromising rejection of

warfare as a permissible element

in

Christian life:

THE

JEWISH

WAR

OF

67-71

A.D.

was itself the

fulfilment

of

certain apocalyptic prophecies which Jesus

was believed to have uttered, and as such it got sepa-

rated

off

from the general body of Messianic wars

(which were regarded in the main as yet to come) and

invited-the formation of

a

special judgment concern-

.

ing itself. The Gospel of Mark, a5 we have seen,

represented

Jesus

as announcing the devastation of

Judaea, the siege and capture of Jerusalem, and the

destruction of the Temple, in connection with the “wars

and

rumours

of

wars,” the rising of nation against

nation and kingdom ,against kingdom, which formed

part of the

“

birth-pangs” that were to usher in the

coming of the Son of Man.3 The unanimous verdict

of- Christians who wrote after

70

A.D.

was that the

disastrous war culminating in the fall of Jerusalem that

year-in which, it

will

be remembered, the Christians

had refused to take

a

part 4“was

a

divinely ordained

Q,

cf43

r).

Harnack

MC

I

f

(see

below,

pp.

193

f).

Harnack

MC

IO

:

he

discusses

the

whole

question

very

fully

(8-rz

:

.

3

Mk

xiii

(see

above,

pp.

35,

179).

4

See

above,

pp.

g8

f.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptame

of

War

185

punishment inflicted on the Jewish nation

for

its sin in

rejecting and crucifying Christ.

Luke

and Matthew,

in their versions

of

the apocalyptic discourses and other

sayings

of

Jesus, represent the matter pretty clearly in

this light.1

‘

Barnabas

says

that the Temple

of

the

Jews was destroyed because they went to war with their

enemies.’

A

Christian interpolation

in

the Sibulline

Oracles represents the destruction of the Temple

as

a

punishment for the murders and ungodliness of which

the Jews were guilty.3 The Gospel

of

Peter pictures

the Jews, immediately after the burial of Jesus, as

‘I

knowing what

evil

they had done to themselves

”

and

lamenting and saying

:

I‘

Woe (to us)

for

our

sins

:

for

the judgment and the end

of

Jerusalem has drawn

nigh.”

4

Justinus tells Truphon the Jew

:

“

If

ye were

defeated in war and cast out, ye suffered these things

justly, as all the Scriptures testify.5

-

.

And that the

sons

of

Japheth came upon you

by

the judgment

of

God

and took away

from

you your land and possessed it,

is

apparent”

6

The Christians

of

Celsus’ time said that

the

Jews

having punished Jesus

.

. .

drew upon them-

selves wrath from

God.”7

Theophilos mentions God’s

threat to the Israelites that they shpuld be delivered

into subjection to all the kingdoms

of

the earth,

if

they

did not repent, and adds: “-And that this has already

happened to them

is

manifest.”8 Tertullianus tells the

Romans that Judaea would never have been beneath

their sway, “but

for

their culminating

sin

‘against

xxiii.

34-39)

;

Lk

xvii.

31-37,

xix.

41-44

xxi.

5

f,

g-11,

2-24.

’

Mt

xxiv.

I

f,

6-8,

15-22

(cf x.

14f,

xi.

20-24,

xiii.

40-42.

xxi. 4r-46,

3

Sibuilia

Oracicsiv.

115-118,

125-127.

Barn

xvi. 4.

4

Robinson

and

James,

p.

22.

5

Just

Diol

I

IO

(732)

:

the prophecies

are

quoted

in

I

Ap

xlvii.

Just

Dial

139

(796).

7

Orig

CeIs

iv.

22.

*

Tbeoph iii.

11.

i

!

186

The

Early Christian

Attitude

to

War

Christ

I

;

and in the course of his argument against the

Markionites, he bids them “recollect that end of theirs,

,

which they (i.e. the Jews) were predicted

as

about

to

bring

(on

themselves) after (the time

of)

Christ, for the

.

impiety wherewith they both despised and slew him

. . .

(many prophecies quoted). Likewise also the con-

ditional threat

of

the sword

:

‘

If

ye refuse and hear me

not, the sword shall devour

you,’

has proved that

it

was

Christ, for not hearing whom they have perished,” and

more to the same effect.= Hippolutos has several allu-

sions

to the matter

:

for instance, in his Commentary

on Daniel

he

says

:

I‘

The Lord having come to them

and

not being acknowledged by them, they were

scattered throaghout the whole world, having been cast

out of their

own

land; and having been defeated by

their enemies, they were thrust out of the city of Jeru-

salem, having become

a

source of hostile rejoicing to

all the nations.”3 The main burden of the surviving

fragment of ~ppolutos’

‘

Demonstration against the

Jews

’

is the awful sufferings they had drawn

on

them-

selves from

God

in return for their treatment of Christ.4

Minucius Felix makes Octavius‘ say to his pagan inter-

locutor about the Jews:

“

For

their

own

wickedness

they

deserved this (mis)fortune, and nothing happened (to

them) but what was previously foretold for them if

they should continue

in

(their) contumacy.

So

thou

wilt

understand that they forsook before they were

for-

saken, and that they were

not,

as

thou impiously sayest,

Tert

ApoZ

26

fin

(ii.

432).

*

Tert

Murc

iii.

23

(ii.

353

f),

cfJd

13.

prophecies

about

the desolation

of

Jerusalem

as

being

now

fulfilled,

and

3

Hipp

Dm

IV

Iviii.

3.

In

De

Aniichristo

$0,

he

quotes

&s

mentions

the

martyrdom

of

Isaiah

and

the

crucifixion

of

Christ

in

con-

nection

with

them.

4

ANCL

ixb.

41,43-45

:

cf

Krtiger

331

f.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

187

captured with their God, but were given

up

by God

as deserters from (His) disciplihe.”

x

In

the Pseudo-

Cyprianic De Pascha Computus

’

it

is

said that the

Temple at Jerusalem, “with the state itself, was again

in the time

of

Vespasianus destroyed (exterminaturn)

by our Lord himself

on

account of the unbelief

of

the

Jews.”Z Origenes says repeatedly in the course of his

reply to Celsus and elsewhere that the calamities which

had overtaken the Jewish nation were a punishment for

their sins in general and for their treatment

of

Christ

in particular.

I

select three passages

for

translation.

“One

of

the (things) which prove that Jesus

was

some-

thing divine and sacred

is

the

fact

that (calamities

of)

such greatness and such quality have on his account

befallen the Jews now for a long time.

And

we say

boldly’that they (the Jews) will not be restored.

For

they committed

a

crime the most unhallowed of all,

(in)

plotting against the Saviour

of

the race

of

men in

the city where they offered to God the appointed sym-

bols of great mysteries. It was needful, therefore, that

that city, where

Jesus

suffered these things, should be

altogether destroyed, and that the race

of

Jews should

be overthrown, and that God’s invitation

to

happiness

should

be

transferred to -others,”

etc.3

“

If

the Jews,

then, after treating Jesus

in

the way they dared, were

destroyed with (all their) youth, and had their city

burned, they did not suffer this as the result

of

any

other wrath than that which they had stored up for

themselves,

God’s

judgment against them having been

passed by

God’s

appointment, (and) ‘being named

wrath according to a certain ancestral custom

of

(the)

Minuc

xxxiii.

4.

3

Orig

Gels

iv.

22.

Ps-Cypr

Pad

15.

Hebrews.”I

“

The city, in which the people of the Jews

asked that Jesus should

be

crucified, saying

:

‘

Crucify,

crucify him ’“for they preferred that the robber who

had been cast into prison for sedition and murder

should be released, but that Jesus, who had been

handed over through envy, should

be

crucified-after

no

long time was attacked, and was besieged for

a

long

time

in

such

a

sort that it was overthrown from the

foundations and laid waste, God judging those who

inhabited that place unworthy of civic life

(rijc

woworlpag

Cwijg).

And-though it seems a strange thing to say

(i‘va

mpa8o’&1s

ei’rw)-(when God) handed them over to

the(ir) enemies, (He was) sparing them, for He saw

(mi

SpGv)

that they were incurable

so

far as (any)

change for the better was concerned and that they

were daily increasing in the(ir) outpour of

evil.

And

this happened because by their design the blood of

Jesus was shed upon their land, which was (conse-

quently) no longer able to bear those who had dared

(to commit) such a crime against Jesus.”

2

It

is

inter-

esting to notice that Origenes says elsewhere that we

must guard against interpreting scriptural references

to the wrath of God and His punishment of offenders

in a literal

or

materialistic way

:

we must seek, he says,

for the spiritual meaning, that our feelings and thoughts

about

Him

may be worthy.3

He

explains on another

occasion that God’s wrath

is

not a

human

passion,

but

a

stern disciplinary measure, and though

He

may make

use

of the wicked in

His

administration of the world,

the wicked are no less censurable for that.4 The

Orig

Cds

iv.

73.

2

Ong

Cds

viii.

42.

Cf

also

op

rit

i.

47,

ii.

8,

13

fin,

34,

78,

iv.

32,

3

Orig

Prim

11

iv.

+

4

0%

CcZs

iv.

70

(see

below,

pp.

215

f),

72.

v.

43,

vii.

z6,

viii.

47,

6g,

Orat

xxxi.

7.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

189

martyr Pionios at Smyrna

(250

AD.)

speaks

of

“the

whole Judaean land

.

. .

testifying

up

to

the present

day the wrath

of

God which came upon it on account

of the sins which

its

inhabitants committed, killing

(and) expelling foreigners (and) acting violently.”

1

The

Pseudo-Cyprianic treatise,

‘

Quod Idola Dii non sint,’

speaks in

a

general way of the calamities that had

overtaken the Jews

on

account

of

their sins and in

particular their rejection and crucifixion

of

Jesus.2

Another Pseudo-Cyprianic work, Adversus Judaeos,’

says

:

“Christ, being repudiated by the people, sent

(them) the tyrant they wished for, who overthrew their

cities and condemned their population

to

captivity and

took

plunder and reduced their country to the desola-

tion of

Sodom,”

depicts the exile, misery, and beggary

of Israel, and adds

:

“This is the punishment in Israelfs

case) and the situation in Jerusalem.”3 The Didas-

kalia says

:

“Our

Lord

and Saviour, when he came,

,

. .

taught the things that save, and destroyed the

things that are

of

no

advantage, and abolished the

things that do not save, not only (by) teaching

(the

truth) himself, but also (by) working through the

Romansl; and he put down the Temple, causing the

altar

to

cease (to be), and destroying the sacrifices and

destroying

all

the

bonds

which had been enjoined

in

the

ceremonial law.”S Lactantius mentions that it had

been foretold “that after a short time

God

would

send

a

king, who should conquer

the

Jews

and level their

cities with the ground and besiege them (till they were)

consumed with hunger and thirst; that then they

a

Ps-Cypr

QsMd

Z&la

IO,

cf

12

f.

M

Pimii

iv.

18

(Gebhardt

99).

4

per

Romonw

opemns;

a

variant

reading

gives

inspi.ms

for

operp~

3

Ps-Cypr

/id

6-8.

(cf

back

C

ii.

496

n

2).

5

Didask

VI

xix.

1.

190

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

should feed

on.

the bodies

of

their own (people) and

consume one another; lastly that they should come (as)

captives into the enemies’ hands and should see their

wives bitterly maltreated in their very sight, (their)

maidens violated and prostituted, their

sons

torn in

pieces, their little ones dashed

(to

the ground), every-

thing finally laid waste with fire and sword, the captives

banished for ever from their lands-because they had

exulted over the most loving and most approved Son

of

God.”

After quoting this prophecy, Lactantius adds

:

“And

so,

after their death” (i.e. Peter’s and Paul’s),

‘(

when Nero had slain them, Vespasianus destroyed

the name and nation

of

the Jews, and did everything

that they had foretold would happen.”’ Eusebios says

that the Hebrew Prophets foretold “the unbelief and

contradiction which the race

of

Jews would display

towards him (Christ) and the things done by them

to him and the calamities which immediately and not

long after came upon them for this-I mean the last

siege

of

their royal metropolis and. the entire destruc-

tion

of

the(ir) kingdom and their dispersion throughout

all the nations and their enslavement to the(ir) enemies

and foes,” etc.: Finally, we read in the

‘

Dialogus de

Recta Fidei

:

“At last, after Christ stretched

his

hands over Jerusalem, that people, who did not believe

him, was overthrown together with the temple itself

and the city; and anyone who by chance survived

was exiled from his country and led away as a

captive.”3

‘

Preaching

of

Peter

and

Paul,’

which

may

be

as

early

as

the first decade

I

Lact

Imt

IV

xxi:

the prophecy

was

contained in the so-called

or

so

of

the second

century (see Kriiger

61

f).

Eus

PE

8d.

9.

j

Rakamarrt

i.

II.

WAR

AS

AN

INSTRULIENT

OF

DIVINE

JUSTICE-

The destruction

of

Jerusalem in

70

A.D.,

while from the

point of view

of

the Gospels at least it partook

of

the

nature

of

an apocaIyptic event, was perhaps even more

accurately regarded as

an

instance

of

the divine use

of

war as a chastisement or punishment for human sin.1

Besides the allusions, just quoted, to the special exem-

plification

of

this principle in the case

of

Jerusalem, we

come across several allusions to the general theory.

Clemens

of

Rome speaks of God

as

the champion and

defender

(itn€ppqoc

rai

imEpamrtrrijc)

of

those who serve

Him, and quotes the Isaianic threat

:

"

If

ye

are

unwilling

and will not hear me, the sword shall devour

YOU."^

Theophilos quotes with tacit approval a Sibulline

oracle, in which God

is

said' to raise

up

against the

wicked wrath and war and pestilence and other

woes.3

Eirenaios, referring apparently to the conquest

of

Canaan by the Israelites, says that the posterity

of

cursed Ham was mown down by God,+ and, referring

to the parable

of

the

King's

marriage-feast, says

of

God

:

''

He

requites most' fairly according to (their) desert(s

those who are) ungrateful and

do

not realize

His

kindness

:

He repays with entire justice

:

and accord-

ingly

it says

:

'

Sending

His

armies,

He

destroyed

those murderers,

and

burned their city.'

Now

it

says

'

His armies,' because

all

men are God's.''

5

Tertullianus

assumes

the

idea

of

war being a chastisement sent

by

the

Creator

as

a

doctrine common

to

himself and

the

of

Ww

(IO,

30f.

qo,

87

f,

138,

etc.).

Dr.

Forsyth

makes

great

use

of

this

argument,

in

his

Chrisfiun

Ethit

a

I

Clem

xlv.

7,

viii.

4...

3

Theaph

ii.

36.

4

Elren

Dcmmrr

20

(I

I).

1b-6,

about

the

magistrate's

sword,

an

aspect

of

the

case

which

we

shall

5

Euen

IV

-vi.

6

(u.

282f)"Eirenaiog

goes

on

to

quote

Rom

xiii,

deal

with

later.

Cf Eireafrug

44

(ii.

509)

(Balmm

deservedly

slain).

1

192

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

Markionites, and presses in opposition to them the

saying that Christ had come

to

send a sword

I

:

he

refers

to

a number of incidents in early Hebrew history

in‘ which those

who

had offended against God were

punished with slaughter, and concludes

.:

‘I

And

thus,

throughout almost all the annals of the judges and

of

the kings

who

succeeded them, the strength of the

surrounding nations being preserved, He meted out

wrath to Israel by war and captivity and

a

foreign

yoke, as often as they turned aside from

Him,

especially

to idolatry.” Origenes

says

that Jesus

‘I

had

no

need

of

the

use

of whips and bonds and torture against men

in the fashion of the former dispensation.”

3

Cyprianus,

in

answer to the pagan complaint that the frequency of

wars,

famines, plagues, droughts, etc., was due to the

Christians, urges that

‘I

those (calamities) happen, not

because your gods are not worshipped by

us,

but

because God is not worshipped by you.”

4

When,

early

in

the fourth century, the persecuting colleagues and

successors of Diocletianus were overthrown in war by

Licinius and Constantinus, the Christians regarded the

defeat

of

the former as a divine chastisement for the

sufferings they had inflicted

on

the Church.5

It perhaps hardly needs to

be

pointed out that a

belief

in

the use of

war

for the divine chastisement

of

the Jews and

of

others who have been guilty of great

offences, whatever theological problems it may raise,

certainly

does

not involve the believer in the view that

aliisque

plagis

Crytoris,

sed

et

scorpiis ejus

objectus-speaking

of

the

x

Tert

M~YC

i.

24

(ii.

275)

(nec

fulminihs tantum,

aut

bellis,

et

pestibus,

Markionite‘s

6esh),

IV.

29

(ii.

435).

a

Tert

Sc@

3

(ii.

129).

3

Ong

Ccls

iv.

9.

4

Cypr

Dcntclr

2,

5.

5

kt

Imt

I

i.

15,

VI1

xxvi.

13

f,

Mml

PCYS

lii. 3

;

Ells

HE

IX

xi.

g,

X

i.

I,

7,

etc.,

Vit

Cmst

i.

3,

etc.

it is right or permissible for him to take a part in

inflicting such penalties. While Christians agreed that

the fa11 of Jerusalem and its accompanying calamities

were a divine chastisement, no one thought of inferring

from that that the Roman army

was

blameless

or

virtuous in the bloodthirsty and savage cruelty it dis-

played in the siege. And

in

regard to the more general

view of war as a divine chastisement, if it could

be

inferred from the fact

of

its

being

so

that

a

Christian

might lawfully help to inflict

it,

it would follow that he

might also under certain conditions help to cause and

spread

a

plague or

to

inflict persecution on his fellow-

Christihs-for bath plagues and persecutions were

regarded

as

divine chastisements just as war was.

The obvious absurdity of this conclusion ought to

be

enough to convince

us

that the Christian idea of war

being

used

by

God

to punish sin certainly does not

mean that the Christian may take

part

in

it with an

easy conscience: on the contrary, the analogy of

pestilence, famine, persecution, etc., which are often

coupled with war, strongly suggests that participation

in it could not possibly

be

a Christian duty. And there

can

be

no

doubt that the vast majority

of

early

Christians acted in conformity with that

view,

whether

or

not they theorized philosophically about it. At the

same time, just

as

to-day

a

superficial

view

prampts

some

people to leap at conclusions in this matter which

thdr premises

do

not justify,

so

probably

in

those days

there were some

who

allowed their conduct and thought

to

be

unduly swayed by the fact that there

were

sundry departments

of

their minds

in

which war could

be

thought of without reproach.

I' A

total rejection

of

war could not follow-for

this

reasrm,

that

God himself,

14

194

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

‘

according to the view

of

the earliest Christians, brings

about and conducts wars. He has done

it

in earlier times

through Joshua and

David;

He has done it in the

present through the overthrow

of

the Jewish people and

the destruction of Jerusalem

;

and He will do

it

in the

future through the returning Christ. How therefore

can one reject wars

in

every sense and universally, when

God Himself provokes and leads them

?

Apparently

there exist necessary and righteous wars

!

and such a

war will be the

war

at the end of the day.

If

that

is certain-even supposing it was forbidden to the

Christian to

go

on

service-the attitude towards war

could no longer be an unbroken one.

. .

.

Thus,

apocalyptlc,” and, we may add, the Old Testament, and

the Christian philosophy

of

history generally, each

“

contributed in

its

(own) measure to the (result) that

the Christians did not shut themselves

off

altogether

against war.”

I

THE

FUNCTIONS

OF

THE

STATE.-AI~

the connec-

tions, hitherto studied, in which war received

some

sort

of

recognition from the early Christians, lay

within

ideal realms

of

thought remote. from the con-

crete and practical duties

of

the times

in

which they

lived. The Christian warfare was a purely spiritual

struggle

;

the wars

of

the Old Testament belonged

to

a

far-distant past

;

the fall

of

Jerusalem in

AD.

70

soon receded into the background

;

the apocalyptic

wars

lay

in

the indefinite, even though

possibly

the

near, future, and would

be

waged,

so

far

as

the

Messiah’s side was concerned, with armies

of

angels,

not

of

men

;

even the idea

of

war being a divine chas-

HmwkMC

r1

f.

Th

Burly Christian

Acceptance

of

War

195

tisement

was

simply

a

general abstraction and a pious

conviction. But there was yet another connection

in

which the early Christians gave a qllasi-recognition to

war, a connection which was more nearly concerned

than any of the foregoing with the practical affairs

of

their

own

day,-I mean the functions of the State in

the maintenance

of

order and the suppression of crime.

Though the severity of persecution (among other

causes) led some to take up a position of uncompro-

mising

hostility towards the Roman Empire as

a

Satanic Beast-power,I the Church as a whole adopted

the view that the State

was

a useful and necessary

institution, ordained by God for the security

of

life

and property, the preservation

of

peace, and the pre-

vention and punishment of the grosser forms of human

sin.=

The general adoption

of

this view was largely

owing

to

the immense authority

of

the Apostle Paul

In

writing to the Christians at Rome, Paul had occasion

to warn them against

an

anarchical unwillingness to

submit to the government and

to

pay their taxes.

His

specific reference to taxation suggests that he was

enlarging on the

Gospel

precept

:

Render unto

Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.’’ He drove

his

point home

by

insisting

on

the divine origin of civil

government. There

is

no

authority,” he said,

‘I

except

(that

given)

by

God

;

and those that exist have been

constituted

by

God

.

the rulers are not

a

terror to

’

This

attitude

appears

mainly

in the

Apocalypse

and

in

Hippolutas’

non

cognbsca.

Colnmrrlary

on

Daniel.

Cf

also

P.

Scill

I

12

:

ego

imperium

hums

seculi

the

imperial

estates

in

Africa

express their appreciation

of

their landlord,

*

An

inscription

i

preserved

in

which

the

(pagan)

tenants

of

certain

of

the

Emperor

Hadrianlls:

they

speak

of

“the

sleepless

vigilance

with

which

he

watches

over

the

welfare

of

mankind’

(H.

Stuqt

looas,

Tb

Rmum

Et.pin

(‘

Story

of

the

Nations

’

Series),

p.

I&).

I

196

The

Early

Christian

Atfitt.de

to

War

good

work,

but

to

evil. Dost thou wish not to

be

afraid of the magistracy

(Eoucriav)?

do what

is

good,

and

thou shalt have praise from it

:

for

he

is

to thee

the servant of God for good.

But

if

thou doest evil, be

afraid,

for

he bears not the sword for nothing

;

for he is

God’s

servant, for the infliction

of

(His)

wrath

as

a

punishment

(&&OS

sic

bpyiu)

upon

him who does evil.

.

