Before quitting this section of our subject, a few general remarks may be offered in regard to the status and condition of these Christian soldiers. To begin with, we know that, at the time when 'De Idololatria' (198–203 A.D.) and 'De Corona' (211 A.D.) were written, there were some Christians in the army, who had enlisted after their conversion.1 These are the earliest pieces of positive evidence we have on this point, the more normal case in earlier times having unquestionably been that of the man who was converted when already a soldier. We do not know the exact extent of the compromises which the Christian soldier had to make. Abstention from bloodshed on the field of battle or in the administration of civil justice or military discipline-not to mention refusal to inflict imprisonment and corporal penalties (scourging, torture, and crucifixion)-was of course impossible. Some considerable sacrifice of scruple in the matter of contact with idolatry must also have been necessary, though how far this went we cannot say. It has been suggested that the soldier discussed in 'De Corona' acted as he did, in order to secure for his Christian comrades in the army the same exemption from the semiidolatrous garland that was enjoyed by the adherents of Mithras.3 We shall see presently that the propriety of the position of these Christians in the army was far from being universally taken for granted in the Church, and that attempts had to be made by them to defend it in the eyes of their fellow-Christians.

CHRISTIANS REFUSE MILITARY SERVICE.—Within the period 180-250 A.D., only Tertullianus, the Canons of Hippolytus,' and Origenes actually handle the concrete question of Christians refusing to serve in the Roman armies; but, in order to appreciate their utterances, it is necessary to see them against their proper background. This latter is given by a number

really was at this time a Church-police equipped with military weapons is very doubtful.

Tert. Idol. 19 (i. 101) ('At nunc de isto quaeritur, an fidelis ad militiam converti possit, et an militia ad fidem admitti': before such a question could be asked, instances of the disputed practice must have occurred), Cor. 11 (i. 444) (‘Ipsum de castris lucis in castra tenebrarum nomen deferre transgressio est. Plane, si quos militia praeventos fides posterior invenit, alia conditio est, ut illorum quos Joannes admittebat ad lavacrum,' etc.: clearly these latter were not the only cases that Tertullianus had to deal with, i.e. there were some who-as the previous sentence indicates-had gone into the army after conversion).

2 Guignebert 197 (" Je suis porté à croire que les chrétiens soldats avaient ordinairement la conscience plus souple que ne le laisserait supposer la lecture des Pères et des Actes des Martyrs, qu'ils savaient faire de larges concessions aux exigences de leur métier," etc.); Harnack ME ii. 53. MC 67 (3).

3 Harnack ME i. 418 n, ii. 56 n 2, MC 67f (8). 4 See also above, p. 421 n I.

of passages, all pointing to the positive refusal of service as their logical implication, but none of them stating it in so many words. The common element in these passages is an ardent sense of the righteousness of peace and the guiltiness of bloodshed. Thus Irenæus several times refers to the prohibition of killing.1 He also refers to the great 'ploughshare prophecy' of Isaiah and Micah, and argues that it must apply to Christianity. "If," he says, "the law of liberty, that is, the Word of God, proclaimed to the whole earth by the apostles, who went out from Jerusalem, has made such a change that (the nations) themselves have made their warlike lances and swords into ploughs and changed (them) into sickles which He gave for reaping corn, into peaceful instruments, and now do not know how to fight, but when struck offer even the other cheek, the prophets did not say this of any one else, but of him who accomplished it."2 Tertullianus, after sportively threatening the pagans with a Christian revolt, sets their fears at rest by saying that there was no chance of it, as, according to the teaching the Christians received, it would be their duty to be killed sooner than to kill. He displays his own attitude to military life, when he confesses, in the person of his 'pallium,' that he is "no barking pleader, no judge, no soldier." Clemens, besides his various utterances about peacefulness already quoted, says: "We do not train women like Amazons to be manly in war, since we wish even

4

1 Iren. II. xxxii. 1 (i. 372), IV. xiii. 1 (ii. 181), Demonstr. 96 (147). Cf. P. Scill. 7 (Speratus dixit: Mala est persuasio homicidium facere).

2 Iren. iv. xxxiv. 4 (ii. 272): for the Latin, see above, p. 402 n 5 (Isa ii. 3f; Micah iv. 2f). In view of these passages in Irenæus, I wonder whether it is correct to say: "There is nothing in his pages any more than in Justin's to betray the least consciousness that war as a function of the State seriously presented a problem to the conscience of the Church" (Moffatt in DAC ii. 662a).