They are

Gods

officers, subsisting for this very

(purpose).” The

view

of

Peter is substantially similar,

though he calls the state

a

human, not

a

divine, insti-

tution.

‘‘

Be submissive to every human institution

(KT~W)

for the Lord’s sake, whether to the Emperor

as

supreme, or to governors

as

(men) sent by him for (the)

punishment

of

evil-doers and (the) praise of those who

do well.

.

Honour the Emperor.”

2

The author

of

the Pastoral Epistles enjoins prayer “for Emperors and

all

who are

in

authority, in order that we may lead

a

quiet and peaceful life with all piety and gravity.]’

3

The history

of

the Pauline theory

of

civil government

as

an arrangement instituted

by

God is one of fas-

cinating interest, but a full

study

of

it

would

take

us

far astray from our immediate enquiry. It is worth

while,

however,

to note the fact that

it

appears, in

a

more or less

definite

form,

in

most of the representa-

tive

writers

of

our

period,

viz. Clemens

of

Rome, the

Foutth

Gospd,4

Polukarpos, Athenagoras,

the

apocry-

phal Acts of John, Theophilos, the

Acts

of

Apollonius,

Eirenaios, Tertullianus, Hippolutos,s Minucius

Felix,

Rom

Si.

Ib,

3

f,

6b.

I

Pet

ii.

13

f,

17.

5

Mostly

with reference

to

Nebuchndneuar,

but

dm

ewdly.

The

idea

is

not

so

incornpat”

with

Hippollltos’

view

of

$e

Empire

p9

a

&sank

Bmut-power,

as

pars

at

first

Wt.

Weinel

(q)

ius

point&

3

IT~S.

~r.

Jobn

xix.

11.

out

that

Satan

could

LloL

ht

of

us

the

mvamt.

of

God.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

’197

Origenes, Dionusios

of

Alexandria, the Didaskalia, the

Clementine Recognitions, Lactantius, and Eusebios.’

It is absent from Cyprianus and Amobius.’

Such a view carrled with it a recognition of the

rightfulness

of

judicial penalties

;

and Christian writers,

despite the non-resistance principles

of

their faith, are

on the whole very frank in the way they express this

recognition.

Paul,

as

we

have seen, connects the punitive

functions

of

government with the Divine wrath against

sin. The magistrate

is

‘I

God’s servant,

for

the infliction

of

(His) wrath

as

a punishment on him who does evil.”

Peter enjoins respectful submission to the Emperor’s

I

governors

“as

(men) sent by him for the punishment

of

evil-doers.’’ The Christian belief in the future punish-

ment

.of

the wicked

in

eternal fire undoubtedly did

something to facilitate this justification of judicial

penalties. Thus Justinus, in reply to the criticisms

levelled at

the

doctrine

of

eternal punishment,

says

that,

if

eternal punishment is unjust, then

“

lawgivers

unjustly punish

those

who transgress the(ir) good

ordinances.

But

since

those

(lawgivers)

are

not

unjust, and neither is their Father, who teaches them

by the

Word

to do the same

(as

Himself),3 those who

agree with them are not unjust.”4 Athenagoras

speaks

’

In

regard

to

Constantinus.

In

Amobius

(i.

2)

and the Pseudo-Cyprianic

Quod

ZdOlaDii

?IMI

si&

PuiZ

I

(ii.

1031)

(At

cum saecularium

sortium

variavit

uma,

et

find

a

theory

of

the establishment

of

empires

by

chance

or

lot

a

modern

opinion

on

the

Divine

appointment

of

the

State,

see

Horace

Rod

Deus

maluit, .

.

.)

;

Lact

Inst

VI1

xv.

13

;

Scullard

g6f).

For

Bushnell,

Ndwre

and

tk

~Sqkwaatwui,

p

12.

3

Or

possibly,

c‘

who

teaches

(men) by the

Word

to

do

the

same

as

thel

(i.e.

the

lawgivers)

(do)

”

(76

uhrd

airrcis

[Otto

:

otr+]

T~LVEW

d~d

rou

Ahyou

6rSamc(uv].

4

Jut

2

A$

in.

I

f.

He

goes

on

to

say

that the

Logos

had

shown

that

some

human

laws

were

bad

and

some

goo+.

about a man being put to death justly.’ Theophilos

calls the Emperor

a

man appointed by God

.

for

the purpose

of

judging justly

:

for he has in a way been

entrusted by God with a stewardship.

.

(My)

son,”

he says, quoting Proverbs, honour God and (the)

Emperor, and

be

not disobedient to either of them

;

for

they

will

speedily punish their enemies.’la Eirenaios

says that the devil, in claiming to have the control of

the kingdoms

of

the world, was

a

liar and was claiming

what did not belong to him. He reaffirms the doctrine

of the divine appointment of rulers,3 and continues

:

Since man, (by) departing from God, grew

so

savage

as to reckon even a kinsman his enemy, and to engage

without fear in every

(sort

of)

disturbance and murder

and avarice, God imposed upon him the fear

of

man-

for they did not know the fear

of

God-so that, being

subjected to the power

of

men and restrained by their

law, they might attain to some (measure) of justice

and exercise mutual forbearance, in dread

of

the sword

openly held forth, as the Apostle says

:

For not with-

out cause does he bear the sword: for he is God’s

servant, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.’

And for this reason,

too,

the magistrates themselves,

wearing the laws as a garment

of

justice, shall not

be

questioned

or

punished for what they do justly and

lawfully. But whatever they do

for

the overthrow of

justice, unfairly and impiously and illegally and in

a

tyrannical fashion, in these things they shall perish, the

just judgment

of

God coming upon all equally and

failing in nothing.

For

the benefit of the gentiles,

Athenag.Lcgd2

(969)

:

see

below,

p.

24.

Theoph

I.

II

:

Pmv

xriv.

ZI

f.

r’

3

Eiren

V

xuiv.

I

(ii-

388

f).

therefore,

was

earthly rule established by God-but

not

by

the devil, who is never quiet, nay, who does

not wish even the (heathen) nations to live in tran-

quillity-in order that, fearing the rule of men, men

might not consume one another like fishes, but by the

establishment of laws they might smite down the mani-

fold wrongdoing

of

the gentiles. And accordingly,

those who exact tribute from

us

are

‘God’s

servants,’

serving

for

this very purpose.’

I

The powers that are

have

been

ordained by

God

’

:

it is clear that the devil

lies

when he says

:

‘

They have

been

handed over to

me, and to whomsoever

I

will,

I

give them.’

For

by

the order of Him, by whose order men are born,’are

kings also appointed, fitted for those who are ruled over

by them at that time. For some

of

them are given for

the correction and benefit

of

(their) subjects

and

the

preservation

of

justice, but some for fear and punish-

ment and rebuke, and some for deception and disgrace

and pride, according as they (the subjects) deserve,

the

just judgment of God,

as

we have already said, coming

upon all equally.”

2

Tertullianus,

in

protesting against Christians being

tortured in order to make them deny their faith, says

to the Roman rulers:

‘I

This (imperial) government

whose servants ye are is the rule

of

a citizen, not

of

a

tyrant. For with tyrants, torture is applied

also

as

a penalty

:

with you it is confined solely to (extorting)

evidence, Keep (to) your

own

law in (using) it (only)

until confession (is obtained)

;

and if it

is

anticipated

by confession, there will be no occasion

for

it. There

is need

of

sentence (being passed)

;

the wrongdoer has

to

be

marked

off

for the (penalty which

is

his) due, not

I

Eircn

V

nxio.

2

(ii.

389).

*

Eiren

V

xxiv.

3

(ii.

389f).

200

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

to

be

released.

No

one

is

agitating for his acquittal

;

it

is

not lawful to desire that, and

so

no one

is

compelled

to deny (his crime).”I In attacking the gladiatorial

fights, he makes the concession

:

‘‘

It is

a

good

thing

when evil-doers are punished. Who but an evil-doer

will deny this

?

”

2

He refers elsewhere to “the justice

of

the world, which even the Apostle testifies

is

not

armed with the sword

in

vain, which in being severe

(saeviendo)

on

man’s behalf is ,a religious (justice).”

3

He quotes the words

of

Paul

in

Rom xiii, and says

that the Apostle “bids thee be subject to the magis-

trates (potestatibus)

. .

.

in consideration

of

their being

as

it were assistants of justice, as it were servants of the

divine judgment, which here also judges of wrongdoers

in

advance.”

4

The Pseudo-Melitonian apologist tells

Caradla

:

“

It

is a shameful thing that a king, however

badly he may conduct himself, should judge and con-

demn those who

do

amiss

”

5-implying apparently that

he would be perfectly right in doing

so,

if

he lived

uprightly.

In

his Commentary

on

Romans, Origenes says,

a

propos of the question whether a persecuting

government is included

in

the phrase ‘There is

40

power except from

God,’

that persecution is a culpable

misuse

of

a

power which, like

all

powers,

e.g.

those

of

sight, hearing, etc., is given by God

for

a good purpose,

w

in this case

“for

the punishment

of

evil

men,

and the

praise

of

good

men.”

6

Discussing the question of the

sense

in

which the earthly judge is

God’s

servant, he

observes that the Apostolic Decree in Acts

xv.

23

f,

Tert

ApZ

2

(i.

276f).

3

Tert

Ani7,r

33

(ii.

706).

4

Tert

Scwp

14

(ii.

150).

Tert

.Sect

19

(i.

651).

5

Ps-Me1

JO

(ANCL

xxiib.

121).

Orig

CSHJPJ

b

I<om

t

Is.

26

(Migne

1°C

xiv.

1226f).

The

I3arly

Chrisdian

Acceptance

of

War

201

28

f,

does not forbid murder, adultery, theft, sodomy,

and

so

forth

:

it might seem therefore that these are

permitted. “But behold the ordinance of the Holy

Spirit

!

Since indeed other crimes are punished

by

secular laws, and it seemed superfluous that

those

which

are sufficiently embraced by human law should

now

be forbidden by a divine law, He decrees those

alone concerning which the human law had said

nothing and which

seem

to

pertain to religion.

Whence it appears that the earthly judge

fulfils

a

very large part of the law

of

God. For all the crimes

which God wishes to be punished, He wished to be

punished not by the leaders and rulers

of

the churches,

but by the earthly judge; and Paul, knowing this,

rightly names him God’s servant and an avenger

against him

who

does what

is

evil.

,

.

We have

shown that the Holy Spirit has given a place in

many things to human law.”I Later, in his reply

to

Celsus, Origenes quotes Romans

xiii

I,

2a against

Celsus’ contention that kings were appointed

by

demons: he touches on the problem presented by

the existence

of

evil kings, but passes it by, referring

the reader to the Commentary

on

Romans.2 He also

says that the proceedings taken

by

bees

against drones

offer

no

fair comparison “with the judgments and

punishments inflicted

on

the idle and evil in the

cities.”

3

He broaches the question whether evil

demons may not have

been

appointed by the

Logos

‘r

like the executioners

in

the cities and

those

who are

appointed for

gloomy

but needful public duties.”4

’

Orig

Coturn

in

Rum

t

ix.

r8

(Migne

PG

xiv.

1227

f).

E

Orig

Ce&

viii.

65.

4

Orig.

Cds

vii.

7a

3

Orig

Csls

iv.

82.

Many of the complaints made about the maladminis.

tration

of

justice, in persecution and otherwise, voice

the Christian recognition

of

the need and value

of

good

administration. Achatius said to the Prefect:

‘I

The

public law punishes the fornicator, the adulterer, the

thief, the corruptor of males, the evil-doer, and the mur-

derer. If

I

am guilty

of

these,

I

condemn myself before

(thou utterest) thy voice: but if

I

am led to punishment

because

I

worship Him who

is

the true

God,

I

am con-

demned by the will, not of the law,

but

of the judge.”

1

Cyprianus complained that, not only are the innocent

often. condemned in the law-courts, but the guilty do

not even perish with them.”

“

A

crime

is

committed by

a

wrongdoer, and no innocent man

is

found who will

avenge it. There is no fear

of

accuser ;or judge

:

bad

men secure impunity, while modest (men) are silent,

accomplices are afraid, (and) those who are

to

judge

(the case) are open to bribes.”3 According to the

Clementines, man

has

received wisdom

to

enable him

to administer justice.4 Who

is

there among men,”

asks

Clemens,

‘I

who

does

not covet his neighbur‘s

goods? And yet he

is

restrained and acts with more

self-control through fear of the punishment which

is

prescribed by the laws.”

5

Methodios says that

adulterers ought to

be

tortured and punished.6 Ar-

nobius says that

as

the images of the

gods

do not

deter men from crime,

‘I

recourse is had to the

sanc-

tions

of

laws, that from them there might

be

a most

certain fear and

a

fixed and settled condemnation.”

7

Lactantius re-echoes the sentiment

of

Cicero, who

The

Early

Christim

Acceptunce

of

War

203

“prefers

to

the teachers of philosophy the statesmen,

who control public affairs,

. .

.

who preserve the safety

and liberty of citizens either by good laws or

sound

advice or weighty judgments (grauibus iudiciis).”

I

“

Not from our number,” he

says,

“

but from theirs

”

(i.e. the pagan persecutors)

“

always arise those

. .

.

’

who, if they sit (as) judges, are corrupted by a bribe,

and either destroy the innocent or discharge the guilty

without punishment.”

2

He speaks

of

a man being

condemned to death

on

account

of

his deserts.3 He

tells Constantinus that it is his

task

“to correct mis-

deeds

”

and to remove the evil men themselves from

the State.4 He comes much closer

to

the theory

of

the

subject in his treatise ‘On the Anger

of

God

:

“

They

are deceived by no small error,” he

says,

“

who defame

censure, whether human

or

divine, with the name of

bitterness and wickedness, thinking that he who visits

wrongdoers with punishment ought to

be

called a

wrongdoer.

But

if

so,

we have wrongful laws, which

ordain punishments for sinners, and

wrongful

judges,

who visit those convicted of crime with ‘capital

’

punishment.5 But if the law

is

just, which repays to

the wrongdoer what he deserves, and (if) the judge

is

called

upright and good, when he punishes evil deeds-

for he who punishes evil men guards the safety of the

good-therefore God, when He opposes evil

men,

is

not

a

wrongdoer

;

but he

is

a wrongdoer, who either

wrongs an innocent man,

or

spares

a

wrongdoer

so

that

Lsct

In~r

111

xvi.

2.

a

Lact

Imt

V

ix.

15,

17.

3

Lact

Imt

VI

sx.

IO

(see

159).

4

hct

~nrt

VII

=vi.

I2

:

cPi

i.

i3

:

taete-um

donunhcinus

e-.

death-penalty,

though

it

might

do

so.

It

meant

the

complete

loss

of

one’s

J

‘

Cspital’

punishment,

in

ancient

times,

did

not

necessarily

mean

the

status

as

a

citiin,

either

by

death,

or

exile,

or

enslavement.

204

The

Early

Christian

dttitude

io

War

he may wrong many.1

.

The public laws condemn

those who are manifestly guilty

;

but there are many

whose sins are hidden, many who rqtrain the accuser

either by prayers or by a bribe, many who elude judg-

ment by favour

or

influence.2

. .

.

Unless fear guards

this earthly kingdom and empire, it is dissolved. Take

away anger from

a

king, (and) not only

will

no

one

obey him, but he

will

even

be

cast

down

from his high

rank.”

3

Eusebios accounts for the moral blindness

with which primitive man glorified vices, by pointing

out

that “at that time laws were not yet being

administered among men, mor did punishment threaten

offenders.”

4

He speaks of the hierophants and others,

who confessed their impostures under torture in

th~

Roman court at Antioch and were put

to

death by

Licinius with torture, as “paying the just penaIty

of

their pernicious deception.”s The doctrine of Fate, he

urges,

“

would upset the laws, which are made for men’s

advantage. For what must one enjoin or forbid to

those who are held down by another constraint? Nor

will

one

be

obliged to punish offenders who have done

no wrong against the same cause, nor to assign honours

to those who act excellently-though each

of

these

has furnished a cause for the repression of injustice and

for the encouragement of well-doing (respectively).”

6

If the view that the government was an institution

ordained by God implied the rightfulness,

in

some

sense,

of

judicial penalties, it

also

implied the rightfulness,

in some sense, of war. The fact that the police and the

military were not distinguished, that the characteristic

Lact

Ira

Dei

xvii.

6

f.

’

Lwzt

IraDn’xx.

7.

3

Lact

IPU

Dei

xxiii.

IO

:

cf

xvii.

16,

xviii.

I

f.

4

Eus

P.

73cd.

5

EUS

PE

135Cd,

cf

HE

IX

xi.

5

1.

Ells

PE

a#d.

The

Early

_Christian ,4cceptance

of

War

205

work of each

was

done with the ‘sword,’ made

it

easy

for

ideas concerning the

one

to

be

transferred in the

minds of Christians

to

the other. The eulogistic terms

in which Clemens

of

Rome spoke

of

the imperial armies

and the discipline that made them

so

useful

1

are

prob-

ably to be connected with his clear and repeated state-

ments that the Emperors had been given their authority

by

God.2

Eirenaios mentions ‘the military arts’

among human activities generally recognized as usefulJ3

and says that God

I‘

requites most fairly according to

(their) desert(s those who are) ungrateful and do not

realize His kindness

:

He repays with entire justice:

and accordingly it says

:

Sending His armies,

He

destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.’

Now it says

‘

His armies,’ because all men are God’s

. . .

and for this reason the Apostle Paul

.

says

:

There is no power except from God’ ”“then follows

a full quotation of

Rom

xiii.

1b-6,

about the divinely

ordained function

of

the magistrate in repressing evil.4

Clemens

of

Alexandria deals at some length with

generalshid

as

being, like legislation and the adminis-

tration of justice, one of the usual departments

of

the

royal office, and in particular with the military genius

of

Moses,

from

whom, he says, Miltiades and Thrasu-

boulos borrowed their tactics.5 Some of his

military

illustrations are more than mere illustrations,

e.g.

“

(It

is) not only the athletic warriors, (who) wage the

contest of freedom in wars,

but

those who have been

anointed by the

Word

(wage it) at banquets and in

x

I

Clem

xxrvii.

1-4

(rd

~SJ

ro6rorg

~pijm~)

:

see

163.

I

Clem

lxi.

I,

2.

Gaignebert

(191

n4),

Hpmac&’(MC

I8

f,

pf),

and

Weinel

(z6

have

interesting

remarks

on

Clemens’

view

of

the

Roman

army.

3

Eim

h

xarii.

z

(i.

373).

4

Eiren

IV

xxxvi.

6

(ii.

282

f).

5

Clem

Sty-

I

mv.

158-163,

xxvi.

168.

206

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

bed

and in the courts, being ashamed to become cap-

tives of pleasure.”

I

Tertullianus speaks scornfully

of

the unwarlike habits of Puthagoras,

“who

avoided the

battles that were then going on in Greece.”

2

In

trying

to prove that the body as

well

as

the

soul can

be

morally guilty, he draws

a

contrast between the

way

in which “a sword drunk with

acts

of brigandage”

would

be

shunned

as

guilty, and

the

way in which

“a sword (which

is)

honourably bloodstained in war,

and is a worthier slayer

of

men

(than the brigand’s

weapon) would receive praise and consecration.3

Julius Africanus dedicated to the Emperor Alexander

Severus an encyclopaedia

of

all the natural sciences,

and gave it the title

of

KEOTOI

(‘

Embroidered Girdles

’)

:

he included

in

it a section on military science, in which

he treated frankly of the different means

of

destroying

the enemy, and even included instructions for poisoning

food, wine, wells, and air.4 But Africanus

is

merely

IV

iv.

14,

16.

1

Clem

.Worn

VI

xiv.

IIZ

:

cf

also

Paed

111

iii.

24

f,

Strom

I

xxiii.

157,

imbellem, ut praelia

tunc

Graeciae vitam, Italie

maluerit

quietem.

+

Tert

Rnim

31

(ii.

701)

:

Ecce

. .

.

Pythagoram

vero

tam

residem

et

homicida laudem

sum

consecratione pensabit.

Passing

reference will

3

Tert

Rer

16

(ii.

815)

:

. . .

gladius

bene de bello cruentus et melior

suffice

to

the allusions

in

Tert

Nd

ii.

17

(i.

608)

to

the part played by

war

in the

rise

and

fall

of

States

under the control

of

Providence, in

Pall

I

(ii.

1031)

to

the

el;emplification of this

in

the

wars

between

Rome

and

Carty

in

Pall,

(ii.

1036)

to

the

repulse

of

the barbarians

as

a

sign

of

God’s

vour to

the

Emperors, and

in

Anim

30

(ii.

700)

to

the useful

purpose served by wars, pestilences, etc.,

as

remedies for overpopulation.

4

The section

on

milltary tactics is to

be

found

in

Yeteam

Mih-

dahrum

.

OFa,.

Paris,

1693,

pp.

227-303.

A

summary

and

partial

hdstion

of

It Into French

was

publlshed

at

Berlin in

1774

by

+ucr

et

birtm$ues

sur

pivsiescrs

points

d’antt+&iiS.

m’ld&rer.

He

Charles Guischard,

a

Prussian

infantry

colonel,

in

a

work entitled

Mhzoires

censures

Julius

Afwnus

for

his

khrity

as well

as

for

his

superstition

:

The

Christian reLtgion in

its

birth

did

not

always

cure

men

of

their

errors

in

pint

of

mods,”

he

sa)%,

“

nor of

this

leaning

which

they

thm

had

to

soptition.

. . .

Julius

Manus

therefore

could

be

orthodox,

conld

compose

commentaries

on

the

Bible,

and at

the

same

time

a

book

of

magic

charms,

and

could

teach

the

art

of

poisoning

wells

”

(p.

e).

The

Early

Christia?b

A.cceptancc

of

War

207

an

individual curiosity in this matter, and represents

no

one but

himself.

Only the fact that he was nominally

a

Christian entitles him to be mentioned here.

How

little the ethical side

of

Christianity had touched him

is

clear from the fact that his

K~asoi

included a section

on

aphrodisiac secrets, which was

full.of

0bscenities.I

We

have already had occasion to allude

by

way

of

anticipation to Origenes’ relative justification

of

war

2

;

and it remains

for

us

in this place to put together the

relevant passages. Referring to the timely unification

of

all kingdoms in the Empire of Augustus, he says

:

“The existence

of

many kingdoms would have been

an

obstacle to the extension

of

Jesus’

teaching to the

whole world,

. . .

on

account of people everywhere

being compelled

(St;

A

;LvQ-+&~cu)

to serve

as

soldiers and to make war

for

the(ir) countries

:

and

this (was what) happened before the time of Augustus

and still earlier, when there was

need

(STO

-y~

Xpdu

ijv)

that there should be war, for instance, between

Yeloponnesians and Athenians, and similarly between

others.”

3

He concedes to Celsus that

rr

the so-called

wars

of

the bees perhaps constitute a lesson for the

conduct of

just

and orderly wars among men,

if

there

should ever be need (for them).”4 He mentions in

a

tone of protest that Celsus tries to “depreciate as

far

as

he can not

only

our-(the) ChristiansJ-but all men’s,

cities

and

constitutions and sovereignties and govern-

ments and wars for fatherlands”5

He

speaks

of the

P&o&ic,

163-

On

Africanus,

cf

DCB

i.

57a,

hack

MC

73

n

3

;

Bardenhewer

3

0%

calr

ii.

30.

I

pass

over

the

cas4

allusion

m

i.

59

to

stars

portendmg

revolutions,

wars.

or

other events.

4

Orig

Cck

iv.

82

(ei

TOTE

86~).

5

Orig

GIs

iv.

S3-

it

hardly

primps

needs

to

be

said

that

origenes

+

Q@

.bpr~

+ply

the

existence

of

Christian

patriotic

wars,

as

a,

less

a

See

above,

p

137.

208

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

Emperor’s soldiers as “those who render military

service righteously.”

I

Cyprianus reckons

it

among the calamities of the

time that the numbers and efficiency

of

the soldiers

are decreasing.2 The Clementine Recognitions speak

of the obedience of armies as an instance

of

the

beneficial effect

of

fear.3 Methodios says that kings,

rulers, generals, and various other classes

of

people,

are useful to themselves and the community,

if

they

are temperate.4 Lactantius says that

God

made man

naked and unarmed, because he could

be

armed

by

his talent and clothed by his reason

5:

he censures

Epikouros

for

his policy

of

being

all things to all

men, by virtue

of

which he forbade the timid man

to serve as a soldier6

:

he criticizes Maximinus Daza

as ignorant of military affairs~ while he eulogizes

Constantinus for having endeared himself to

his

soldiers

by his personal attractions and character and his

“diligence in military matters.”

*

He describes with

satisfaction and gratitude to

God

the

victories

of

rigidly literal translation in betta

English

would more strongly suggest.

mention the obvious

facts

of

the situation. The phrase

is

nothin more

Such

an idea

is

indeed impossible in view of what he

says

elsewhere, not

to

and

State.

than

a loosely worded enumeration

of

the

standing

institutions

of

fhurch

Orig

CcLF

viii.

73.

His

referen&

in

f

to

the Romans

praying

to

the

one

Godand

so

being able to conquer their enemies

more

effectively

(me above,

p.

132)

must not be pressed. He

is

dealing

with

an imaginary

of

the

Christian

ethic which

his

hypothesis strictly

required.

In

70

he

situstion and omits for the

moment

to make

allowance

for

that introduction’

at

d,”

etc.

immediately

corrects the omission

:

“

. . .

cu

(rather) they

will

not &ht

’

Cppr

DSm&

3

(decrescit

ac

deficit

in

anis

agrimla,

in mari

nauta,

nutione

castmrum).

3

ckm

Rccogk.

15.

4

Method

Symp

viii.

16.

miles

in

castris),

17

(minis rerum,

iaauris

opum,

dispendio

milihun,

demi-

5

Lact

OpifDziii.

6:

cfZmtVI1

ir.

14.

Lad

Inst

111

xvii.

3.

7

Lact

Mort

Pen

xix.

6.

The

ins

of

military

wine

is

rnmtiomd

~LLCtWd~~IO.

in

1-t

vIr

-.

9

as

one

ofthc

disostm

of

tbe

time

of

Antichrist.

I

Constantinus and Licinius over Maxentius and Daza

respectively,I mentions how Licinius prescribed a form

of prayer

for

his soldiers to use before the battle,. tells

us

how Constantinus, in obedience

to

a dream, had the

sacred monogram inscribed on his soldiers‘ shieIds,3 and

warmly congratulates him on

his

triumph.3 Eusebios

writes

in

a

very similar strain. He criticizes Daza

for

rendering

his

soldiers wanton, rapacious, and effeminate,~

and says that his death

was

nof

like

IC

the brave endur-

ance

of

a

glorious

end, such as often

befalls

generals

who act bravely in war

on

behalf of virtue and friends.”6

The closing chapters

of

his Church History and the

whole of his later Life of Constantinus abound in grate-

ful

and even fulsome eulogies of the sovereign who

had overthrown the persecutors by force

of

arms

and

thereby secured peace

for

the Church.

It

was

quite in keeping with

the

foregoing view of

the imperial armies that the Christians,

who

habitually

prayed

for

the Emperor and

his

subordinates, not only

as

enemies and persecutors,7 but also (and usually)

as

the guardians of law and order,* should pray also

for

the efficiency and success

of

his

soldiers

who helped

him

keep out the barbarian invader and administer

justice throughout the Empire.9 While prayer

for

Lact

Mort Pcrr

xliv-xlviii.

2

Lact

Mort

Prrs

xlvi

:

cf

Harnack

MC

89

f.

3

Laa

Mort

Pcrs

xliv.

5

f.

4

Lact

Imf

I

i.

13-16,

VI1 xnvi.

11-17.

5

Eus

BE

VI11 riv.

11.

Cf

IIarnack

ME

ii.

55

n

2

(“

Eusebius’s

feel-

in

s

thus are those

of

a

loyal

citizen

of

the empire

”),

NC

73.

‘

EUS

HB

IX

X.

14.

7

e.g.

Polxii.

3.

9

Harnack

ME

ii.

53

n.

“

. . .

The

em

ror,

even

from

the apocalyptic

anarc6

and the

barbarian

hordes

;

for

the

I‘

pax

terrena

”

wu

a

rcla-

stand

int, had a

certain divine right o!%stence

as

a

bulwark

against

tive

good,

even from the strictest Christian standpoint.

.

Now

the

emgcror

needed

soldiers

to

maintain this

“par

terrena.”

They

were

part

an parcel of the

“

sword

”

which

(Rom

xiii.

4)

is

recognized

as

a divine

attribute

of

authority.

and

which

no

church-father ever dared to

deny,

in

90

many

WOE&,

to

the

emperor.”

Similyly

MC

12%

I

Tim

ii.

I

f.

15

210

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

io

War

rulers in general appears at a very early point in

Christian literature, prayers specifically for

the

army

are not mentioned,

as

far as

I

have been able

to

-

discover, before the .time

of

Tertullianus. This

writer however refers to it as a standing Christian

usage. “(We are) all (of us) always praying for all

emperors, that their life may be prolonged, (their) rule

secure, (their) household (kept) in safety, (their) armies

strong, the senate faithful, the people upright, the

world quiet, and whatever (else

his)

wishes are

(as)

man

and

(as)

Caesar.”

I

Origenes says that it is the special

province

of

Christians, who do not themselves fight, to

“

strive by prayers

to

God

on

behalf of those who

render military service righteously and on behalf of

him who is reigning righteously,

in

order that all things

opposed and hostile to those that act righteously may

be

put down.”2 Achatius said to the judge in the

Decian persecution

:

‘‘

Our prayer for him (the Emperor)

is persistent and constant, that he may spend a

long

time

in this life and rule the peoples with just power

andr pass the time

of

his reign in peace, then for the

safety of the soldiers and the stability of the world.”3

“

We always ask,” says Cyprianus,

“

and pour (out our)

prayers for the repulse of enemies,‘for the obtaining of

rain, and for the removal or moderation

of

troubles

;

and we

h=

constantly and urgently for your (the

pagans’) peace and safety, propitiating and appeasing

God

night and day.”4 “Why have our meetings

deserved

to

be

cruelly broken

up,”

asks Arnobius,

“

seeing that

in

them

the

Supreme

God

is

prayed to,

Tk

A$oi

30

(i.

443).

a

0l;P

Cels

viii.

73

:

for

the

context,

see

pp.

I

34

t

3

Acta

Dirplri Achf

i.

3

:

deinde

pro

salute

miiitnm

et

pro

mundi

et

orbis

(Gebhardt

115).

4

Cypr

Bcmtr

90.

The

Early

Christian Acceptance

of

War

211

peace and pardon are asked for all-magistrates, armies,

kings, friends, enemies

?

’’

I

In

estimating the meaning and value

of

the foregoing

teaching in regard to the State, some allowance must

be

made for the immense authority

of

Paul’s words, for

the fact that they were written before the outbreak

of

imperial persecution

in

64

A.D.

and in order to counter-

act

a

strong tendency towards rebellious and aggressive

anarchy

in

the

Christian Church, particularly at Rome,a

for immaturity of reflection

in

some

of

the writers we

have quoted, and also for the natural habit, in contro-

verting an opponent,

of

speaking ad hominem in a

way that one would not speak

if

simply delivering a

persona! view. But all this

takes

us

only

a

short way

towards accounting

for

the language used. We are

brought here to the very heart of the Christian problem

of

the State. Nothing could

be

more clear and

explicit than the declarations as to the origin and

purpose

of

civil government. It is an institution

ordained

by

God for the purpose of restraining,

by

means

of

coercion and penalty, the grosser

forms

of

human sin.

If

this view was

a

fixed datum in Christian

political theory, the rule that a Christian must never

inflict an injury on his neighhour, however wicked that

neighbour may

be,

was also a fixed datum in Christian

ethical

theory:

and the problem consists in reconciling

these two apparently conflicting data. One thing

is

clear-that the fact

of

being appointed by

God

for

a

certain work or permitted by

God

to do it, did not,

in

the

Christian ‘view, guarantee the righteousness

of

E$e~L%zen~pot~al

%ry

th

west,

vol.

i.

91-97.

212

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

the agent

or

of

his doings. The Apocalypse says that

‘it

was

given’ to the Beast to have authority over all

peoples and to make war upon the saints, that

is

to

say, he was in some sense allowed or authorized by

God to do it, for the achievement

of

some good end,

such

as

the chastisement or discipline

of

the Church.’

But this did not mean that the Beast was righteous or

that his persecution

of

the saints

was

not blameworthy.

Eirenaios makes it fairly clear that he could

as

easily

think

of

wicked rulers being appointed by God as he

could

of

good ones.2

God

uses the wickedness

of

some as a chastisement for others, But even this does

not get

to

the bottom

of

the matter, for it refers

only to the crimes of rulers, not to the just legal

penalties they inflict. The key to the problem is

simply this, that the just ruler, who as the servant

of

God enforces the laws, punishes wrongdoers, and wages

war against the unrighteous aggressor, is, in the thought

of

Paul and the early Fathers, always a

pagan

ruler,

and therefore, though eligible for conversion,

is

yet,

qu2

pagan, not to

be

expected to obey the distinctively

Christian laws

of

conduct

or

to exercise the distinctively

Christian restraint

upon

wrongdoing. Not all the

servants

of

God are necessarily Christians. God has a

use for those

in

the sub-christian stage

of

moral

development,

as

well as for those

who

enjoy the full

light

of

the Gospel.

Paul

evidently had

a

genuine

respect for the nobler elements

in

the gentile mind,3

Ap

xiii.

2,

4,

5,

7.

14,

15

:

se~

M&tt’s

note

on

7

in

Ex@sitor’s

commission

(2)

but

ultimately

to

the

divine

permission

(so

in

5).

There

Grm&

Thr.

(“The beast’s

world-wldeauthority

goes

back

to

the

dragon’s

is

a

providence

higher

even

than

the

beast

’I).

Eiren

IV

rrxri.

6

(ii.

ZSZ

f)

(quoted

on

p.

zos),

V

xxiv.

3

(ii.

@g)

(quoted

above

p.

1%).

3

Kom

ii.

14f;

ct

i.

19

f.

Thc

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

213

including that sense

of

responsibility for the peace and

well-being

of

society, that love

of

law and order, that

appreciation of the elements of justice, which-with

whatever admixture

of

baser motives and whatever

crudity

of

unloving restrictive method-formed the

fundamental principles

of

the Roman Empire. In other

words, the Christian justification

of

coercive govern-

ment and of war, though real and sincere, was only a

rehtive

justification

:

it was relative to the non-chris-

tian condition

of

the agents concerned. It therefore

furnished no model for Christian conduct and no justi-

fication for any departure

on

the part of the Christian

from the gentler ethics characteristic

of

the religion

of

Jesus. That the matter in its various bearings was

always fully understood

in

this light by Christian

authors, I

do

not argue. Indeed, from the slowness of

the modern mind to grasp the relativity of all moral

acts

to

the subjective conditions

of

the agent concerned,

one can easily understand how it was that this view

of

the divine appointment

of

rulers

was

by the end

of

our

period widely understood

to

carry with it the Christian’s

right to participate in the violence and bloodshed of

the State. But

I

do maintain that this doctrine in its

strict and

proper

meaning is perfectly consistent with

the practice and advocacy of the completest absten-

tion on the part of the Christian

from

such participation,

and that the explanation

of

it

which

I

have offered

furnishes the key to a good many paradoxes

in

Christian literature. It explains, for instance, how

Paul

himself can forbid Christians to avenge themselves,

telling them to stand aside and leave room for the

wrath

of

God,

to whom vengeance belongs, and to

conquer evil with

good

by feediag

the

hungry

enemy,

214

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

and

so

forth, and then a few verses lower speak

of

the

pagan magistrate as the servant

of

God

for the infliction

of

His wrath as

a

punishment on the wrongdoer.1 It

explains how Hermas can speak

of

the persecuting

command of the Emperor to the Christians

:

“

Either

keep my laws or

go

out

of

my country,”

as

a

just

command.2 It explains how Athenagoras can say that

Christians cannot endure to

see

a man killed,

even

just&,

and

i

fortiori cannot kill him.3 It explains how

Origenes can maintain that it is never right for a

Christian

to

kill a man, and defend the Christian

refusal to serve

in

the legions, and yet speak of the

legionaries as

“

rendering military service righteously,”

can refer to the

‘‘

just and orderly

wars

of men

”

as

being sometimes necessary, can speak with approval of

Judith’s act

in

murdering Holofernes,4 and can even

argue for the right of the Christians

to

contravene the

laws of the State

on

the analogy that it

is

right to

conspire against and assassinate a tyrant.5

x

Kom

xii.

17-xiii.

6:

cf. especially the

words

of

xii.

19

(rrj

2aoro&c

’90;

i

E

6

I

L

7

u

L

E,

by&

&vraao&uw,

Xiye8

KGproc)

with those

of

xiii.

4

(8roi1

ydp

G&owdc

ionv,

E‘

IC

6

I

L

o

e

i

6

p

y

3

v

rtj

rb

K~K~W

nppciaaovrr)

.

a

Herm

S

I

4

:

Alp

7Lp

UOL

6

L

a

I

w

6

rirp~os

76s

~hpas

ra&q$*

“H

roi~

V~~OLE

pov xpi,

6

~KX~~EL

b~

715

~ljpec

pov.

3

Athenag

LC@

35

(969)

OGc

y+

~eaarv

068’

&iv

c

a

v

6

L

K

a

I

w

$OYEU+EYOY

hao~voum~,

ro6rav

sic

dv

~TE~RO~

vj

dv6po+avlav

i

uv0pwno/3opiav

;

.

dM’

dpig

nAqalov

elwar

70

ibeiv

r8v

)ovcv6~rvov

705

dnorrdvar

ropilovr~~, ti~yop~ircrapv

74

rucali~q

Olas

(i.e..the

gladia-

torial

shows).

4

Orig

Orat

xiii.

2

f.

5

Orig

CeZs

i.

I.

It is a corn lete mistake

to

assume,

as

is

appareqtly

done

by

Bestmann (ii.

295)

ani

Bigelmair

(IIO), that Origenes meant

that

a Christian might justifiably conspire against and assassinate

a

tyrnnt

was

an

act

of

the most laudable heroism (Grote,

Hirtwy

of

Cme,

tyrant.

In the ordinary ethical code

of

historical

Greece,

to slay

a

iii.

26

r)

;

and Ongenes simply

accepts,

for

the

purpose

of

his argument, this

backward

moral sentiment

as

admitted

by

his

opponent

and

as

relatidy

did,

without

thereby implying

that

the act

would

be

justified

in the

case

of

one on whom the

full

llgbt

of

Christianity has come. Origenes

alw

assumed the rightness

of

exempting pagan priests

from

militaq service in

i

C

6

1

K

0

ir

YT

8

c,

&yaWd,

&XAd 66rE

7hov

7’j

(i

p

Ti’

yiypaWtCr y&p

While it may be confidently asserted that the relative

justification accorded by Christians to the use of the

sword by the pagan magistrate and soldier cannot

logically be made to justify the use of

it

by themselves,

we

are still left with ultimate questions unsettled, viz.

how to relate God’s use

of

the pagan sword to the gentle

love that He shows through Jesus, and how to harmonize

the justice

of

it when regarded as a divine ordinance

with the evil

of

it when looked at from the Christian

point

of

view. These questions were never’ finally

answered, but one

or

two things that were said in con-

nection with them are interesting as bringing out the

Christian attitude still more clearly.

We

have already seen. that Origenes broached the

question whether the evil demons may not have been

appointed by

the

Logos

like

the executioners and

those

in

the cities who are appointed for gloomy but

needful public duties.”I It

is

clear from this com-

parison that it

is

to the normal execution

of

justice-

not to the maladministration

of

it-that Origenes

attaches a quasi-demonic stigma.

’He

expresses this

view at greater length when replying to qelsus’ con-

tention that the Christian’s opinion of what is evil

is

not

necessarily true, for he does not know what

is

of

advantage to himself or his neighbour or the world.

Origenes replies that

this

argument “suggests that the

nature of evil (things)

is

not absolutely wicked, for that

which

is

regarded as

evil

in individual cases may

be

admitted to

be

of advantage to the whole (community).

But lest anyone, misconstruing what has

been

said,

absurd

would

it

be

to

infer

from

this

that

he

would

have

approved

of

order

that

they

might

offer

sacrifices

(see

above,

p.

135)

:

yet

how

Christians

becoming

priests

and

o&ring

sacrifices

!

Orig

Ccls

vii.

70

:

see

p.

ZOI.

should find (in it) an incentive to violence,

on

the

ground that his wickedness

is

an advantage to the

whole (community)

or

may possibly

be

an advantage,

it has to be said that, although God, without prejudice

to

the freewill

of

each

of

us,

may use the wrongdoing

of

the wicked for the administration

of

the whole

(community), appointing them for the service

of

the

whole (community), nevertheless such

a

man is blame-

able, and, as blameable, has been appointed to

a

service (which is) abominable for an individual, but

useful to the whole (community); just

as

in the cities

one

would

say that

a

man who had committed certain

crimes, and because

of

th(os)e crimes had been con-

demned to certain public

works

useful

to

the whole

(cornmunity), was doing something useful to the whole

city, but was himself engaged in

an

abominable task

and (one) in which no one

of

moderate intelligence

would wish to be engaged.”= Origenes does not

ex-

plicitly mention the secular power in this connection,

but there can

be

little doubt that he had it

at

the back

of his mind; for on what other topic would his declared

views have

so

obviously compelled him to admit that

an act might be wrong

for

an individual but useful to

the community

as

a

whole?=

In the Clementine Homilies

a

quasi-manichaean view

of

the world

is

set forth. “God appointed two king-

doms and established two

ages.

.

Two kingdoms

have been appointed,

the

one (the kingdom)

of

what

’

Otig

Cds

iv.

70.

(see

Cds

v;

28,

where he

insists

overmuch

on

the

absol~te

nature

of

0

Yet Origenes

was

unable

to

do

full

justice

to

the

relativity

of

morality

what

is

right, and denies that

differing

customs

and usages

can

be

right

for

different nations): hence

his

attitude to

governmmtal

coercion

lacks

something to

make

it

entirely

sound.

The

Early Christian

Acceptam?

of

V7ar

217

are called the heavens, and the other (the kingdom) of

those who now reign upon earth. And two kings have

been established, one

of

whom is chosen to reign by

law over the present and temporary world, who has

also been composed

(so

as) to rejoice over the destruc-

tion

of

(the) wicked

;

but the other, being king of the

age to come, loves the whole nature

of

rnan.1

. . .

Of

these two, the one acts violently

to

the other, God

having bidden (him).

But

each, man has power to obey

whichever

of

them he wishes for the doing of good or

evil.

.

If anyone

does

evil, he becomes the servant

of

the present evil (king), who, having by a just judgment

received the power against him on account

of

(his)

sins,

and wishing to use it before the coming age, rejoices

(in) inflicting punishment in the present life, and by

thus indulging his own passion accomplishes the Will of

God.

. .

.

But these two governors are the swift hands

of God, eager

to

anticipate the accomplishment

of

His

Will

:

that this is

so

has

been said

in

the Law

.

‘I

will

kill, and

I

will make alive

;

I

will strike, and I

will heal.’ For

truly

He kills, and brings to life.

He

kills by means

of

the left hand, that

is,

by

means of the

Evil One, who has been composed

(so

as) to rejoice

over the

evil

treatment

of

the impious. Rut

He

saves

and benetits by means

of

the right hand.

.

These do

not have their beings outside

of

God

;

for there is no

other source

(of

king besides

God)

;

nor are

they

cast

forth from God like animals, for they were

of

the same

mind with

Him.

. .

.

The wicked one, therefore, having

served God blamelessly to the end

of

the present age,

inasmuch

as

he is not

of

the one essence which

is

solely

,

inclined

to

evil, can, by

a

change in

his

composition,

*

Clcm

Nanr

xx.

2.

218

The

Early

Christian

Anitude

to

Tar

become good.

For

not

even

now does he do evil,

though he is

evil,

having received power to do evil

lawfully

(yopfpg

KaKovXEiv).JJ

I

This view, despite its

crudity,

is

interesting as an apparent attempt to explain

how

it

is

that an act like the punishment

of

a

criminal

may

be

right and lawful when done by an imperfect

creature of God, and might lead to

good

and useful

consequences, and yet might have to be put right out-

side the pale of Christianity, and therefore be wrong

if

performed by Christian hands.

The problem

of

how to reconcile the Christian ethic

with the Christian justification of the State was virtually

the same

as

the problem

of

how to reconcile the former

with the Christian reverence for the Mosaic Law as

divinely inspired.

Of

the many things

said

on this

question,

by

far

the most important

is

a suggestion made

by the unknown author

of

the Dialogus de Recta Fidei

(a work

of

the early years

of

the fourth century).