"

3 Tert. Apol. 37 (i. 251): Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur, si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret, quam occidere? An inaccurate version of this passage appears in B.-Baker ICW 23: "Tell me a war for which we have not been useful and ready, even when inferior in numbers; ready to be cut down, as none would be whose tenets were not that it is more lawful to be killed than to kill;" and it is quoted as showing that the chief thing by which they" (Christian soldiers in the Roman armies) were distinguished from their Pagan comrades-so far as concerned their action in the fieldwas their greater readiness to encounter death, in proportion as they had received a more excellent hope for the future." It will be noticed that Tertullianus says nothing whatever about any more excellent hope": he says that Christians thought it more right to be slain than to slay. What use, from the military point of view, would soldiers with these convictions have been to the Roman generals? Yet Prof. B.-Baker's mistranslation is cheerfully copied, without verification or amendment, by Cunningham (251f), who confesses his indebtedness to ICW" for many references."

4 Tert. Pall. 5 (i. 950): caussas non elatro, non judico, non milito, non regno, secessi a populo, etc.

the men to be peaceable." 1 The Bardesanic Book of the Laws of the Countries' seems to be referring to war when it says that the planet Mars does not "overpower the freedom of the Seres, and compel a man to shed the blood of his fellow with an iron weapon," the Seres having a law forbidding to kill.2 Minucius Felix says: "It is not right for us either to see or hear a man being killed; and so careful are we to abstain from human blood, that we do not even touch the blood of eatable animals in (our) food." 3 Origenes, however, is the most clear and definite on the subject. After pointing out how God had providentially prepared the nations for the Gospel by means of the imperial Pax Romana, in place of the incessant wars that had preceded it, he goes on: "How would it have been possible for this pacific teaching, which does not even allow (men) to take vengeance on (their) enemies, to prevail, unless at the appearance of Jesus the world's affairs had changed everywhere into a milder state?" 4 Later, "if a revolt had been the cause of the Christians' combining, and if they had derived their origin from the Jews, to whom it was allowed to take arms on behalf of the (ir) families (oikeior) 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 against a man (TÒ KаT' ȧνOρúπоv Tóλμnua) on the part of his own disciples, however unrighteous that (man) may be, is never right for he did not deem it becoming to his own Divine legislation to allow the killing of any man whatever.” 5 "To those who ask us whence we have come, and who is our 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 the ancestral (customs) in which we were strangers to the covenants." Lastly, Cyprianus remarks: 1 Cl. Strom. IV. viii. 61: οὐ γάρ τινας ̓Αμαζόνας τὰ πολεμικὰ ἀνδρείας ἀσκοῦμεν τὰς γυναῖκας, ὅπου γε καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας εἰρηνικοὺς εἶναι βουλόμεθα. 3 Minuc. xxx. 6.

2 ANCL xxiib. 101; cf. 102f.

4

Orig. Cels. ii. 30 : πῶς οὖν οἷόν τε ἦν τὴν εἰρηνικὴν ταύτην διδασκαλίαν καὶ μηδὲ ἐχθροὺς ἐπιτρέπουσαν ἀμύνεσθαι κρατῆσαι, εἰ μὴ τὰ τῆς οἰκουμένης τῇ ̓Ιησοῦ ἐπιδημίᾳ μετεβέβλητο πανταχοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ἡμερώτερον; Some preceding sentences from the same chapter will be found quoted above, p. 415 n I.

5

Orig. Cels. iii. 7 ; cf. 8 (περὶ δὲ Χριστιανῶν, ἐπεὶ διδαχθέντες μὴ ἀμύνασθαι τοὺς πολεμίους ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἡμερον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον νομοθεσίαν, κτλ.). Cf. also the important passage to the same effect (vii. 26) quoted above, p. 385 n 2.

6

Orig. Cels. v. 33: καί φαμεν γὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἐρομένους ἡμᾶς, πόθεν ἥκομεν ἢ τίνα ἔχομεν ἀρχηγέτην, ὅτι ἤλθομεν κατὰ τὰς Ἰησοῦ ὑποθήκας συγκόψαι τὰς πολεμικὰς ἡμῶν

"God wished iron to be (used) for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore acts of homicide ought not to be committed (with it)." 1

Coming now to the definite objection of Christians to serving in the legions, and taking the evidence of Tertullianus first, we find two passages in his writings in which the subject is handled. The first of these is in 'De Idololatria,' written while the author was still a loyal Catholic. After concluding the chapter in which he has dealt with the idolatrous character of the garb of officials generally, he takes up the question whether a Christian may enter the army, or a soldier be admitted to the ranks of the faithful. Is not this possible at least for the common soldier and the lower ranks of officers, who are free from the necessity of sacrificing and passing death-sentences? He answers 'no'; for "there is no congruity between the Divine and the human sacramentum,' the sign of Christ and the sign of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness: one soul cannot be owed to two, God and Cæsar." He refuses to treat the appeal to Scripture-precedents as serious. How shall he wage war, nay, how shall he even be a soldier in peace-time, without the sword which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had come to John and received the form of their rule, although even a centurion had believed, the Lord afterwards, in disarming Peter, ungirded every soldier." 2 The second passage is in 'De Corona,' written in 211 A.D., after the author had become a Montanist. He is arguing about the impropriety of Christian soldiers wearing garlands, and he touches on the prior question whether a Christian ought to be a soldier at all. Again, it is the impossibility of dual allegiance that determines his verdict. The military oath asks too much of a man who owes his allegiance