He

shows us Adamantios, who

is

apparently meant

to

be

Origenes, in discussion with a Markionite. The latter

argues from the discrepancy between the Old and New

Testaments that there must

be

more than one God.

Adamantios points out traces of gentleness, love, etc.,

in the Old Testament, and of severity and vengeance in

the New, and thus upsets his opponent without really

solving the problem. At one point, however, he puts

his finger for

a

moment on the real key

to

it.

"

I

do

not think it wi!l seem absurd," he says,

if

we use an

illustration, in order that the sense

ok

what we are

saying

may

become clearer.

Does

not

a

woman, when

she

has

borne a

son,

first

nourish him

with

milk, and

afterwards, when he

has

grown up, with more

solid

=

Clcm

Nom

%x.

3.

The

Early

Christian

Acccptuw

of

War

219

foods?

And

I

do not think the woman is on this

account reckoned by anyone to act inconsistently,

because she first gave her breasts to the baby with

milk, (and) afterwards, when he had grown

up,

provided

(him with) stronger foods. The Apostle Paul, too,

knew how to promulgate laws to men according to

their several progress, when he says

:

‘

I

gave

you

milk

to drink, not food, for ye were not yet able (to take it);

but not even yet are ye able,

for

ye are still carnal.’

In

the same way, therefore, God also gave laws to men

according to the progress

of

their minds. To Adam he

gave

a

law

in

one way as to a little child, but in another

way

to Noah, in another way to Abraham, in another

way to the people

of

Israel through Moses. Through

the

Gospel

also, according to the further progress

of

the world, the law-giving is different. Why therefore

does

God seem inconsistent, seeing that,

in

the same

way as (He might treat) a man from (his) birth

on

to

old age, He has

so

treated the whole world, which

began

from.

its first childhood, then after that, growing

and progressing, came

to

middle age, and thence has-

tened to the maturity and perfection of old age, (and

treated) each

age

of it

with

apt and adequate laws?

But

lest ye should think that

I

affirm this without

evidence,

I

(will)

show that this is written, how one and

the same

God

commands different things.

God

bids

Abraham sacrifice

his

own

son

:

afterwards

hy

Moses,

He

forbids

a

man

to

be

slain at

all,

but orders him

who

is

caught

in

this act to

be

punished. Because therefore

He

orders at

one

time a son to

be

slain,

but

at

another

the

slayer to

be

punished, do we say that there are two

Gods contrary

to

one another

?

”

Here Eutropios,

the

pagan arbiter

of

the discussion, asks

;

‘‘

Does

He

Him-

220

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

20

War

self order (a man) to be killed, and (yet) say

:

‘

Thou

shalt not kill

?

”

Adamantios replies

:

“

Precisely.

And not only is it found

so

in this, but also in many

other things. For sometimes He orders sacrifices to

be offered to Himself, and then again He forbids

it.

. .

.”

I

The passage is unique in early Christian

literature for the place it gives to the differing

sub-

jective conditions

of

men in the determination of the

content

of

the

moral

law.

We cannot pursue further the question of the early

Christian view

of

the State; but enough has been said

to show that there was nothing in the relative justifica-

tion which Christians accorded to the ordinary functions

of

government, including even its punitive and coercive

activities, which logically involved them

in

departing

from the ethics

of

the Sermon

on

the Mount and per-

sonally participating in those activities.

If

a modern

reader be disposed to reject this doctrine

as

one which

selfishly

leaves the dirty work

of

society to

non-

Christians, it is right to remind him, firstly, that,

so

far as the endurance of hardship and danger went, the

early Christians were

far

worse

off

than the magistrates,

executioners, and soldiers; for not only had they to

take their share as civilians in ordinary and special

risks

to

which people are exposed alike

in

peace and

war,

but they had also

to

endure all the troubles and

disabilities and persecutions which public odium heaped

upon

them; and secondly, that they had their own

method of repressing crime, more thorough and

effective than the method

of

the State, and that

their power to remove occasions for the use of the

sword increased directly

in

proportion to their numbers

and their zeal.

None therefore of the various forms in which Christ-

ians may

be

said

to

have

'

accepted' war necessarily

committed them to participation in it. It cannot, how-

ever, be maintained that this fact was always adequately

appreciated by them, or that their words and conduct

were always consistent with the avowed ethics of their

faith. We shall see in a later section how numbers of

them came after

a

time to serve in the army

;

but,

short

of this, there are several cases

of

real or apparent com-

promise

on

which a word may

be

said. Some of these

lie

so

near the borderline between the permissible and

the impermissible as to be patient

of

different interpreta-

tions. The sudden death of Ananias and Sappheira, for

instance, when their deceit

was

exposed by Peter, was not

the execution of a death-sentence, but

the

natural con-

sequence of a well-merited rebuke, and was doubtless

looked upon

as

a divine visitati0n.I Paul

on

the whole

has a firm grasp of the real principles of Christian con-

duct, but his Roman citizenship, his legal type

of

mind,

and his preoccupation with other aspects

of

Christian

truth, led him at times into expressions and actions

which are not easily harmonized with his words

at

the

end of

Rom.

xii. His demand for the recognition

of

his legal rights, his readiness to plead his cause in a

court

of

law, and his appeal to Caesar,Z are not

to

be

numbered amongst these; for they concerned simply his

own immunity from injustice, and did not involve

the

Ac

xxii.

xxiv.

IO

a,

xxv.

6-12.

222

The

Earl9

Christian

Attitude

to

War

punishment of his accusers or enemies. But his sentence

of

blindness on Elymas the sorcerer,' which reminds us

of the case

of

Ananias and Sappheira, his apparent

silence

on

the unchristian character

of

the Philippian

gaoler's calling,= which again recalls the similar silence

of

Peter in the case

of

the centurion Cornelius,3 his wish

that the Judaizing errorists would castrate themselves,4

his consignment

of

the incestuous Corinthian to Satan

for the destruction

of

his flesh that

his

spirit might

be

saved

on

the day of the Lord Jesus,S the one-sidedness

of the terms

in

which his doctrine of the State is set

forth: and his communication to the military com-

mander of the plot against his life,7"are cases

so

near

the border-line that much discussion would

be

needed

to enable

us

to measure what degree

of

inconsistency,

if

any, was involved in each

of

them.

Many instances occur throughout our period

of

Christians pleading, protesting, appealing, etc., to

pagan magistrates, and this has often been taken

as

showing that they were

allowed

by

the Church

to sue their enemies in pagan courts in order

to

get

them punished.

So

Bigelmair

:

"

In disputes beten

Christians and non-Christians,

the

legal protection

of

the

heathen courts, which

was

not denied to the Christians,

had

to

be

appealed

to.

. . .

Recourse to heathen courts

was

never contested."8 Similarly Bestmann.9

But

the

cases

quoted by Bigelmair prove nothing

of

the kind,

for in all of them the Christians were the defendants,

not the plaintiffs, and did not ask for the punishment

of

"Ac

xiii.

9-1

I.

3

Acx.

xi.

5

I

Cor

v.

1-5.

7

Ac

xriii.

12-24.

9

Besbnann

i.

403-405.

a

Ac

mi.

2~34.

4

Gal

v.

12.

Bigelmair

9

f.

Rom

xiii

1-6.

The

Eudy

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

223

their enemies. Justinus, indeed, sadly compromises the

Christian position when, in his eagerness to disavow

the wrongdoings

of

pseudo-Christians, he

asks

the

Emperors

to

punish those who were Christians only

in name, but who were not living in conformity with

Christ’s teachings.’ Origenes has been criticized for

his willingness to pray for the victory

of

the Emperor’s

soldiers, when he would not fight along with them.2 But

one who thinks

it

wrong

to

fight may well recognize that

one of two warring parties is better than the other and

may wish that, while neither

is

acting in a Christian

way, one may prevail rather than the other

:

and

if

the

wish

is

legitimate,

so

too may

be

the prayer for the

fulfilment of that wish. Lactantius could have justified

a good deal of what he said about the justice

of

anger,

and

so

on, had he made allowance for the partial

relativity

of

all morality to subjective conditions

;

but

even

so

he

would

have

had to find a larger place for

love, expressing itself through non-resistance and gentle-

ness and suffering, as the characteristically Christian

policy for overcoming

sin

in

others.

We are without exact information as to the extent to

which Christians entered on political life

in

general,

held office

as

magistrates, and brought suits to the

pagan courts.

There

may have been a few cases

of

such action in the very early times.

But

broadly

speak-

ing,

such cases were very rare before the middle

of

the

third century. Athenagoras, Clemens

of

Alexandria,

Tertullianus, and

the

Didaskalia,

all

regard

it

as

for-

bidden to Christians to

sue

wrongdoers in the pagan

courts. Origenes wrote

in

248

A.D.

as

if

Christians

generally refused public office. But Christian feeling

and practice grew lkxer from that time onwards. The

Clementines relate

how

the friends of Peter, being

alarmed at the indignation which Simon of Samaria

had excited against him at Antioch,sent for the Roman

centurion Cornelius, who happened to be there with a

message from the Emperor to the Governor of the

province, and asked for his assistance. Cornelius offered

to give it out that the Emperor had ordered sorcerers

to

be sought for and slain at Rome and in the provinces,

that many had already been

so

dealt with, and that he

(Cornelius) had been secretly sent by the Emperor to

seize and punish Simon. This news being conveyed to

Simon

by

Peter’s spies, the former speedily departed in

accordance with the Apostle’s desire.’ This amusing

piece of fiction sheds an interesting sidelight on the

.

author’s view

of

the Christian’s relations with the State

and the army; but too much of course must not

be

made of

it.

In

272

AD.

a sjlnod of Christian bishops

appealed to the Emperor Aurelianus to eject from the

cathedral house and church

of

Antioch the bishop,

Paulus

of

Samosata, who had been condemned for

heresy and deposed some years earlier, but had kept his

place under the protection

of

Zenobia, Queen

of

Palmyra.

The Emperor’s decision

was

in favour of the appellants.

“

Thus,” says Eusebios, “the aforesaid man was

ex-

pelled from the church

by

the secular government with

the utmost disgrace.”

2

Under Diocletianus, before

the persecution, Christians were appointed to the

governorships of provinces,3 which of course involved

judicial and military duties.

j,.,

One

of

the

martyrs

in

the

Clem

Horn

xx.

13,

Rtcag

X.

54

f.

Ells

HE

VI1

xu.

19.

3

Eus

HE

VI11

i

P

persecution was Philoromos, who “had been appointed

to no mean

office

in the imperial administration

of

Alexandria, and daily administered justice, attended by

soldiers according to his rank and Roman dignity.”

1

Another case was that of the governor

(mparr$q)

of

the Phrygian town, the population of which

was

martyred en masse.* Constantius, who governed

Western Europe, regularly employed Christians

as

his

ministers of state.3 The Synod of Illiberis provided for

Christians who held the annual office of duumvir in

Spanish towns and took part in the violence and blood-

shed

of

the law-courts.4 After the triumph

of

Con-

stantinus all but

a

few remaining barriers were swept

away. The clergy were not supposed to shed

blood

in

war or to administer justice outside the ecclesiastical

courts, and the ascetics and a

few

like-minded Christian

laymen

also

refrained: but apart from these cases, it

came to

be

taken for granted that the ordinary func-

tions

of

civil government were as open to the average

Christian

as

they had been to the average pagan.

THE

CHIIISTIANS’

EXPERIENCE

OF

GOOD

IN

THE

CHARACTER

OF

SomIERs.-Before investigating

the

actual participation

of

Christians in military

Me,

it

will

be

well

to

take

note

of

the

favourable impres-

sions received by

them

on

various occasions in regard

to non-Christians

engaged

in

it.

This

study thus

forms

4e

counterpart

of

our

earlier

sketch

of

the

Christians’ experience

of

bad treatment at the hands

of soldiers.5 The penitent soldiers baptized by John

x6

226

Tke

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

WGII'

the Baptist,': the centurion

of

Capernaum, who built

the Jews a synagogue and at whose faith Jesus mar-

velled,a the centurion at the cross who exclaimed at

the death of Jesus

:

'

Truly this man was a son of God,'a

Cornelius, the centurion of Caesarea, and the

'

pious

soldier' who waited on him,4 Sergius Paulus, the pro-

consul

of

Cyprus,s the man-doubtless a soldier-who,

at Agrippa's bidding,

led

James the son

of

Zebedee to

the judgment-seat, confessed himself a Christian, asked

and received the Apostle's pardon.

as

they were led

away, and was beheaded with him: the dutiful and

officious but otherwise humane gaoler

of

phi lip pi^

the

various military officials who had charge of Paul

8-

more particularly the centurion Julius, who took him to

Rome and showed him great kindness on the journey9

-all these are significant for the impression they made

on the m&ds

of

Christians in their own day,

as

well

as

of

the evangelists, etc., who wrote

of

them later. The

apocryphal Acts

of

John represent the soldiers who

had charge of the Apostle as treating him with great

kindness.'o, Basileides, a military officer in Egypt at

the time

of

the persecution

of

Severus, had to lead the

maiden Potamiaina to death, and on the way defended

her from the insults of the crowd and showed her much

pity

and sympathy." When Perpetua and her friends

suffered at Carthago in the same persecution, the

miIitary adjutant Pudens, who was in charge

of

the

prison, was struck with their virtue, allowed many of

Lk.

iii

14.

3

Mk

N.

39Ils-

5

Ac

xiii.

7,

12.

7

Ac

xvi.

24,

27,

33

f.

'I

Eus

HE

VI

v.

3

:

nee

more

fully

below,

p.

233.

9

Ac

xxvii.

I,

3,

43.

Acts

ef

John

6

(ii.

154

:

pick

rg

f).

'

Lk

vii.

2-10

11.

4

Ac

I.

1-8,

22.

Clem

Alex

in

Eus

HB

I1

ix.

Ac

nxi.

31-40,

xxii.

24-29,

niii.

IO,

17-35,

xxiv.

02

f,

xrviii.

16,

31.

The

Early Christian Acceptance

of

War

227

their friends to visit them, and was ultimately con-

verted

;

the tribune also was induced to grant them

privileges.' Origenes performed his visit to the

Emperor's mother Julia Mammaea at Antioch-?nd

doubtless also that to the Governor

of

Arabia-under

a military escort.2 Gregorios Thaumatourgos, with his

brother and sister, were conducted from his home at

Neo-Caesarea

in

Pontus

to

Palestine by the soldier who

had been sent to bring the last-named to her husband,

and to invite her brother to travel with her.3 In the

Decian persecution, Resas,

a

soldier

of

Alexandria,

rebuked those who insulted the martyrs, and soon

after perished as a Christian.4 Imprisoned Christians

were often able'to procure minor privileges by paying

money to the soldiers who had charge of them

;

and

the Didaskalia bade the friends

of

prisoners send them

money

for

this purpose.5 When Cyprianus was waiting

to be taken before the proconsul just before his death,

a military officer, who had formerly

been

a Christian,

offered him a dry suit

of

clothes, as the martyr's own

garments were soaked with sweat6 Eusebios

of

Lao-

dicea, while resident at Alexandria-at the

time

of the

revolt of Aemilianus

(260

or

262

A.D.),

was

on

the

friendliest terms with the Roman general, and obtained

from

him

a

promise of safety

for

those who should

desert from the besieged quarter

of

the town.7

We

may recall here the episode in the Clementines, in

which the Apostle Peter and

his

friends are repre-

sented

as

zvailing themselves of the friendly help

of

Cornelius the centurion.*

'

Pblpc9,

16,

21.

3

Greg

"hum Pancg

v.

67-72.

4

Dion

Alex

in

Em

HE

VI

xli.

16.

5

~irla~vi.

I.

7

Ens

HE

VI1

nrii.

8

f.

'

Eus

HE

VI

rix.

15,

ui.

3f.

Pont

Vit

C+

16.

see

above,

p.

224.

THE

PARTICIPATION

OF

CHRISTIANS

IN

MILITARY

SERVLCE."The purpose

of

this section is to present the

reader with

as

complete and accurate a statement as

possible

of

the extent

to

which Christians actually served

as

soldiers in the pre-Constantinian period. It will thus

serve

as

the complement to the former section dealing

with the Christian refusal

of

service, alongside of which

it will naturally be read, and will involve a certain

amount of overlapping with what has gone before.

Taking first the period of the New Testament, and

excluding the converts of John the Baptist, the cen-

turion

of

Capernaum, and the centurion at the cross,

as

not being disciples

of

Jesus

at all, Sergius Paulus, the

proconsul of Cyprus, as not being a

full

convert to

Christianity in the ordinary sense,' and the soldier-if

soldier he was-who was executed with James the

Apostle,

as

being relieved by his prompt martyrdom

of

all necessity

of

deciding whether he ought to remain in

his

calling or to resign it,z

we

are left with Cornelius, the

one or two soldiers who may have been baptized with

him, and the gaoler

at

Philippi,3 as the only real cases

of

Christian soldiers in New Testament times. The

New Testament itself and the earliest Christian litera-

ture nowhere express disapproval of the continuance

of

these men-assuming they did continue-in their call-

ing,

or

of the military calling in general. It is even

possible that Luke, who records these cases, as well

as

'

the conversation between John the Baptist and the

soldiers, may have meant to intimate thereby his view

as

to

the propriety

of

admitting soldiers to the Church

without requiring them

to

abandon the profession

of

See

ahove,

pp.

97

f.

3

AC

I.

I

ff,

7

ff,

47

f,

xpi

27-34.

a

See

obove,

p.

a&.

The

Early

Chsistian

Acceptance

of

War

329

arms

I

:

and the existence even

of

these

few

cases

makes

it

possible that from the earliest times there

may

have been soldier-converts in the Church.2 But

as

a

matter of fact there is no trace

of

the existence of any

Christian soldiers between these cases mentioned in

Ac$s

and-say-170

A.D.

The supposed records of

Christian soldiers

of

the times

of

Trajanus and

Hadrianus are without historical value.3

We come however upon an important piece of

evidence in the reign

of

Marcus Aurelius. During

one of that Emperor's campaigns against the Quadi,

a tribe inhabiting what is now Moravia,

in

173

or

174

A.D.,

the Roman army found itself in serious

difficulties owing to lack of 'water. In the Twelfth

Legion, the Legio Fulminata, which was recruited and

usually stationed

in

Melitene,

a

region in eastern

Cappadocia where Christianity was strong, there were

a considerable number of Christian soldiers. These

prayed

for

relief from the drought, and at once

a

shower

refreshed the Roman troops, while

a

storm discomfited

the

enemy. Such is, in bare outline, the story of what

-as far

as

we can make out-actually happened. It

was evidently an incident of some importance, for it

was commemorated on the column set up

by

Marcus

Aurelius

at

Rome, and noticed by a number of writers,

both Christian and pagan. The pagan accounts do not

mention the Christians in the army at all,4 and

so

are

of

no value for our immediate purpose, beyond confirming

the historical background of the story. The earliest

Christian witness

is

Apolinarios, bishop

of

Hierapolis

'

Harnack

MC

53.

*

Sa

Hamack

ME

ii.

52.

3

See

pp.

99-101.

4

The

pagan

witnesses

are

the

pillar

of

Marcus,

Dio

Cassius

{kxi.

8,

IO),

and

Capitolinus

(Hijt.

Aag.

Lifc OfM. Anlonimu PRihsc@s,

ssiv.

4).

280

Xhe

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

in

Phrygia, who gave a simple account of the incident

"probably very soon after its occurrence-perhaps in

the Apology which he addressed to Marcus Aurelius.1

As reported by Eusebios, he spoke

as

if'

the whole

legion had been Christian, and said that it received

from the Emperor the name of

~~pauvoPdXos

(i.e.

thundering)

in

memory

of

what happened.2 Now

there

is

no

doubt at all that either Eusebios

mis-

understood and misreported Apolinarios,s

or

else

Apolinarios himself made a mistake about the name

of the Legion

:

for the Twelfth Legion was called

Fulminata (thunderstruck)

not

Fulminatrix (thundering),

and had moreover borne that name since the time

of

Augustus or at least that of Nero.4 In view of

this error, the value of Apolinarios as a witness for

the existence

of

a whole legion

of

Christian soldiers

simply disappears; and

it

is

more than doubtful whether

he meant to speak

of

such a legion at all. The next

witness whom we can date with any confidence is

Tertullianus,

who

twice mentions the

incident,^

but

without committing himself as to the number of

soldiers. Even the so-called Letter

of

Marcus Aurelius

to

the Senate

6

(which some put before the time

of

Tertullianus, some as late as early in the fourth

century,s and which is usually regarded as a Christian

forgery: though Harnack regards

it

as substantially

'

So

Harnack

(C

i.

360

f),

though the

dates

are

a

little difficult

to

3

So

Lightfoot

AF

I1

i.

491.

5

Tert

Apd

5

(i.

295)

(illam germanicam sitim christiawrum

forte

militum preartionibus impetrato

imbri

discussam),

Scu)

4

(i.

703)

(chris-

tianorurn

militum orationibus ad

Deum

factis).

133

f;

ET in ANCZii.

68

f.

Text in Otto's

rrsiinus

i.

q6

fl,

Lightfoot

RF

I1

i.

485

f, Blunt

reconcile.

a

Eus

HE

V

v.

3

f.

4

DCBiv.

roz.+a.

7

Bigelmair

186

n

I.

Lightfoot

AFII

i.

490;

Blunt

131

f.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

231

genuine, but interpolated

I),

does

not claim a whole

legion of Christian soldiers4oes not in fact mention

the legion at all-but contents itself with the vague

phrase,

‘

a great crowd

2

of

’

those

who

with

us

are

called Christians.’ Eusebios seems to have believed

that the whole legion was Christian’s and

was

probably

unintentionally responsible for the attribution of this

view

to

Apolinarios. The remarks of Xiphilinos4 are

interesting, but much too late to be of any value as

evidence. While the Christian versions contain obvious

embellishments and exaggerations, and the idea of a

whole legion

of

Christian soldiers must be dismissed,~

there can be no doubt about the main fact, that, in

or

about

174

A.D.,

the Legio Fulminata contained a con-

siderable number

of

Christian soldiers. This means

that the conversion

of

soldiers to Christianity must

have been going on

for

some little time previously,

though for how long we do not know.

It

is often said

that these men were not censured or criticized by their

fellow-Christians for their position

6;

but

in

view of the

fact that Celsus’s censure of the Christians in general

for objecting to military service came within a few

years

of

the incident just describedd and

in

view of the

fact that the later decision

of

the

Church would tend

to obliterate records of the earlier rigorism,

it

is

not

safe to conclude from the absence of any extant criticism

of these Christian soldiers that their position passed

uncriticized.

Harnack

C

i.

702.

3

Eus

HE

V

v.

1-4.

4

Dio

Cassius

Ixxi.

9.

5

So

Stokes in

DCB

iv.

Ioqb.

dijeoc

rai

piydlor.

uhh~.

So

Harnack

ME

ii.

55

(“Neither

then

nor subsequently

did

any

Christian

censure

these

soldiers

for

their

profession

’I),

MC

57

;

Bigel-

nlair

I&.

7

See

ahove,

p.

104.

288

2%

Early

Ghrktian

Attit&

to

Wm

Julius

Africanus appears to have

served

as

an officer

in

the expedition

of

the Emperor Severus against

Osrhoene in

195

A.D.

I

:

but we have already

seen

reason for refusing to regard him as in any way

a

representative Christian.2 Clemens of Alexandria does

not seem ever to have faced the problem

of

Christianity

and war

;

and hence, despite his clear grasp

of

Christian

principles

in

the abstract,s he uses expressions which

concede the compatibility

of

military service with the

Christian faith. He appeals to the Greek

thus

:

“

Be a

farmer, we say,

if

thou art a farmer; but know God

(while thou art) farming

:

and sail, thou lover of navi-

.

gation, but

(sail)

calling upon the heavenly Pilot

:

has

the (true) knowledge taken hold of thee (when) serving

as

a soldier? Listen to the General who orders what

is

righteous.”4 Some years later, wheri writing for Christ-

ian

readers, he says

:

“

Barefootedness

is

very becoming

to

a

man,

except when he

is

on

military service

”

5

;

and

later, criticizing the love

of

wealth and display

:

“

But

even

now

the soldiers

wish

to

be

adorned with gold, not

having read that (passage)

in

the

poet

:

‘

He

came

to

the war, wearing gold, like a young girl.”’,6

He

says

that the divine

‘

Instructor,’ under the heading of

for-

bearance,

“

enjoins by John upon those in military

service to

be

content with their

wages

only.”

7

He

quotes the Mosaic regulations

in

regard to the exemp-

tion

of

certain

classes

of men from military service and

of summoning the enemy

to

come to

terms

before

attacking them, without any intimation that they would

not

be

applicable to Christians.l

He

mentions “the

soldier’s hope and the merchant’s gain

”

along with life,

angels, etc., as examples

of

the

“

things present

”

which

are powerless to oppose faith.2

We have already had occasion to notice the suscep-

tibility to Christian influence

of

soldiers employed in

the horrible work

of

persecution-a susceptibility which

led in many cases to their conversion.3 One or two

cases merit repetition here. The soldier Basileides. of

Alexandria had, while still a heathen, received instruc-

tion under Origenes. During the persecution

of

202

A.D.,

it

fell to his lot to conduct the Christian maiden Pota-

miaina to death, and apparently to preside over the

execution, which consisted of boiling pitch being poured

over the girl’s body from the

feet

upwards.

He

showed

her what sympathy and kindness he could under the

circumstances, and the experience issued-as well

it

might-in his conversion. This was at first kept a

secret, but soon became known through his refusal as a

Christian

to

take an oath when challenged to do

so

by

his

fellow-soldiers.

He

was led to the judge, confessed,

and received sentence. He was visited in prison by the

Christians, and baptized, and the next day was beheaded.

Nothing is said in the extant record

as

to his conversion

leading him to want to resign his

post

in

the army.4

Somewhat similar was the case of the adjutant Pudens,

a

Clem

StTom

IV

xiv.

g6.

Ramsay

(CiXer

and

Bishoprab

of

Pkrys,

forbade

that

Christians

should

&soldiers

or

bear

am.”

ii.

718)

is

mistaken

in

includin

Clemens

among

those

who

“absolutely

See

above,

pp.

226

f.

Hamack

says

(MC

75)

:

“

That

the

soldis

who

informer,

himself

became

a

Christian,

gradually

became

a

stereotyped

accompanied

a

Christian

to

death,

in

particular

the

(soldier

who

acted

as)

instances

in

more

OT

less

fictitious

martyr-acts,

see

Neumann

&-ago.

feature

in

the

stories

of

martyrs,

but

is

not

always

legendary.’’

Far

Clem

Strom

I1

xviii.

Sa,

88.

Eus

HE

VI

iii.

13,

v.

234

The

Early

Christian

Aititudc

$0

War

whose conversion took place at

the

time

of

the martyr-

dom

of

Perpetua and her companions at Carthago,’

though we do not know what became

of

him

afterwards2

The information contributed by Tertullianus

is

im-

portant.

In

197

A.D.

he wrote to the pagans

:

“Ye cry

out that the state is besieged-that there

are

Christians

in the fields, in the fortified towns, in the islands.”

3

‘I

We are (people) of yesterday, and we have filled all

that belongs to you-cities, islands; fortified towns

(?)

(castella), country towns, places

of

assembly, the

very camps, the tribes, the decuries, the palace, the

senate, the forum.”

4

‘I

With

you

we

go

on

voyages and

serve

as

soldiers and farm’ and trade

:

we mix (our)

industries (with yours)

;

we make our work public for

your

service.”

5

He refers to the incident in the reign

of Marcus Aurelius, when the dro’ught afflicting the

Roman army was removed

‘I

by the shower obtained by

the prayers of the Christian soldiers (who were) by

chance (serving under him).”6 A little later,

in

arguing

that

no

Christian ought to be a soldier, he lets

us

see

that there were Christians who took the opposite view

and supported their position by appealing to the

examples

of

Moses,

Aaron, Joshua, the Israelites, and

even John the Baptist.7 He himself says that Paul,

in “teaching that everyone ought to live

by

his own

labour,

had introduced plenty

of

examples, (those,

See

above,

pp.

226f.

DCB

iw.

5mb.

transhted

fortified

towns

“casteHis-may mean

gimply

villages.’

3

Tert

Nut

i

I

(i.

559)

:

similar

words

in

APE

i

(i.

262). The

word

and

mast

be

talcen

with

a

pin of

salt.

Tertullianus

makm

a~~~~?~

4

Tert

Apd

37

(i.

462

f).

The

statement

is

of

course

an

e

R&L

p

(i

447)

to

Christians

Laking

the military

oath.

5

Tert

Apof

42

(i.

491).

See

p.

230

n

5.

7

Tcrt

Itall19

(i.

6gof)

:

see

above,

p.

cog.

The

Eadg

Chm’stian

Acceptance

of

War

285

namely),

of

soldiers, shepherds, and husbandmen.]’

1

Later still

(21

I

A.D.),

we have from him an account of

the circumstances which occasioned the composition

of

his

treatise ‘De Corona Militis.’ Shortly after the

accession

of

the Emperors Caracalla and eta, an

imperial largess was being distributed to the Roman

troops

in

Numidia, when one Christian soldier made

himself conspicuous

by

refusing to put

on

the laurel

garland which everyone else was wearing

for

the occa-

sion. His fellow-Christians in the army-not to men-

tion the heathen soldiers-and some at least of the

Christian civilians as well, condemned his action on the

ground that it was rash and presumptuous and likely to

provoke persecution, and that nowhere

in

Scripture are

we forbidden to

be

crowned.2 The incident shows that

there were at that time many Christians

in

the Roman

army in Africa, and that some-possibly a majority-

of

the members

of

the

local church raised

no

objection

to their being there. It does not prove that the whole

of

the local church-still

less

that the Church generally

-had no scruples at all about its members serving as

soldiers.3

It

is

important also to notice that the De Idolo-

P

E

k

justih

this

statement about soldiers.

*

Tert

Marc

v.

7

(ii.

487).

I

do

not know any passage

in

Paul’s letters

Tert

Cor

I

(ii.

76

f).

He astutely pints out the similarity between

nescio

an Christ’momm, non enim aliae ethnicorurn,

ut

de abrupto, etc.,

the Christian

and the

pagan

criticisms: exinde sentenhe

super

illo,

soldierk object

was

to secure for his Christian comrades in

the

army

the

etc. Harnack

has

suggested (ME

i.

418

n, ii.

56,

MC

68)

that this

same exemption from the semi-idolatrous garland that

was

enjoyed

by

the

worshippers of Mithras.

3 It

1s

therefore a

gross

exaggeration to

say

that the fact

that

the soldier

was

condemned

“

is

conclusive

proof that

the

Christinn

society of the time

found

no cause

of

complaint in the fact

of

io

members serving

in

the

legions,

and

that they did

not

regard such

seMce

as

incompatible

with

their

religion

”

(B.-Baker

IC

W

25).

236

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

Wm

latria

’

and

‘

De Corona

’

of

Tertullianus are

our

oldest

pieces of evidence for the existence of Christian soldiers

who had joined the army

after

their conversion.

In

the

former, his discussion of the questions ‘whether a believer

may

turn

to miIitary service, and whether the military

. . .

may be admitted to the faith’

1

may

be

taken to

imply that

in

practice cases had already arisen in which

both these questions had been answered in the affirma-

tive. In the

‘De

Corona’ his condemnation of the act

of

‘

transferring (one’s) name from the camp

of

light to

the camp of darkness

’

2

shows pretty clearly that the

thing had been done. Immediately afterwards he

speaks of those who had been converted when already

in

the army as a special class

of

Christian soldiers

3

;

evidently, therefore, there were others who had become

soldiers after conversion. These passages, however,

are the earliest references we have to Christians

becoming soldiers after baptism

:

all the Christian

soldiers mentioned before the period

of

‘

De Idololatria

’

(198-202

A.D.)

may quite well have been-for all we

know to the contrary-converted when already in the

army. Such would ,obviously have been the more

normal case.

In the year

217

A.D.

the tomb of an imperial official,

Marcus Aurelius Prosenes, received a supplementary

inscription from his freedman, the Christian Ampelius,

who described himself as ‘returning from the

cam-

paigns.’4 Another inscription, about the middle

of

the

Tert

Cor

11

(ii.

92)

:

see

above,

p.

III.

3

Ib.

:

see

above,

p.

I

12.

I

Tert

Idol

19

(i.

690)

:

see

pp.

108f.

Sa[uro

in

Cam

Iania, Praesente et Extricato

I1

(sc.

comalibus).

4

The

inscription

runs

:

Prosenes receptu

ad

hum

V

non

[apr]ilis

Kegrediem

in

&be(m)

ab expeditionibns scripsit

Ampelins

lib(ertus)

(De

Rossi,

Insrriphmrcs

U7fi

Romac,

I

9;

Marucchi,

Christian

Episraphy,

225

:

Nenmann

(84

n)

gives

a

slightly

different

interpretation).

third century, found at Hodjalar in Phrygia,gives

us

the

epitaph on the family tomb of two Christian soldiers.’

Cyprianus tells

us

that the two uncles

of

a certain

Christian who suffered in the persecution of Decius

(250

A.D.)

had been soldiers.2 Dionusios

of

Alexandria

tells

us

that there were soldiers among the martyrs in

that

very

persecution.3 At Alexandria during the per-

secution,

a

soldier named Besas rebuked the crowd that

was insulting the martyrs on their

way

to execution.

He

was immediately challenged, arraigned as a

Christian, confessed, and was beheaded.4 On another

occasion

a

squad of five soldiers, attending at the trial

of a Christian, attracted attention by making violent

gestures

of

anxiety when the accused threatened to

deny his faith, and then rushed before the tribunal

and confessed themselves Christians. The goveinor,

as well

as

his council, was amazed, but

seems

to have

ordered them to execution.5 We have already spoken

1

Ramsay,

Cities

and

Bislropricr

of

Phygia,

ii.

717.

3 Dion Alex in

Eus

HE

VI1 xi.

20

:

the letter of Dionusios here

quoted

refers

to

the

Decian

persecution, though Eusebios erroneously connects it

with

that

of

Valerianus (Feltoe 65).

See above,

p.

147

n

2.

4

Dion

Alex

in

Eus

BE

VI

xh.

16.

5

Dion Alex in

Eus

HE

VI

rli.

zz

f.

Their conversion Seems to have

been due to a sudden

rush

of

feeling

under the affecting

circumstances

of

the

hour.

Harnack,

I

think,

overlooks the fact

that

only live men were

concerned, assumes that

before

their

public

confession they were already

virtually Christians

(I‘

Christen oder

.

. . christlich Gesinnten”), and infers

that

Christianity

must have been very

widespread

in the

army

in

E$ppt,

there could have been

no

idea

of

picking

out

Christian soldiers

or

thls

particular

task

(Harnack

ME

ii.

58,

MC

76

f).

This

seems

to

me to

be

making

too

much out

of

the

passage.

Sudden conversions were not

un-

these

five

men

were

in any way definitely christian before this mncident.

wmmon at scenes

of

persecution

;

and there

is

no

reason to

suppose

that

it,

but

does

not

warrant

Hamaclc’s

conclusion that Christianity

was

They may have

known

abut Cfiritianity

and

been sympathetic towards

Polwuktes,’

the

soldier

who

is

mid

to

been

beheaded

for

refusing

to

deapread

in

the

army

in

Egypt.

I

by

the

untrustworthy

‘Acts

of

gacrifia

in

compliance

with

an

edict

of

‘

Decius

and

Val&

’

I

(Cony-

kare

113-146

;

H4

ME

ii.

61,

MC

83).

L

238

The

Early

Chri’siian

Attitude

to

War

of the Christian military officer Marinus, who was

martyred at Caesarea in

260

AD.’

‘I

The

number of

Christian officers and soldiers in the army gradually

increased

,

.

after the reign

of

Gallienus

;

so

much

so

that the military authorities began to connive at

Christianity

;

they made allowance for it, and looked

on

quietly while Christian officers made the sign of the

cross at the sacrifices. Moreover they also dispensed

silently with their attendance at these sacrifices.”* In

295

A.D.,

on the occasion of the martyrdom

of

Maxi-

milianus in Numidia, the proconsul of Africa said to

him

:

(I

In the sacred retinue of our lords Diocletianus

and Maximianus, Constantius and Maximus, there are

Christian soldiers, and they serve (as such).lJ

3

The

silence

of

the Synod of llliberis on the legitimacy

of

military service

is

significant. The Spanish bishops

seem to have realized that there was too much to be

said on both sides for them to commit themselves to

either.4 Eusebios tells

us

that long before the outbreak

of the general persecution in

303

A.D.,

the Emperor

Galerius attempted, by means

of

degradation, abuse,

and menace of death, to compel the Christians in the

army, beginning with those in his own household, to

desert their faiths We learn

from

Eusebios and

Hieronymus that about

299

A.D.

a general named

Veturius attempted to purge the troops under him

of

Christian soldiers

;

and a great number of them

conse-

quently

retired from the service, and

a

few

suffered the

I

SSC

above,

pp.

151

f.

a

HarnackMZii.

9:

cfMC8r

t

3

See

above,

pp.

149

f.

Fabius Victor,

the

martyr’s

father,

to

have

been

a

Christian

before

the

trial,

and

may

have

been

a

soldier

(see

p.

150

n

2)

:

anyhow,

he

had

bought

his

son

a

now

milituy

amt

in

anticipation

ofhisjoini

up.

4

~2

MC

79

n

3

(80).

5

Eus

BE

VI11

appmdix,

I.

E

rr

The

Earl3

Chri’stian.

Acceptance

of

W~T

239

penalty of death. The‘devil, says Eusebios, thought

that if he could first subdue the Christians in the army,

he would easily be able to catch the others-a remark

which indicates that in Eusebios’

belief

the Christians

t

in the army at that time were numerous and highly

respected.1 The martyrdom of the Christian centurion

f

Marcellus in Mauretania in

298

A.D.

2

may have

been

the outcome

of

a similar movement on the part

of

the

military authorities in that quarter of the Empire.

1

Typasius, another soldier

of

Mauretania,

is

said to have

f

obtained his discharge from the army before the persecu-

r

1

k

tion broke 0Ut.3 The famous legend of the martyrdom

of

the whole Thebaic legion (recruited

in

the Egyptian

Thebaid) at the hands of Maximianus at -Agaunum

near the Lake

of

Geneva,

is

variously referred to

286,

297,

or

302

A.D.

The evidence for it is late, and the

story as

it

stands is impossible. It may

be

that the

actual martyrdom

of

a

few-conceivably

a

few

hundred,

-Christian soldiers for refusing

to

sacrifice underlies

the legend

:

more than that cannot

be

said.4 In

302 A.D.

Diocletianus, alarmed by unfavourable omens,

which the priests attributed to the presence

of

Christians,

required his whole retinue to sacrifice on pain

of

being

scourged, and wrote to the commanding officers that

soldiers should

be

required to sacrifice and,

if

they

would not

obey,

dismissed from the service.5 The

following winter, when Galerius was urging him

to

~

undertake

a

general persecution

of

the Christians,

Diocletianus

long

persisted “that it would

be

enough

if

he

forbade that

religion

only

to

those

at

court and to

’

Eas

RE

VI11

iv

faith

McGitTert’s

note)

;

Hiuon

Chrm

nd

11-

2317

;

Hsmaclr

ME

g

n,MC&.

see above,^.

152.

3

See

above,

153.

DCE

iii.

&1b-6&

;

Bigelmair

~gq-mr

;

Harnock

ME

ii.

k

n

I,

MC83;

&Jong

I7f.

5

Lact

Mmt

Per3

x.

4.

:

240

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

the soldiers.”

1

When the persecution actually began,

Christian soldiers were its first victims.2 The fact that

many of them suffered martyrdom is sufficiently estab-

lished, and little purpose would be served

by

adding

details concerning all the individual cases known

to

us.

One of them, Julius, who suffered in Moesia, said to the

judge

:

“

During the time that

I

was, as it appears, going

astray in the vain service

of

war

(in

vana militia), for

twenty-seven

years

I

never came before the judge as an

offender or a plaintiff (scelestus aut litigiosus). Seven

times did

I

go

out on a campaign (in bello), and

I

stood

behind no one

(post

neminem retro steti),

and

I

fought

as well as any (nec alicuius inferior pugnavi). The

commander never saw me go wrong; and dost thou

think that

I,

who had been found faithful in the

worse

things,

can

now

be

found unfaithful in the better

?

”

3

Other soldier-martyrs were Marcianus and Nicander

in

Moesia (or Italy),4 Dasius,

also

in

Moesia,5

Nereus

and

Achilleus, apparently at Rome,6 Tarakhos in Cilicia,7

Ferreolus, a military tribune, at Vienna

in

Gaul: Theo-

dorus

of

Tyrus

at

Amasia in Pontus,g and Seleukos

of

Cappadocia at CaesareaIO In

303

AD.

a revolt broke

Lact

Miwt

PWJ

xi.

3.

(some

of

them, like some

o8fe clergy, ave

way

and sacrificed).

Eus

HE

VI11

i.

8

;

E

’

hanios

Hacrcs

lxviii.

z

(Mpe

PG

xlii.

185)

3

See

the

Acta

rvliiin

AndBoldx.

50

ff.

reprinted

by

Harnack

in

Christian

soldier

had

been

martyred

just

before

Julius,

and

when h& went

MC

119-121.

An

older

edition

is

given

by

Ruinart

(569

f).

Another

to

his

death,

a

third was awaiting sentence.

5

DGB

i.

789b

;

Hamack

ME

ii.

62

n

5,

MC

83

n

5

;

Bigelmair

192

f.

4

Ruinart

571-573

;

cf

Harnack

ME

ii

62

n

4.

See

above,

p

153

f.

Ruinart

&a:

DCB

ii.

06b.

9

Ruinart5&511:

DCBiv.

956

f.

7

Ruinart451 Hawk

C

ii.

479

f:

DC5

iv.

781

:

see

above,p.

153.

the

‘

qwttaor

mnati,’

fw,

soldiers

who

are spid

to

have

been

4

to

Io

Eas

Mmt

xi.

20

fT

(see

aLve,

p.

153).

I

pass

by

the

doubttul

st0

of

dath

at

Ragte

for

rrfasine

to

sucrik

(DG4

i.

461

f;

DCB

iv.

’/a€;

Bigc-

Jas-330,

Hazndc

C

ii.

478

n

2).

.

,

the

husband nod brathcr-%v%

Gph-

*ble

that

Getdm

Md

The

Early

Christian

Acceptance

of

War

241

out in Melitene and Syria, and Diocletianus suspected

that the Christians were at the bottom of it, and it is

possible that his suspicions were not altogether without

foundation.1 We know that the Christians of Armenia,

when the Emperor Maximinus Daza tried to force

them to abandon their Christianity, took up arms and

defeated him.2

There

must

have been large numbers

of

Christians

in the armies of Constantinus and Licinius

in

their

campaigns against Maxentius and Maximinus Daza.

Pachomius, later famous as

a

monk, served in the

war against Maxentius, and was won to Christianity by

the

love

which his Christian fellow-soldiers showed to

himself and others.3 The Constantinian troops were

witnesses

of

the professed adherence

of

their great

leader to the Christian faith just before the battle

of

the

Milvian Bridge, and actually

bore

in that battle the sign

of the cross up06 their shields and in their standards

:

they took part in the bloodshed of the battle, and

doubtless joined in their leader's confident boast that he

had conquered by virtue

of

that same sign.4 The

caln-

paign of Licinius against Daza, after his meeting with

Constantinus at Milan, would enlist Christian sympathy

as warmly

as

did that

of

Constantinus against Maxen-

tius. Both conflicts were regarded, not unnaturally, as

who

are

said

to

have been military tribunes under

Hadrianus

and

to

hare

suffered

prtyrdom

for

refusing

to

sacrifice, were really among the

sol-

dier-martyrs

of

the great persecution under Diocletianus (see above,

pp.

Britain:

HXS

martyred about

this

time

and

was

a

soldier

(Workman,

IOO

f).

It

is

also

barely possible

that

Albanus,

the

proto-martyr

of

Ptrsccutiott

in

the

Ear&

Church,

p.

271

;

DCB

i

6g

f).

Other

soldier-

martyrs

of

minor importance

and

questionable hutoncity

are

mentioned

by Bigelmair

(192-1

and

Ihnack

(MC

Q

n

31.

3

DCB

iv.

170b

;

Harnuck

NE

ii.

63

n

I,

MC

85.

4

Eup

HE

IX

k.

1-12,

Vit

Cmt

i

26-31,

37-41,

iv.

19-21;

Laa

=

Eus

BE

vm

vi?!.

'

EW

HE

IX

viii.

2,

4.

Miwt

Pms

fiv.

17

!

struggles between Christianity and Paganism. Licinius

himself prescribed for

his

soldiers a form of prayer,

which was monotheistic, if not overtly Christian, in

tone.’ His victory would naturally attract additional

Christian favour and

support.= We

do not know how

far Christian soldiers were implicated in the bloody acts

of vengeance-the massacres, tortures, and murders-

that marked his triumph.3 Later in his reign, between

31’,5

and

322

A.D.,

Licinius relapsed into paganism, and

required the soldiers in his army to sacrifice on pain

of

being degraded and dismissed the service.

A

number

of martyrdoms resulted.4

’

The final war between

Licinius and Constantinus was again a war between

Paganism and Christianity, and ended in

a

decisive

triumph

for

the latter.5

Reserving for Part

IV

all

discussion

of

the position

finally attained through the ascendancy of Constantinus

and

all

attempt to summarize the movements

of

Christian

thought and practice which we have been studying, we

may bring this section

to

a close with a word or two on

the question

of

the numbers

of

Christians in the army

’

Lact

Mort

Pers

xlvi. Harnack regards

this

act

of

Licinius

as

showing

how

widespread Christianity must have been in his army (MC

Sg

f).

3

Eus

HE

IX

x.

4

(destruction

of

Dm’s

army), xi.

3

(all

his

favoured

partizans slain),

4

[a few examples out

of

many given),

5

f

(torture and

death

of

Theoteknos and others at

Antid,

cf

E’,%

Ipjcd),

7

f

(Dam’s

of

Dam’s

troops),

1.

a

f

(death

of

Candidianus,

son

of

Galerius, who had

put

children and relatives

slain)

;

Lact

Mort

Pcrs

xlvii.

2-4

(immense slaughter

himself unsuspectingly in Licinius’ hands),

4

(Licinius slays Severianus,

son

of

the late Emperor Severus),

6

(he

slays

Maximus, the eight-year-old

son,

and the seven-year-old

daughter,

of

Daza,

after throwing their mother

into

the river Orontes), li (Valeria, widow

of

Galerius, and her mother Prisca,

caught

at Thessalonica, beheaded, and their bodies

cast

into the

sea).

To

the commission

of

such

acts

ps

these did those believers

who

took

up

arms

under

this

Christian

Emperor

render themselves

tible

!

that

the

kgend

of

the

forty

soldiers

martyred

at

Sebaste

in

dmenlo

4

Eus HE

X

viii.

IO,

Vit

Const

i.

54.

It

is

to

this

period

(p

AD.)

belongs

(6

DCB

ii.

556

f;

De

Jong

33

f).

5

Eus

Vir

Cmrtii.

16t

=

Eus

HE

IX

x.

3.

The

Early

Christian

Acceptams

of

War

248

during these closing years

of

our period. In the unfor-

tunate absence

of

any definite statistics, we have to

content ourselves with a few vague statements. It is

clear that there were more soldiers in the armies at

the

end than

in

the middle

of

the third century, and that

Constantinus’ accession to power increased the number

still further. We may perhaps conjecture that before

the persecution there was a larger percentage

of

Chris-

tians in the army

of

Constantinus, the tolerant Emperor

of the West, than in those of the southern and eastern

Emperors, though of this

we

cannot

be

sure, and the

comparatively larger numbers

of

Christians in the eastern

than in the western empire would tend

to

put the posi-

tion the other way round. It is doubtless true that

there were

‘

many,

’

soldiers in the legions of Diocletianus

and Galerius round about

300

A.?.

;

but

what does

‘

many mean? Figures are,

of

course, out of

our

reach

;

but when

we

consider that these two emperors

endeavoured to purge all the Christians out

of

their

army, we cannot imagine that the percentage of Christ-

ians could have been very high.

No

sovereign readily

deprives himself

of

a tenth, or even

of

a twentieth part

of his military power. Furthermore, as we shall

see

presently, Christian opinion, even at this date, was still

very far from

being

unanimous as to the propriety

of

military service

for

Christians.

A

good

deal of caution

is

necessary in accepting

some

of

the phrases in which

the state

of

affairs

is

at times described.1

I

Harnack

is

on

the

whole cautious, but

is

a

little

inclined

to

over-

242

n

I,

and

cf.

MC

83,

87).

Cf

Westermuck,

The

Ongm

ad

h&$-

estimate the evidence

(see

his

remarks

quoted

above!

‘p.

237

n

5

and

rncnc

oft&

Hod

i.

346

(‘I

the

number

of

Christians

enrolled

in

the

army

seem

not

to

haw

been

very

considerable before

the

era

of

Constan-

tine

”)

;

De

Jong

26

(c‘

is

certain,

that

the

Christians

in

the

army

were.

as

yet

only

a

smdl

rnmonty

”).

Y

I

PART IV

SUMMAR

Y

AND

CONCLUSION

AN

attempt must now

be

made to gather together the

scattered threads

of

the foregoing records and to present

something in the nature of a general summary of the

whole question. We saw at the outset that Jesus

adopted for himself and enjoined. upon his followers

principles

of

conduct which, inasmuch

as

they ruled out

as illicit all use of viole?nce and injury against others,

clearly implied the illegitimacy

of

participation in war,

and that it was for this reason that he resisted the

temptation to establish the Kingdom

of

God

by

the

use

of arms.

We

saw that his principles were meant to

guide the conduct, not

of

the whole of unredeemed

humanity all at once, but that

of

the growing group of

his

own

followers

as

members of the Kingdom, that

these principles

of

so-called

‘

non-resistance

a

had

their

positive counterpart in the power

of

love to overcome

sin

in others and did not reduce those who adopted

them

to helpless cyphers

in

the conflict against evil,

but on the contrary made

them

more efficient units in

that conflict.

W9

saw

too

that

the

various

pleas

that

have been put forward with a view

to

emancipating

the

Christian disciple from compliance with these principles

“as,

that they

are

meant

to

refer only

to

the

inner

dis-

position

or

spirit

and not to the outward actions,or that

%4

Summary

and

Conclusion

245

they are counsels of perfection practicable only in a

perfect world, or that they affect only the personal and

private conduct

of

the disciple and not his duties as a

member

of

society, or that they ire an interim-ethic

which is invalidated by the existence of historical con-

ditions which Jesus did not foresee-all rest on various

easily demonstrated misapprehensions.

The early Christians took Jesus at

his

word, and

understood his inculcatians of gentleness and non-

resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified

their religion with peace

;

they strongly condemned

war for the bloodshed which it involved

;

they appro-

priated to thcrnselves the Old Testament prophecy

which foretold the transformation

of

the weapons

of

war into the implements

of

agriculture

;

they declared

that it was their policy to return good for evil and to

conquer evil with good. With one or two possible

exceptions no soldier joined the Church and remained

a soldier until the time

of

Mprcus Aurelius

(161-

180

A.D.).

Even then, refusal to serve was known to

to

be

the normal policy

of

the Christians-= the

reproaches

of

Celsus

(177-180

A.D.)

testify.

In

the

time

of

Tertullianu: (say

200-210

A.D.),

many soldiers

had left the army

on

their conversion

;

and his writings

are the earliest record

we

possess of any Christians join-

ing

the

army when already converted. While a general

distrust of ambition and

a

horror

of

contamination by

idolatry entered largely into the Christian aversion

to

military service, the Sense of the utter contradiction

between the

work

of

imprisoning. torturing, wounding,

and killing,

an

the

one

hand, and

the

Master's teaching

on

the other, constituted an equally fatal and conclusive

'objection. The Churcb-Order framed probably by

246

The

Early

Christian Attitude

to

War

Hippolutos of Rome early in the third century

and

widely circulated in the East required magistrates and

soldiers

to

abandon their calling before baptism, and ex-

communicated the Christian who insisted on

joining

the

army. Origenes, the finest thinker the Church possessed

for many generations, the man who was exempt from

those crude eschatological notions which are generally

represented as the context in which all early Christian

utterances

on

social duty are to

be

read, took it

for

granted that Christians generally refused to serve

in

the

army, and that they did

so,

not

in

fear

of

idolatrous

contamination, which does not seem

to

have been

a

difficulty when he wrote

(248

A.D.),

but

on

the score of

bloodshed; and he defended them for doing

so

in a

series

of

acute arguments that have never since been

answered. Cyprianus,

a

highly influential and thoroughly

loyal Churchman, appears

to

have held the same views

on

the matter as his

‘

master Tertullianus. Arnobius

almost certainly disapproved

of

Christians fighting, and

his

contemporary Lactantius (early fourth century)

unequivocally pleaded for the same conclusion.

No

Church writer before Athanasios ventured to say

that

it

was

not

only permissible, bat praiseworthy, to kill

enemies in war, without the qualification-expressed

or

implied-that he was speaking of pagans

only.‘:

While

the application

of

Jesus’ teaching

to

the

ques-

tion

of military service was in a way unmistakable, and

was

in

fact generally made

in

the way that has just

The

words

of

Athanasias

are

quoted

below,

p

257

n

I.

His

state-

ment

is

perfectly

general,

and

doubtless

was

meant

to

a

ply

to

Christians

as

well

as

pagans.

It

cannot

therefore be

put

on

tle

same

level

89

Origenes’

phrase

I‘

those

who

are

righteously

aerving

as

soldiers”

(see

above,

p.

135).

which

obviously

applied

only

to

the

pagan

soldiers

of

the

-

Emperor.

247

been described, it is nevertheless true that the condi-

tions in which the early Christians were placed did not

in many localities call for any such application for a very

long time. Jews and slaves were not enrolled at all

in the Roman army. The Emperors (who were legally

entitled to

fill

their legions by conscription)-not to

mention the Herodian princes and the Jewish Temple-

authorities-could normally get all the soldiers they

wanted by means of voluntary enlistment; hence the

chances of a Christian being pressed into military

service against his will were practically

nil.

This

posi-

tion of affairs meant that for the vast bulk

of

Christians

in

the earliest times, the question as to the legitimacy

or

otherwise of their entering the army simply did not

arise

;

the mind of the Church, while

in

full possession

of the pertinent teaching of Jesus, had for a long

time

no occasion to make a definite application of it

to

this

particular question or to lay down a definite ruling

in

regard to it. There was thus a certain unguardedness,

a certain immaturity

of

reflection, which, besides

accounting for the silence of early Christian authors

on the point, helped to make room for various com-

promises and commitments.

For during this embryonic and quiescent stage

of

Christian ethical thought there were certain other

factors at work, which militated against

a

clear pro-

nouncement on the illegitimacy of the use

of

arms by

Christians. To begin with, warfare stood

on

a different

footing from other pagan customs which

it

was quite

easy

for

the Church to condemn and reject without

compromise. It was

unlike

adultery,

in

that it was

esteemed and honoured

by

pagans, and not condemned:

it

was

unlike

idolatry,

In that'it concerned only

a

few,

!

u:

240

'he

Eurly

Christian Alttitu.de

to

War

and not members

of

society in general.

It

was in-

separably bound up with the police system by which

law and order were maintained

;

and the severity of the

Christian judgment against

it

was thus mitigated by

its association with that against which the Christian

objection was not

so

easily felt

or

framed. Then again,

there were various connections in which the Christians

themselves thought of war without any admixture

of

repulsion or censure. They were fond of speaking

of

the Christian life itself as a warfare and

of

themselves

as

soldiers of Christ. Scripture taught them to think

with reverence and esteem

of

the warriors of old as men

acting with the approval and under the guidance

of

God. Many

of

then) looked forward to a great military

triumph of Chist over his enemies at the end of the age.

In the meantime, they could think of war as a means of

divine chastisement

:

they regarded the great victories

of

the Romans over the Jews in

67-71

A.D.

as a divine

punishment

of

the latter for their treatment of Christ.

They were taught to think

of

the Emperor as appointed

by

God

for

the purpose

of

checking sinand maintaining

order-tasks which they knew he could not fulfil with-

out using soldiers.

.

We have already examined

in

detail all these Christian aspects

of

war and

seen

that

none

of

them, when rightly understood, contained any-

thing inconsistent with the most rigid abstention

of

the

Christians themseives from the use of arms. At the

same time, it

is

easy to see that these lines

of

thought

must have predisposed many Christians to miss the

essential

point

when they came to consider the question

of

their own personal conduct. The various complica-

tions just enumerated and the absence

of

a unanimous

or

authoritative

ruling

on

the

point

combined

to

ren&i

S'ummary

and

Conclusion

249

the issue far less clear

to

many than

it

would otherwise

have been. This, of itself, meant that at any time after

the inception of Cliristianity, the existence of Christian

soldiers mas at least a possibility.

Several other factors contributed to facilitate the

actualization of this possibility. Not only was the

question in some respects a complicated one

;

blff many

members

of

the Christian Church were, as we know, of

a very simple, unintellectual, and unreflective type of

mind, and shunned on principle anything in the nature

of

clear dialectics. Such people were peculiarly liable,

in

that day as in this, to' draw illogical conclusions

touching their conduct as Christians from Old Testa-

ment wars or from Paul's use

of

military similes.

As

a matter

of

fact, we learn from Tertullianus, that the

Christian soldiers of his time justified their position, not

by any public-spirited appeals to the obvious needs of

society; but by references-often of an extremely

puerile kind-to Old Testament precedents. They

quoted not only the wars of Joshua and the Israelites,

but

Moses'

rod, Aaron's buckle, and John the Baptist's

leather belt, just as Christians who wished to attend the

circus appealed

to

David's example in dancing before

the

ark and

to

Elijah

as

the charioteer

of

Israel.2

Troeltsch represents

the

advocates of

compromise

in

the

third century

as

wiser

than they really were, in speaking

of

"

corn

omises

and composi-

tions,

which recognize the necessity of these callings

Y

'

(Le. magistrates and

soldiers)

"

for

tbe

social

system, and.therefore

enjoin

here

too

continuance

in

the

dliig

"

(Troeltsch

124

:

see

above, p.

144

n

I).

'

See

above,

pp.

log,

174

f.

Hence Hamack's

(MC

61)

criticism

of

Tertullianus

for

refusing

to

treat

his

opponents'

appeal

to

Scripture

seriously,

is

only partially justified.

Bigg

says

in

anotber connection

:

wholesale

importation

of

ideas

and

practices

from'the

Old

Testament

into

''

It

was

this

.

inability

to

grasp

the

idea

of

progress which

led

to

the

the Christian

Chur&"

(7%

Church's

Tad

tcn&

tlrc

Rown

ErHpire,

p.

27).

250

The

Early

Christian.

Attitude

io

War

Another circumstance that operated in the same direc-

tion was the gradual and steady growth throughout the

Church of a certain moral laxity, which engaged the

serious and anxious attention of Christian leaders

as

early

as

the time of Hermas

(140

A.D.)

and had become

an acute problem by the time of

Pope

Kallistos

(216-

222

A.D.)

:

this abatement

of

the primitive moral rigour

would naturally assist the process of conformity to the

ways of the world.‘ The same too would

be

the effect

of

the gradual waning of the eschatological hope, which,

while far from constituting the

true

ground of the

Christian refusal of military service, was yet with many

a main plea for their general aloofness from worldly

life.* And not only was the eschatological

hope

itself

waning, but even in circumstances where

it

was still

powerful, the Christian was reminded of the Apostolic

counsel

:

“

Let everyone remain in the calling wherein

he was called

’’

3-a ruling which had not yet received

in any definite

form

the limitation which it obviously

needed. The converted soldier was the more willing to

give himself the benefit of this ruling, inasmuch as his

withdrawal from the army on the ground of his change

of

religion

was

a process attended with no little difficulty

and danger.4 Finally, Christianity was characterized

by several features,

such

as monotheism, absolutism,

universalism,

use

of

military language, wars in Scripture,

and

so

on, which would naturally appeal to the military

mind.5

There were therefore quite a large number

of

factors

De

Jong

26:

“the

increasing

worldliness

of

Christendom

had

naturally

resulted

in

an

increased number

of

Christian

soldiers.”

’

Harnack

ME

ii.

53

;

Troeltsch

III

n.

4

Bigelmair

177-179.

3

Harnack

MZ

ii.

52,

MC

49

f.

5

Harnadc

ME

ii.

53

n

I,

MC

54f.

Summary

and

Cowtztsaon

251

at work, which combined to facilitate the conversion of

soldiers to Christianity and their continuance in ,military

life after their conversion, despite the fact that such a

state

of

affairs conflicted in. reality with the ethical

demands made by the Church. The anomaly of their

position was easily overlooked by the men themselves,

who had become inured

to

their grim duties and had all

their lives regarded the profession of arms as honour-

able. Most

of

the considerations helping

to

justify their

position to themselves would also help to secure tolera-

tion for it in the eyes

of

their fellow-Christians

;

and the

inclination of these latter to disapprove would also be

further checked by yet other considerations, such as the

fewness of the cases involved, at any rate in early times,

joy at the erection

of

Christ's banner

in

the devil's

camp,' distance from the battlefield and easy blindness

to

its

horrors, and lastly, that charitable leniency which

naturally deters the Christian from objecting to a good

many acts

of

a

co-religionist which he would not feel

justified in doing himself.

It

is

thus that we are

to

account for the omission

of

the Church to take a decided

line

on

this

matter from the beginning. Apart from

the

Church-Orders, the influence of which-though

probably extensive-we cannot exactly measure, we

have no extant record

of

any attempt being made to

compel soldier-converts to leave the army on baptism.

The admission

of

these few soldier-converts to the

Church sometime, let

us

say, in the second century,

perhaps not earlier than the reign of Marcus Aurdius,

proved to

be

the thin end of the wedge. It constituted

a precedent by which the judgment

of

the Church at

largi-

was imperceptibly compromised.

If

a Christian

'

Harnack

ME

ii.

53

n

2.

252

The

Early

Christian

Att%tt.de

to

War

who

was

a

soldier before conversion may remain

so

after it, then it follows that a Christian layman might

become a soldier

if

he wished to. That this con-

clusion was drawn by the end of the second century

we have already seen.

If

a

few soldiers can

be

tolerated in the Church, then any number can be

:

if

a few Christiins may enlist, then any number may

do

so.

Once the beginning has been made and allowed

to

pass

muster, the obstacles in the way of a general

reversion to a stricter standard become virtually in-

superable.’

While

all

this

is

true, it is very easy to exaggerate

and misrepresent the extent of the concession which

the Church made to her soldier-members. For one

thing, the absence

of

a definite ruling on the concrete

point decades before circumstances had arisen calling

for such a ruling, has been interpreted, quite erroneously,

as

if

it

implied a considered judgment, on the part of

the whole Church, in the direction

of

conformity

with

the ways of the world. Thus Professor Bethune-Baker

refers to the centurion of Capernaum, the soldiers bap

tized by John, Cornelius of Caesarea, Sergius Paulus,

the soldiers who defended Paul, the command in

I

Tim

to pray for kings, and,the words of Paul in

Rorn

xiii, as

proving that war was sanctioned by the immediate

disciples of

Christ.

Like many

others

who

have

written on the subject, he

not

only

mgkes

no allowance

practices

slide

insensibly

into

existence

and

get

a

footing

ns

usages,

before

’

“In

the

rapid

expansion

of

relations

and

the

baste

of

human

&airs

any

conscience

has

time

to

estimate

them

;

and

when they

have

won

the

smction

of

prescription,

they

soon

shape

con5ciences

to

suit

them,

and

langh

at

the

mora!

critic

as

a

simpleton, and hurry on to the

crash

or

social

retribution

gas.

Martineaa,

Essayr,

.Rmieros,

rurd

Addresres,

v.

502).

a

B.-Baker

.ICW

4br8.

253

for the immaturity of Christian thought on this topic,

but recognizes

no

distinction between what is sanctioned

for the Christian and what

is

sanctioned for those who

have not yet reached Christianity. If his argument is

meant to show that the Christians of the first generation

had come to the conclusion, after

full

consideration,

that there was nothing in their Master’s teaching which

interfered with their own participation in war, then

the double oversight just alluded to must

be

held to

invalidate the argument. The attitude

of

laissez-faire,

to which he alludes, was the attitude of those who had

not yet realized that there was a problem

to

be solved

:

it

is

inadequate as an index even to the convictions and

practice of the apostolic age, and still more

so

as a basis

for modern Christian ethics. Bigelmair’s account of the

early Christian position embodies what may well have

been the plea

of

some of the most unintellectual of the

early Christian apologists for war. He regards the

abolition of war as one of the ideals foreshadowed in

the Sermon on the Mount, but

as

unattainable even

in

our

own

day and much more

so

in the

time

of

the early

Church.

I‘

Besides,” he says,

“

in the struggle

for

it

the

individual

is

almost powerless.’’ From this he concludes

that the apostolic dictum

‘‘

Let everyone remain in the

condition in which he was called” was regarded as

applying

to

soldiers, and that that

is

why

we

find

Christian soldiers in the earliest times.‘

But

if

the

fact that a certain calling cannot yet

be

abolished

because the world is imperfect

is

sufficient

to

justify a

Christian in pursuing

it,

then it

is

difficult to

see

why

the

sale

of

intoxicants, and prostitution, and even high-

way robbery, should not

be

regarded

as

permissible

Bigelmair

164-166.

254

The

Early

Christian

Attitde

to

War

Christian vocations.’ It is probable that there were in

the early Church those who argued as Bigelmair does,

but the argument is none the less radically unsound, and

furthermore unrepresentative of the normal Christian

habit

of

mind, both in regard to behaviour in general-

for the early Church

was

very sensitive as to the right-

fulness

of

the callings pursued by her members-and in

regard to the particular question we are considering.

But apart from misinterpretations due to treating the

silence or the laissez-faire attitude

of

the early Christians

(which as

we

have seen arose largely from the immaturity

of the problem and of the minds that had to solve it) as

if

it were the mature and deliberate judgment of men

long familiar with the ins and outs

of

the question, we

find even in the best modern authors a striking tendency

to overestimate the degree

of

approval that was given

by

the Church to those

of

her members who took arms,

Thus Bestmann, speaking of Origenes, says

:

“

In

regard

to military service, his Church thought differently from

.

her apologist.”Z Bethune-Baker: “The Christian society

of the time found no cause of complaint in the fact

of

its members serving in the legions.”

3

Bigelmair

:

Tertullianus

‘I

may very

well

have stood quite alone

in his circle, somewhat

as

the soldier, who lays aside

the crown,

. .

.

is

the only one

of

his many comrades.”

4

Harnack

:

“

As

for the rigorous party, they

hardly

made

anything

of

their prohibitions.

.

. .

But these rigorists

effected

no change whatever in the actual situation

”

5

:

1

Cf

Shakespeare.

King

Henry

IV,

Part

I, I

ii

1x5

:

purse-taking.”

to

1-r

in

his

vocation.”

Prim.

“

I

see

a

good

amendment

of

Life

in

thee;

from

paying

to

Fdtuf.

I‘

Why,

Hal,

’tis

my

vdon,

Hal

;

’tis

no

sin

for

a

man

3

B.-Baker

fCW25.

5

Hamck

ME

ii.

53,

57.

Summary

and

Cortclzlsion

,

255

these injunctions

of

the moralists were by

no

means

followed in the third century.”I Cunningham

:

“Military

service was uncongenial

to

Christians, but

was

not re-

garded as in itself wrong.”

*

All

this fits in well enough

with one set

of

facts, but

is

Aagrantly out

of

keeping

with another set. It underrates, in the first place, the

immense compromises to which the Christian soldier

was committed by his position. Apart from all ques-

tion

of

contact with idolatry and special temptations to

which his place in the army exposed him, he had not

only to take the lives of his fellow-men in the indis-

criminate conflicts of the battle-field and to scourge and

torture prisoners in the judgment-courts, but he was not

even allowed

to

use

his own discretion as to whether

this severe treatment was justified in any given circum-

stances

:

for

his military oath obliged him to inflict it,

not when he felt it

was

needed, but whenever his

superior officer-usually a pagan, and possibly a cruel

and unjust man as well-thought fit

to

order him to do

so.

It is impossible to believe that the early Church

.

swallowed this enormous compromise as easily as these

modern authors would have us believe.

That

as

a matter

of

actual .historical fact the Church

did not do

so,

there

is

abundant evidence to prove-

evidence to which the statements just quoted give far

too

little weight. The view usually taken is that the

Church as a whole sided

from

the first with the soldiers,

and that the authors who took

a

different line were

individual extremists, mere voices crying in the wilder-

ness, to whom nobody paid much attention. The

reverse

of

this

would

be

nearer the

truth.

The Christian

soldiers

of

the time

of

Tertullianus were evidently under

hack

MC

73.

*

Cunningham

252.

.”

-

.-

-

_x__I

“^””“

256

The

Early

Christian

Attitu.de

to

War

the necessity of defending their position, and the way

in which they seem to have done it does not enhance

our

respect for their clear-mindedness.

No

Christian

author of- our period undertook to show that Christians

might be soldiers. The Church-Order of the third

century forbade them to be

so.

Celsus, Tertullianus,

Hippolutos, Origenes, Cyprianus, and Lactantius, all

testify to the strength of the Christian objection to

military service. If

it

is

allowable

to

speak at

all

of

a

general position taken by the early Church in this

matter, it will be that of the stricter rather than that

of

the laxer party to which we shall have to apply

It

is

generally thought that, with the accession

of

Constantinus to power, the Church as a whole definitely

gave up her anti-militarist leanings, abandoned all her

scruples, finally adopted the imperial point of view, and

treated

the

ethical problem involved

as

a

closed ques-

tion.1 Allowing

for

a little exaggeration, this is broadly

speaking

true.

The sign

of

the cross

of

Jesus was now

an imperial military emblem, bringiw good fortune and

victory. The supposed nails of the cross, which the

Emperor’s mother found and sent

to

him,

were made

into bridle-bits and a helmet, which he used in

his

military expeditions.2 In

314

A.D.

the Synod

of

Arelate (Arks) enacted a canon which,

if

it did not,

as

many suppose, threaten with excommunication

Christian soldiers

who

insisted on quitting the army,

at least left military service perfectly

free

and open

to

Christians.3 Athanasios, the

‘

father of orthodoxy,’

,

the term.

Sokrates,

Ecckr

Hist

i.

17.

*

Bigelmair

201

;

Harnack

MC

44

f,

87

ff,

91

f

;

De

Jong

28.

a

commnniont.

Possible

meanings

are

(x)

the

obyiows

one,

rrowunllni-

3

I

Cm

Arc2

3

:

De

his

qui

anna

projiciunt

in

pace,

phit

abetinmi

eoa

P

Sumrnay

ad

Conclusion

257

declared

that

it was not only lawful, but praiseworthy,

to

kilI

enemies

in

war

1;

Ambrosius of Milan spoke

similarly,

if

less baldly*

;

while Augustinus defended

the

same position with detailed arguments.3

In

416

A.D.

non-Christians were forbidden to serve

in

the army.4

Historians have not failed

to

notice, and in some

cases to deplore, the immense rompromise

to

which

the Church

was

committed by her alliance with Con-

stantinus. Thus Dean Milman says

:

‘‘

And

so

for the

crating those who lay down

their

arms

in time

of

peace, those who do

so

in

time of war

being

punished by the militaryand

so

not coming under the

the peace to that now existing between Empire and Church (Harnack

Church’s jurisdiction at all (Dale

238

f,

281)

;

(2)

similar, but referring

MC

87

fi)

;

(3)

taking

arma projicere as=arma conjicere in alium, and

charioteers and

Can

5

with actors

(50

Hefele

18bi;

Bigelmair

182

;

and-

referring the

Canon

to the gladiatorial games,

as

Curr

4

deals with

fully and strongly-De long

ZS

ff).

Even on the last interpretation, the

Canon implicitly *its Christians to use weapons in war-time. How

far

the decisions of this Synod were regarded

as

generally binding seems

doubtful (Hefele

182

;

De

Jong

28

n).

Letter

to

Ammatnos

OT

Anwn

(Migne

PG

nxvi.

1173)

:

“We shall

find

in

other thing that happen in life differences

of

a

certain kind

existing.

For

instance, it is not lawful to kill

($OY&LY)

;

but

to

destroy

opponents in

war

is

lawful and worthy

of

praise.

Thus those who

distin-

gr~h themselves in war are counted worthy

,of

great honours, and pillars

are

erectid proclaiming their achievements.

So

that the same

(act)

In one

resped

and

when

unseasonable is

not

lawful, in anolher respect

and

when

seasonable

is

permitted andallowed.”

tells “soldiers

not

to make

a

false

accusation, not to demand

booty,

=

Exposition

uf

S.

L&,

ii.

77

(Xigne

PL

xv.

1580)

:

John

the

Baptist

teaching that

pay

bas been assigned

to

the military for this

purpose.

lest,

whide

snbsistenoe

is

being

sought

for,

a

plunderer

should

be

gomg

about.

But

these and others

are

the precepts

peculiar

to

the several

duties

(of

life),”

but

all

are required to

be

mercifid.

Dr

Ofltiir

Minutyonmr,

I

xuvii.

129

(Migne

PL

mi.

61)

:

“

It

will

be

clear

that

there and other

virtues

are

related to one anol-her.

Thus

for

instance the bravery which

gum&

the

fatherland

in

war

.frnm

the

barbarism

or

defends the

weak

at

home

or

(one’s) allies from

robbem,

is

full

of

justice.” etc.

&fee

PL

uxiii.

186

f,

531

f,

854

f,

xlii.

444

ff.

I

owe these

quota-

tions

(notes

1-3)

to

De

jong

(50-9)

:

d

also,

dor

Augustinus,

Gibb

in

Dmiq~~nrf

.ftk

Mwal

I&,

i.

347.

EritiJb

Quarter&

Rd,

Inxiii.

83;

We~t~m~~ck,

Th

origk

~d

4

C&

TWosianus

XVI

x.

21.

18

250

The

EurEy

Christian Attitude

to

War

first time the meek and peaceful Jesus became a God

of

battle, and the cross, the holy sign of Christian redemp-

tion, a banner of bloody strife.1 This irreconcilable

incongruity between the symbol

of

universal peace

and the horrors

of

war,

in

my judgment, is conclusive

against the miraculous or supernatural character of the

transaction,”

viz.

Constantinus’ vision of the cross.

before the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Milman adds

in a footnote

:

I

was agreeably surprised to find that

Mosheim concurred in these sentiments, for which

I

will

readily. encounter, the charge of Quakerism.’, Then

follows a quotation from Mosheim. The text, above

continues:

‘I

Yet the admission

of

Christianity, not

merely as a controlling power, and the most effective

auxiliary of civil government (an office not unbecoming

its divine origin), but as the animating principle of

,

barbarous warfare, argues at once the commanding

influence which it had obtained over the‘human mind,

Roman armies

;

when the nails of the cross

.

were

at the foot

of

which Roman soldiers

had

once cast lots

for the garment

of

the Jewish misleader

of

the people,

=

op

lit

288.

’

11.

Milman,

Histor).

of

Chn’stia~@y,

ii.

a87.

3

Leckp

ii.

250.

Summry

and

Conclusim

259

to the cross which hovered at the head of the Roman

legions as a military standard.”

1

But while the greatness and importance of this

historic decision are unquestionable, we must

be

careful

not

to imagine that the capitulation of the Church to

the demands of the State was more complete or decisive

than was actually the case. An important piece

of

evidence in this connection

is

the existence of the

various Church-Orders. Without repeating

all

that has

already been said

in

regard to them, it may

be

observed

that ‘The Testament of our Lord,’ which forbids a

soldier to

be

baptized unless he leaves the service, and

forbids a Christian to become

a

soldier

on

pain

of

excommunication, was compiled in Syria or south-

eastern Asia Minor not earlier than the middle of the

fourth century.* The Egyptian Church-Order, which

lays down the same ruling, with the modification that,

if a soldier has been received into membership and

is

commanded

to

kill,

he

is

not to do it, and

if

he

does

he

is

to

be

rejected,

is

usually thought to

belong

to

the

first half of the fourth century.3 The

‘

Hippolytean

Canons,’ in their present form, introduce further relaxa-

tions, but are of very uncertain, probably still later,

date. The Apostolic Constitutions,

in

which the old

stringency

is

really abandoned, are not earlier than the

last quarter

of

the fourth century.4 The existence

of

these Church-Orders

is

conclusive proof that

in

large

sections of the Christian community, the decision taken

by official Christendom,

as

seen

for instance

in

the

’

Bigelmair

8.

’

Cooper

and

Maclean

41-45.

3

See

above,

p.

120.

Even

if

the

Egyptian

Chnrch-Order

be

the

work

of

Hippiutos

himself,

it

wos

cledy

regarded

as

authoritative

long

after

his

date.

4

Maclean

146,

149.

260

Th.e

Earlg

Christian

Ani‘tudc

to

War

Canons

of

the Synod of Arelate,

was

not accepted.3

Testimony

is

borne to the same effect from several

other quarters. ‘The Disputation

of

Arkhelaos

with

Manes,’ a composition belonging probably to the second

quarter of the fourth century, opens with an episode,

one feature of which

is

the rejection of the military

belt

by a large number of soldiers at Carchar in Meso-

potamia, on being converted

to

Christianity through

the generosity

of

a

certain Marcellus, who

ransomed

a

crowd of captives from them.‘ Then

we

have the

martyrdom of Theogenes

in

Phrygia, under Licinius,

for refusing-in the manner of Maximilianus-to allow

himself to

be

enrolled in the legions

3;

the sudden

decision of

the

revered St. Martinus of Tours to leave

the army the day before a battle [he met the taunt

of

towardice by offering to stand unarmed in front of the

ranks)

4

;

the similar step taken later by his friend,

St.

Victricius, afterwards archbishop of Rouen

5

;

the letter

demanded

their

rights

”

E*)

;

’

Bigelmair says,

ii

pro

of

the relamtion

:

“Time and circumstances

Church-Orders of this kind

;

but they clearly exhibit the dispositions

‘‘

No

generally binding force belonged

to

Which prevailed in wide circles”

(173)

:

cf

De

Jong

39.

The

Acfa

Arckclui

are in Routh

v.

36

ff

(esp

pp.

37

f)

;

ET

in

ANCL

XH.

272

ff.

For

the date, cf Harnack

C

il.

163

f

:

we

need

not

without value

”

(MC

84

n,

ME

ii.

63

n

I).

imagine that the story

is

necessarily true,

but,

as

Harnack says,

it

is

“

yet

3

His

Acta

are quoted at length

by

De

Jong

34-38. Baronius

~Man+yroZop’um

Rornammm,

Jan

2,

note e, p-

8)

recod

the martyrdom

of

Marcellinus,

a

youth executed by Licinius,

BS

Baronius

says,

I‘

non

odio

militiae

.

. .

sed

quod

. .

,

Licinins

sues

milites litare praece isset.”

did persecute his

Christian

soldiers. Those

who

left

his

senice

per-

Whether

that

was

the

only

reason in

this

case

we

do

not

know.

Lciniur

ii.

33!;

those who had

left

and

then rejoined were

nalized

by

the

manwtly were treated with indulgence

by

Constantinns

(Eus

Vir

CprrJI

Councd of Nicaea as

‘lapsi’

(Hefele

417

ff;

Iiamsck

$C

91).

4

DCB

iii.

839b

;

De

Jong

4-43.

De

Jong also

draws

attention

(48

to the fact

that

the popularity

of

the Emperor

Julianus

(361-363

A.D~

with

the army

and

the support it

gave

him

in

his reyemion

to

ppganism

presa

pose

a

comparatively

small

proportion

of

in

it.

5

JCB

iv.

Irq&

(‘6

EIe

.

quitted

mid$%

for

m-ence’

sake,

a

desertion which

entailed

such

maltreatment

as

nearly

last

him

his

Summary

and

Conclusion

261

of

St.

Paulinus of Nola (about

400

A.D.),

persuading

a

friend to do the same

L;

the strictures passed by

St

Gregorios, of Nazianzus and by Khrusostomos

(St.

Chrysostom) on the military character

a

;

and lastly the

opinion of St. Basilios the Great that those who had

shed blood in war should abstain from communion for

three years.3 It would carry

us

beyond the scope

of

our subject to

go

further in this direction

;

but enough

has

been

said to show that the decision to which the

leaders and the majority of the Church were committed

by the patronage of Constantinus was very far from

winning the immediate and unanimous assent of

Christendom. It is evident that in many quarters the

settlement was accepted only gradually and with an

uneasy conscience.

It was in the nature

of

the case that this should be

so.

For

the settlement was itself the result, not of any

attempt to solve the ethical problem on its merits, but

of a more

or

less fortuitous combination of circum-

stances. During the period when the conditions of life

in Empire and Church relieved all but a very few

of

the

need

of

making a personal decision, with the result that

the problem in its different bearings dawned on the

Christian mind only fragmentarily and by

slow

degrees

“during that period, I say, the simplemindedness

of

some,

the worldliness

of

others, and the charitable

tolerance-not necessarily the approva1”of the rest,

were already silently determining what the result was

to be. The consequence was

that

when

the

triumph

of

life

”)

;

De

Jong

42-46

(Victricius’

motive,

in

t

at

least,

was

aversion

to

bloodfhed’-arms

sanguinis

abiecistiy

Migw

PL

lxi.

300

E;

De

Jq

47

f.

2

Migne

PC

xsxv.

600s

f,

Iviii.

590

f.

3

Migne

PG

xx~,

681,

262

The

Early

Christian,

Attitude

to

War

Constantinus suddenly called upon the Church to come

down definitely

on

one side of

the

fence or the other,

she found that

a

free decision was no longer open to

her.

Her

joy at the deliverance Constantinus had

wrought for her was

so

great that it put her

off

her

guard. She found herself compelled by the eagerness

with which she had welcomed him, and by her own

immaturity

of

thought and inconsistency of practice, to

make his standards of righteousness

in

certain respects

her own. Henceforth it was out of the question for her

to insist on an ethical view and practice, on which her

own mind was not completely made

up,

and which

her great protector would inevitably regard as dangerous

disloyalty to himself. Official Christianity

was

now

committed to the sanction of war,

so

far as the practical

conduct of Christian men as citizens was concerned, not

only when they were convinced that B)e maintenance of

righteousness demanded war-that in itself would have

been

a

great and fundamental compromise-but in any

cause,

good,

bad,

or

indifferent,

for

which the secular

ruler might wish to fight. Further than that, the

decision not only settled

the

practical question for the

time being and doomed the dissentient voices, many

and firm

as

they still were, to ultimate and inefl'ectual

silence, but

it

tied

up

the freedom

of

Christian thought

and made any unfettered discussion of the problem

on its merits next to impossible for centuries to

come.

The testimony of the early Church

in

regard to the

participation

of

Christians

in

war will naturally vary

very considerably

in

thrstrength of the appeal

it

makes

to different types of Christians to-day. In view of all

that

we

have just

'seen

of pre-Constantinian times and

Summary and

Cmclusion

268

in

view of the subsequent history of Europe, it is

difficult to resist the impression that the! Church took

a

false step when she abandoned her earlier and more

rigorous principles. How far the discovery of that

mistake imposes

upon

Christians in these times the

duty of correcting it-how far even the possibility of

correcting it is still open to them-are questions on

which opinion

will

be sharply divided. It is quite

true

that the Christian Church stands in a very different

position from that in which she stood in the first three

centuries of our era. But

the

question

is,

Is

there any-

thing in that difference,is there anything in our modern

conditions, which really invalidates the testimony against

war as the early Christians bore

it,

and as Origenes

defended it? Not,

we

may answer, the passing away

of the eschatological

outlook,

for the great apologia of

Origenes is as independent of that outlook. as any

modern Christian could wish-not the development of

national life and sentiment, for Christianity lifts the

disciple of Christ above racial divisions and interests

just as truly now, as

it

did then-not laws making

military service compulsory, for the laws of States can

never make right for the Christian what according to

the higher law of the Kingdom of God

is

wrong for him

"not his obligations to society, for these obligations he

already renders

in

overflowing measure by t4e power

and influence of his life and prayers

as

a Christian-

not the breaking forth of high-handed aggression and

tyranny and outrage, for these things were continually

breaking forth in those early

times,

and the Christian

now,

as then, has his own appointed method of curing

them,

a method more radical and effectual than the use

of

arms

and

involving him

in

a full

measure

of

suffering

264

The

Early

Christian

Attitude

to

War

and self-sacrifice-not admiration

for,

or indebtedvess

to, fellow-citizens who have risked

life

and limb in the

struggle for righteousness on the field of battle, for the

right thing for a man to do has to be decided by refer-

ence to his own subjective conditions, and one can fully

esteem and honour the relative good in a sub-christian

course of conduct without being thereby bound to adopt

it oneself-not our inability to discover at once the full

meaning

of

Jesus’

teaching for

our

complicated social

and economic institutions, for such discovery is a

lengthy process,

in

which one forward step at

a

time

has to

be

taken,

and

unless the step is taken on each

issue

as

it

becomes clear,

no

further light

is

to

be

hoped

.

for on the issues that are next to it in order of obscurity

and complexity-not the unreadiness of the rest

of

the

world to become Christian, for the Christian’s work now

as then

is

essentially one that has to

be

done by those

who constitute only a

portion,

for the present a very

small portion, of society-not the unreadiness

of

the

rest of the Church to become pacific, for the individual

Christian with a true message must never wait until the

whole Church agrees with him before he lives

up

to

it

and

declares it, otherwise all promise of spiritual progress

within the Church is gone-not, finally, the offence and

unpopularity which the message evokes

or

the vastness

of

the obstacles that

lie

in its.path, for the best service

Christians have ever done $or the world has been done

under the shadow of the world’s frown and

in

the teeth

of

the world’s opposition. Men

of

very varied opinions

are in agreement tday that the Church

has

failed

:

but

the ChuFch, unlike other religious

bodies,

possesses

in

the

personal example and guidance

of

her

Lord

an

ever ready corrective

to

bring

her

back from

her

akra-

Smzmary

and

Conclusion

265

tions. As Lecky (ii.

9)

tells

us

:

“Amid all the sins

and failings, amid all the priestcraft and persecution

and fanaticism that have defaced the Church, it has

preserved, in the character and example of its Founder,

an enduring principle

of

regeneration.” We can

in

fact measure ‘the value

of

all

the great reformative

movements of Christendom

-

Franciscan,

..

Lutheran,

Puritan, Methodist, and

so

on-by the extent to

which they embodied attempts to bring* human life

and conduct into closer conformity to the spirit and

teaching of Jesus

;

and conversely,

we

can measure

the unworthiness and harmfulness

of

the Church‘s

failures,

for

instance, the tone of her many con-

troversies, and the great stain

of

persecution, by

the extent

to

which they involved departure from the

same spirit and teaching.

Of

those who accuse the

Church

of

failure many will none the less still keep

their faith in her and their hope for her

;

and of these

again some will know clearly in which direction lies the

way

of

amendment. It is for them to

pass

on to the

world in its confusion and to the Church in her per-

plexity the knowledge that the true remedy for the

most crying and scandalous evil of our time-an evil

beneath which the whole human race

is

groaning and

suffering-lies in a new and closer application to

thought and life of the teaching of the Prince of

Peace.

“

LORD,

TO

WHOM

SIfALL WE

GO

?

THOU

HAST

THE

WORDS

OF

ETERNAL

LIFE.”

INDEX

Achatius,

202,

ZIO

Acfs

of

Yohn,

51,

196,

226

Acts

of

Pout,

164,

180

f

Acts

of

Peter,

164

Acts

of

Thomas,

93, 166

‘

Adamantios

’

(DbZo,fus

1

Rata

Fidcz],

63, 176f,

IF,

ZIS-ZZO

‘

Alternative Service’

of

Christ-

ians,

103,

117,

134-136, 142f

Amantius,

see

Getulius

Ambrosius

of

Milan,

257

Ampelius,

236

Ananias and Sappheira,

221

Apocalyptic Wars,

35, 179-184

(see

aZso

Jewish War

of 67-71

A.D.)

Apolinarios

of

Hierapolis,

229-231

Apollonius, martyr,

77

f,

196

ApostoZic

Constitutions,

125,

155,

Arciate

(or

Arks),

Cajwns

of,

157,

Aristeides,

50,

73

Arkhelam,

Disputatiojt

OJ

with

Manes,

260

Armenians, fight against

Dm,

241

Arnobias,

Adversus

Natwnes,

54

f,

259

2$6f,

260

65

f,

83,157, 167, 197,

202,

=of,

246

Athanasios,

St.,

246,

256

f

Athenagoras,

50,

64, 75

f,

rq,

196,

Auptjnus,

St.,

129, 257

Aurelins. Marcus,

sec

Marcus

I97fa

214,

223

I

Backhouse and Tyler,

Ear&

Church

Hishy,

8,223

Bacon,

B.

W.,

39

BarMyrae,

Jean,

6,

139

Barclay, Robert,

6

Bardesanic

3mk

of

the

Laws

of

th

‘

Barnabas,’ the so-called ‘Epistle

Ballou, Adin,

8

Basileides

of

Alexandria,

226,

233

Basilios.

St.,

261

Be=

of

Alexandria,

227,

237

Bestmann,

H.

J.,

214,

222,

254

Bethune-Baker,

J.

F.,

The

InfEorcncc

of

Christianity

on

War,

9,

22.

Countries,

the,

52,

64

f,

79

of,’

71,

172,

185

23, 42,

99,

102

f,

104,

107,

114-

116, 119,

125,

138,

151,

172,235,

252

f,

254

Bigelmair,

A.,

IO,

17,

24, 98, 116,

127,

131, 139, 146,

1.50,

214,222

230,

239,

240,

2501

253f~ 256-

260

Bia,

C.,

249

Brace, Loring,

Gcsfa

Chrid,

8

Bushnell,

Horace,

35,

197

Calov,

J.

G.,

6f

Carlyle,

A.

J.,

ZII

Zasuistry,

~f,

116

f

ksianus,

martyr,

153

2elsus,

104,

125,

129ff,

175,

185,

215,

2311

2453

256

Centurion

of

Capernaum,

33,

112,

226, 228. 252

Chrysostom,

St.,

261

Clarkson, Thos.,

7

Clemens of Alexandria, 5ondemns

war,

51

;

eulogizes peace,

64,106

;

story

of

John and the Robber,

71

f

;

on treatment

of

wrong-

doers,

78, 223;

on persecution,

92

f;

use

of nlilitary analogies,

165

;

on

Old

Testament wars,

174;

recognition of war,

205

f;

permissibility

of

military service

for

Christians,

232

f

Clemens of Rome,

59, 71, 163f,

172, 191,

1g6,

205

:

his so-called

Second

Epistb,

74

Clcmentine

Honrilies

and

h'ecog-

nitbas,

etc.,

53

f,

65, 83: 167,

197,202,

208,

216-21$,

224,227

Codradus, martyr,

167

Commodianus,

53, 65,

82,

167

Constantinus,

192, 197, 203,

208

f,

Constantius,

149,

225,

238, 243

Cornelius, centurion

of

Caesarea,

225,

241-243,

256-262

17,

581

971

112,

1789

222,

2%

226-228,

252

Crucifixion

of

Jesus,

28,

38, 41,

226,

228

Cunningham, Wm.,

Christianity

andPoZith,

9, 13,

57

f,

gg, 107,

1159

12.5,

138

f,

255

Cyprianus

of

Carthago, condemns

war,

52

f;

commends patience,

65;

on forgiven-

of

wrongs,

81

f

;

his probable attitude

to

military service,

147

f,

150, 168,

246, 256

;

his martyrdom,

93,

227

;

miscellaneons,

119,

151,

157.

167

f,

I77f,

182,

192,

196,

202,

208,

210,

237

Dale,

A.

W.

W.,

156

f,

257

Dasius, soldier-martyr,

240

Daza, Maximinus,

95,

208

f,

241

Defence

of

others,

84-X9

De Jong,

K.

H.

E.,

11,

17, 116,

1407

'5p2

2391 242,

2139

250,

256f,

z60f

mnntios

'

Dialopu

de

Rdu

Fidei,

see

'

Ada-

Dickens,

Chas.,

LitfIt

Dorrit,

Didache, the,

7of

Didaskalia, the,

53, 82f,

95,

155,

Dlocletianus, his reign and persecu-

quoted,

57

167,

181,

rSg, 223, 227

tion.

94f, 149, 153

f,

169, 192,

224, 238-243

Diog~etos, Episfle

to,

73

Dion, .-proconsul of

Africa,

set

Dionusios of Alexandria,

93,

167,

Dymond, Jonathan,

7

f

Egnatius,

sce

Laurentinus

Egyptian Church-Order, the,

120-

Maximilianus

197, 227, 237

125. 259

Eirenaios, on the

'

ploughshare

'

prophecy,

61

f; on love

for

enemies,

76

f,

106

;

on the mili-

tary triumph of Christ,

164 f

;

on

Old Testament wars,

174;

on

war as a divine judgment,

191

;

on

the

divine origin of magistracy

and the state,

198f,

212;

his

recognition

of

war,

205

;

miscel-

laneous,

60,

1g6

Elkesai,

Book

of,

180

Elvira,

see

Illiberis

Epiphanios,

2q0

Eschatology, as decting

early

Christian view

of

war,

44-46,

140

f,

250,

263

(scc

also

Apocalyp

tic

Wars]

Ethics, Christian,

I

ff

Eusebios

of

Caesarea,

56f, 63

f,

209,

224, zpf, 238f

(references

to

merely narrative

passages

in

the

'

Church History' are not

included

here)

Nf,

167,

19,

192,

196,

204.

Eusebios

of

Laodicea,

227

Fabius Victor, father

of

Maxi-

Ferreolus, soldier-martyr,

240

Forsyth,

P.

T.,

The

Chr.is#ian

Ethic

of

Ww,

5,

115,

191

Fremantle, Canon

W.

H.,

8

,

Fructuosus, martyr,

94,

167

Galerius (sometimes called Masi-

Gallienus,

238

Gass,

W.,

115

GetuIius and Amantius,

106

f,

240

f

Gibb,

J.,

8.

257

Gibbon, Edward,

Derline

and

FalZ,

Gore, Bishop,

23

f

Grane,

W.

L.,

IZ

Gregwios of Nazianzus,

261

Grqorios

Thaumatourgos,

53,

227

Grotius,

Hugo,

De

Jure

Belli

ac

Guignebert, Chas.,

g

f,

104,

116,

Guizot,

138

Gwatkin,

H.

M.,

141-143,

151

Hadrimus,

Imf,

195,

229

Halliday,

J.

A.,

44

Hardy,

E.

G.,

92

Hamack, Adolf,

Miciria

Ckris)i,

I

16,

I

I%,

123,127

f,

154

152-154,

162,

165-167,169, 173,175.

I%,

milianus,

150.

238

UIUS)P

959

149.

238f9 243

7,

92,

138,

15ef

Paci~.

6,

127, 138

139,

151,

m5

loft

13. 17,

3%

521 971

1%

1149

€93f,

m53

2071

-*

22%

2311

233,

93544313.

2495

254-"579

260

;

Mirsion

and

Expannbn

of

ChrislianiCy,

IO,

17, 92, 97,

103f,

23.5,

237-2413

250,

254,

260

Hebrews,

Epistle

to

the,

59, 171

f

Hefele,

102,

104,

156,

257

Herrmann, Wilhelm,

44-46

Hermas,

The

Shepherdof,

73

f,

214,

250

Hippolutos, condemns war,

52

;

on

the peacefulness

of

Christians,

64;

his

book

of Church

regula-

tions and its bearing on miiitary

service and magistracy,

11g-128,

155,

246,

z#

;

on the JewishWar

of

70

A.D.,

186

;

miscellaneous,

166,

174, 181. I95f

'

Ilippolytean Canons,'

I

rg-r28,n59

Hirst,

F.

W.,

I

Holtzmann,

H.

J.,

42, 99

Idolatry, in the army, etc.,

105,

108,

III

f,

114 f,

131,

141, 149,

151-1549

156,

23s-240,

245

f,

247

f

133,

144,

152, 167,

209,

229,z31,

Ignatius,

60,

72 f,

92.

163 f

rlzibrrir

(or

Bhira)

,

Catwns

4,

I

56,

Inscriptions,

101,

236 f

Irenaeus,

5re

Eirenaios

Isaiah,

The

Visimoj;

49f, 179

James,

son

of Zebedee, his martyr-

James, Epistle of,

49,

69,

171

Jewish.War

of

67-71

A.D.,

29

f,

98

f,

1114-19,

193

f,

248

Ioh

the

Baptist,

27, 32

f,

88,

9,

1x2,

125, 174,

225

f,

228,

234,

25"

225,

25%

dom,

go,

226,

22s

John and the Robber,

71

f,

85

f

lulianus,

Emperor,

260

lulius

the

centurion,

a26

lulius, soldier-martyr,

240

270

Julius

Mricanus,

206

f,

232

Justinus, conderhns war,

50;

or

peace,

&J

f; on love for enemies.

74

f,

102

f;

use

of

military

analogy,

164

;

on Old Testament

wars,

172;

on the wars

of

the

future,

I&;

on the Jewish War

of

67-71

A.D.,

185;

on state.

coercion,

197;

asks

Emperor to

punish pseudo-Christians,

223

Karpos,

mar-,

50,

92

Lactantius, condemns war,

55

f;

on

the Christian treatment

of

wrong-

doers,

83

f; on the outrages

of

soldiers,

95

;

on the illegitimacy

of

military service for Christ-

ians,

158-160,

168, 246, 256;

on

apocalyptic wars,

182;

on the

Jewish War

of

67-71

A.D.,

189

f

;

on the coercion

of

crime,

202-204,

223

;

recognition

of

war,

208

f;

miscellaneous,

127, 167

f,

178,

192,

I+

f (merely narrative pas-

sages

from

De

mortibus

Pcrsecn-

tmm

are

not

included here)

Hurentinusand Egnatius,

147,151,

237

Law-courts, Christian

view

and

use

of,

67,

81

f,

108,

III,

19-

248,

255

Le

Blant,

8

Lecky,

W.

E.

H.,

Hirtory

of

Euro-

pean

MoraZs,

8,66,

144,

151,258,

1.57, I59

f,

197-204,

222-225,

265

Licinius, 192,

2~4,

209,

241

f,

260

Lightfoot,

J.

B.,

IOI,

230

Lucianus,

martyr,

66

Lugdunurn,

mnrtyrs

of,

gz

Luke,

163,

r79,

185,

zz8

Luthnrdt,

C.

E.,

23

LOiSg,

42

Magee, Bishop,

23

f

Marcellus, soldier-martyr,

I

52

f,

Marcianus and Nicander, soldier-

Marcus Aurelius and his times,

17,

Marcus Aurelius Prosenes,

236

Marianus and Jacobus, martyrs,

93

f,

Marinus, soldier-martyr,

151

f,

Marius, supposed soldier

of

time

of

Markion and

his

School,

173

f,

Martineau, James,

252

Martinus

of

Tours,

St.,

260

Maxentius,

95, 209, 241

Maximianus,

149, 153, 238f

Masimilianus,

148-151, 238,

260

Maximinus,

see

Daza

Maximus,

scc

Galerius

.

Mercier,

Dr.

Chs.,

24

f

Methodios,

54,

66,

202,

ZOS

Military Service, conditions

of,

in

the:Rornan Empire,

16

f,

20,

247

Milman, Dean

H.

H.,

115,

257

f

Milvian Bridge,

241,

258

Minucius Felix,

128,

166,

177,

Montanism and Montanists,

118

f,

Montanus and Lucius,

martyrs,

93.

Mosaic

Law,

PI

f,

25,

29,

40,

80

f,

log,

111,

129

f,

137

f,

176

f,

218-220,

132

167.

239

martyrs,

240

92,

105,

229-2313

24.59

251

167

238

Hadrimus,

100

f

181,

186,

191

f,

218-220

186

f,

196

151.

181

I6t

Mosheim,

258

Mullinger,

J.

E.,

8,

roo

Murder,

21,57,

214

Xereus

and

Achilleus,

-tgrs*

I53f,

ylo

271

Ncumann,

IC.

J.,

9, 17, 140, 146,

Nicomedia, Churchat, sacked,

94

Non-resistance teaching

of

the

Sermon on the Mount,

22-25

;

early

Christian view

of,

67,

I

15,

2339 236

220,

244

f

Novatianus,

De

Speclaadis,

175

Onslow,

P.,

8

Origenes, deprecates military life,

52

;

on the

'

ploughshare

'

pro-

phecy,

63

;

on non-resistance and

gentleness,

79-81

;on persecution,

92

f

;

on

the Christian refusal

of

military service and public office,

263

;

military analogies and view

of

Old Testament wars,

165

f,

175

f

;

on the Jewish War

of

67-

71

A.D.,

187

f;

on the function

of

human law,

200

f;

on

the

relative justification

of

war,

207

f,

214,

246;

on prayer

for

the im-

perial armies,

210,

223

;

on the

assassination

of

tyrants,

214;

on

the functions

of

executioners,

215

f;

miscellaneous,

104,

115,

1171

119, 127

f,

r49, 192,

196,

227

129-147,

223

f,

246,

254,

256,

Pachomius,

-I

Pastoral Epistles,

49,

69,

162,

1g6

Paul,

the

Apostle,

24,

49,

58

f,

68

f,

85,

90,

97,

161

ff,

171,

ISO,

I95

f,

197,

211

a,

221

f,

226,

2~

f,

250,

252;

apocryphal

martyrdom

of,

see

Rcfs

of

Pal

Paul

of

Samosata,

2%

Paulinus

of

Noh,

St.,

261

Peace,

Christian

view

of,

58-66

Perpet-

226

f,

2%

Pctu

(First),

Epistle

of,

6g

f,

196f

,,

Gospel

of,

185

Peter, apocryphal martyrdom

of,

sa

.

Acfs

of

Pefcr

Philippi, gaoler

of,

17.

97,'

222,

Philoromos,

155

f,

225

Phokas,

martyr,

100

Phrygia,

town burnt,

95,

225

Pionios, martyr,

93,

189

Plinius and the Christians

of

Bithy-

Plotinus,

148

f

Polueuktes, martyr,

237

Polukarpos,

73,92,

1g6

Pontius,

Laye

of

Cyprinrts,

93, 167,

Potamiaina,

226

Prayer

for

armies,

134

f,

142,

zog-

211, 223

Pseudo-Cyprianus,ddvcrsrs~~s,

63, 178,

189

;

De

Pascha

Conr-

padus,

166, 187

;

Quodldoia

Dii

non

sint,

189, 197

;

De

Red@-

fisnafe,

167

Pseudo-Justinus,

AaZres~

to

the

Grccks,

51,

65,

106;

Cohtatw,

53

226,

228

nia,

58,

88,

9

227

Pseudo-Meliton,

64,

200

Public office,

103,

IC%-108,

IIZ,

1171128,134~ 136

f~Ij9,

19-157,

223-225

Pudens,

226

f,

233

f

Quakerism,

6-8,

13,

258

'

Quattuor Coronati,'

240

Quirinus, martyr,

167

Ramsay,

W.

M.,

115,

119,

127,

Relativity

of

morality to

subjective

conditions

('

relative justifica-

tion'),

14

f,

137f, 213

ff,

264

233, 236

f

Ruinart,

150

Shell,

42

Schmidt,

C.,

8'

,

I

272

Index

Scilli, martyrs

of,

76, 195

Scullard,

H. H.,

116,

167, 197

Sebaste, Forty Martyrs

of,

242

Seeley,

J.

R.,

Eccc

Homo,

27,

33,

Seleukos, soIdier-martyr,

153,

QO

Sergius Paulus,

97

f,

226,

228,

252

Shakespeare, quoted,

254

Sibulline Oracles,

185

Slavery,

19

Sonnenschein,

E.

A,

31

Swords, the Two,

39f

Symphorosa,

101,241

Tarakhos,

94.

153,

240

Tatianus,

50,

103

Temple

of

Jerusalem,

20,

27,

34

f,

Temptation

of

Jesus,

26

f,

40

Tertullianus, cpndemns war,

51

f;

on the

‘

ploughshare

’

prophecy,

62

f;

on

the peacefulness.

of

Christianity,

64;

on love

of

enemies,

78

f;

on persecntion,

93

f;

on Christians in

military

service,

106,

10g.

113,

115

f,

174, 234-236,

24%

255

f;

on

the Christian

refusal

of

military

service,

106-119,

~q5,

29,256;

use

of

military analogies,

165;

on

Old

Testament wars,

174;

on

apocalyptic

weus,

I&,

183;

on

the Jewish War

of

67-71

A.D.,

185

f;

on war

ns

a punishment,

191

f;

on state-coercion,

199

f;

3s

Stad,

W.

T.,

143

f

247

recognition

of

WBT,

6;

on

prayer

for

armies,

aro

;

on

the

Christian

disuse

of

law-courts,

223;

on the ‘Thundering

Le-

gion,’

230,

234

;

miscellaneous,

23,

84,

128

f,

138,

140, 148,

Testame&

UUY

Lord,

the,

120-

Thebaic Legion, the,

239

Theodorus

of

Tyre, martyr.240

Thdosian Code,

257

Tkeado(os,

Excerptsfrom,

14

181

Theogenes, martyr,

260

Theophilos

of

Antioch,

76,

185.

Thomas,

J.

31.

Lloyd.

31

‘Thundering Legion,’ the,

105,

Tolstoi, Leo,

44

Trajanus and his time,

99

f,

180,

Troeltsch, Ernst,

12,

25

f,

rrg,

Typasius,

153,

167, 239

Veturius,

238

I

Victorinus,

178, 182

Victricius,

260

156,

173, 177,

196C

220,

246

126,

259

191,

196,

198

229-231

229

1419

1441

-93

250

Weinel,

H.,

12,

141,

196,

205

Westcott,

B.

F.,

166

Westermarck,

E.,

11,

243,

257

Wilson,

W.

E.,

12

Wrath

(of

God),

35-37,

188,

1g6

f

F

A

NEW SERIES EDITED

BY

NATHANIEL

NICKLEX.

EDITORIAL FOREWORD.

HRISTIANITY

means Revolution though

not

by

force and blood. “These that have

turned the world upside down

”

was first said

f

the followers of Christ in ancient Salonica

It must

be

said of them again in every land.

These are days of change and revolution, and a

new

age

dawns. Humanity stands at the parting

of

the ways-for life or death. These books are written

under the persuasion that only a religious solution is

adequate to the world’s need, and that only upon the

principles for which Jesus of Nazareth stands in

history can the world

be

fashioned to heart’s desire.

For the world’s problem lies in lack of fellowship.

How shall man

be

made at one with man, class with

class, nation with nation, and all men with God

?

It

will here

be

contended that this problem is one,

and that Jesus is the key to it. The meaning of

religion lies in what Jesus was Himself, and

its

end is

that men should

be

like Him. Such a Christianity

is revolutionary because

it

involves a complete change

in the standard of values whereby men live, and

therefore alone has in it the power

of

a new heaven

and a new earth wherein shall dwell righteousness

and brotherhood.

This

series

is the work

of

a company of friends,

who, while speaking for themselves individually, yet

find themselves at one in a firm and

growing

con-

viction

upon

these serious matters. They send forth

these

books

in

the hope that

in

some small measure

they may further human fellowship and

true

religion.

For

lisr

of

books

dredy

orrongcd

see

owedeaf.

Ready

Pricr

y.

6d.

I.

LAY

RELIGION.

B~

HENRY

rr.

HODCKIN,

M.A.,

M.B.

In

thir work the answer of the Christian Religion to the fundamental

demands of human nature

in

ret forth in

a

aimple

rton-theologicsl way.

Price

p.

od.

2.

RECONCILIATION AND REALITY.

By

W.

FEARON

relation

to

the Moral Order and

a8

an

cxphnation

of

permnsl

HNLIDAY,

MA.

A

rentatement

of

the

doctrine

of

the Atonement in

meaning of life.

Price

101.

66.

3.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TO

WAR.

A

contribution to the hietory

of

Chriatian

ethica.

By

C.

J.

CAW^

M.A.,

D.D.

With

a

Foreword

by

the

Rev.

W.

E.

Orchard,

D.D.

Read'

wfpril.

Price

qr.

6d.

I

4.

FAITH AND REALITY.

By

NATHANIEL MICKLEM,

M.A.

.

Rea49

Xay

.

5.

THE WAY

TO

PERSONALITY.

By

GEORGE

ROBSON.

An

introduction

to

Christian~ty

as

the meaning oflife,

example of Jesus, the greatest peraonalit7. can

i+rc

the live8

of

men and

3rd Edition. An examination

of

the

extent in which the teaching

and

women to-dap.

.To

br

Ready

during

tbr

Summrr

of

1919.

6.

THE

CHRISTIAN IDEAL.

By

W.

E.

WILSON,

B.D.

7.

THE MESSAGE

OF

PAUL

TO

THE PRESENT

DAY.

8.

JESUS THE WAY

OF

LIFE.

By

JOHN

R.

COATES,

B.A.

9.

THESE THINGS

SHALL

BE.

By

GEORGE LANSBURY.

IO.

CHRIST AND CBSAR.

By

NATHANIEL MICKLEM, M.A.,

By

-P%OFE~~O.

C.

H.

DODD,

M.A.

and

HERBLRT

MORGAN,

M.A.

It

is

Aped

that

tbe

f&ing

boo&

will

BIIO

appw

umwgxt

ohfrrr

in

dw

comrw.

THE ETERNAL ELEMENT

IN

THE

OLD

TESTAMENT.

THE REMNANT.

By

PROF.

RUFUS

JONES,

D-Litr.,

of

Hnverford.

CHRISTIANITY AND COMPROMISE.

By

NORMAN

'

By

PMr.

BRNK6T

DAVE*,

MA.,

Of Relfut

RO~INK~,

M.A.

HEADLEY

BROS.

PUBLISHERS,

LTD.,

72,

OXFORD

STREET,

LONDON,

W.1.

Livros Grátis
( http://www.livrosgratis.com.br )
 
Milhares de Livros para Download:
 
Baixar livros de Administração
Baixar livros de Agronomia
Baixar livros de Arquitetura
Baixar livros de Artes
Baixar livros de Astronomia
Baixar livros de Biologia Geral
Baixar livros de Ciência da Computação
Baixar livros de Ciência da Informação
Baixar livros de Ciência Política
Baixar livros de Ciências da Saúde
Baixar livros de Comunicação
Baixar livros do Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE
Baixar livros de Defesa civil
Baixar livros de Direito
Baixar livros de Direitos humanos
Baixar livros de Economia
Baixar livros de Economia Doméstica
Baixar livros de Educação
Baixar livros de Educação - Trânsito
Baixar livros de Educação Física
Baixar livros de Engenharia Aeroespacial
Baixar livros de Farmácia
Baixar livros de Filosofia
Baixar livros de Física
Baixar livros de Geociências
Baixar livros de Geografia
Baixar livros de História
Baixar livros de Línguas

Baixar livros de Literatura
Baixar livros de Literatura de Cordel
Baixar livros de Literatura Infantil
Baixar livros de Matemática
Baixar livros de Medicina
Baixar livros de Medicina Veterinária
Baixar livros de Meio Ambiente
Baixar livros de Meteorologia
Baixar Monografias e TCC
Baixar livros Multidisciplinar
Baixar livros de Música
Baixar livros de Psicologia
Baixar livros de Química
Baixar livros de Saúde Coletiva
Baixar livros de Serviço Social
Baixar livros de Sociologia
Baixar livros de Teologia
Baixar livros de Trabalho
Baixar livros de Turismo
 
 