λογικὰς μαχαίρας” καὶ ὑβριστικὰς “ εἰς ἄροτρα” καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸ πρότερον ἡμῶν μάχιμον “ζιβύνας εἰς δρέπανα ” μετασκευάζομεν. οὐκέτι γὰρ λαμβάνομεν “ ἐπ ̓ ἔθνος μάχαιραν" οὐδὲ μανθάνομεν “ ἔτι πολεμεῖν, γενόμενοι διὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν υἱοὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, ὅς ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀρχηγὸς, ἀντὶ τῶν πατρίων, ἐν οἷς ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν ἐτυγχάνομεν, κτλ. (Isa ii. 4).

1

1 Cypr. Hab. Virg. 11 ferrum esse ad culturam terrae Deus uoluit, nec homicidia sunt idcirco facienda.

2 Tert. Idol. 19 (i. 101f): Possit in isto capitulo etiam de militia definitum videri, quae inter dignitatem et potestatem est. At nunc de isto quaeritur, an fidelis ad militiam converti possit, et an militia ad fidem admitti, etiam caligata, vel inferior quaeque, cui non sit necessitas immolationum vel capitalium judiciorum. Non convenit sacramento divino et humano, signo Christi et signo diaboli, castris lucis et castris tenebrarum ; non potest una anima duobus deberi, Deo et Caesari. (Then follows the passage quoted above, p. 407 n 2). Quomodo autem bellabit, immo quomodo etiam in pace militabit sine gladio, quem Dominus abstulit? Nam etsi adierant milites ad Iohannem et formam observationis acceperant, si etiam centurio crediderat, omnem postea militem Dominus, in Petro exarmando, discinxit. Nullus habitus licitus est apud nos illicito actui adscriptus.

to Christ. "Is it right to occupy oneself with the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall 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 imprisonment and torture and executions?" Then follows a number of rhetorical antitheses between Christian and military duties; and Tertullianus goes on: "The very act of transferring one's name from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a transgression. Of course, the case is different, if the faith comes subsequently to any who are already occupied in military service, as (was, for instance, the case) with those 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 sealed, either the service must be left at once, as has been done by many, or else recourse must be had to all sorts of quibbling, lest anything be committed against God—(any, that is, of the things) which are not allowed (to Christians) even outside the army, or, lastly, that which the faith of (Christian) civilians has equally determined upon must be endured for God. For military service does not promise impunity for sins or exemption from martyrdom." No plea of necessity or risk of death can justify wrong-doing the case is similar with public offices; one must either flee from them or endure martyrdom.1

1 Tert. Cor. 11 (i. 442-446): Etenim, ut ipsam caussam coronae militaris aggrediar, puto prius conquirendum an in totum Christianis militia conveniat. Quale est alioquin de accidentibus retractare, cum a praeceden (443) tibus culpa sit? Credimusne humanum sacramentum divino superduci licere, et in alium dominum respondere post Christum ? et ejerare patrem et matrem et omnem proximum, quos et lex honorari et post Deum diligi praecepit, quos et evangelium, solo Christo pluris non faciens, sic quoque honoravit? Licebit in gladio conversari, Domino pronuntiante gladio periturum qui gladio fuerit usus? Et proelio operabitur filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet? Et vincula et carcerem et tormenta et supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum? Jam et stationes aut aliis magis faciet quam Christo? aut et dominico die, quando nec Christo ? Et excubabit pro templis, quibus renuntiavit? Et coenabit illic, ubi apostolo non placet ? Et quos interdiu exorcismis fugavit, noctibus defensabit, incumbens et requiescens super pilum; quo perfossum latus est Christi? Ve(444) xillum quoque portabit aemulum Christi? Et signum postulabit a principe, qui jam a Deo accepit? Mortuus etiam tuba inquietabitur aeneatoris, qui excitari a tuba angeli exspectat? Et cremabitur ex disciplina castrensi Christianus, cui cremare non licuit, cui Christus merita ignis indulsit? Quanta alia inde delicta circumspici possunt castrensium munium transgressioni interpretanda? Ipsum de castris lucis in castra tenebrarum nomen deferre transgressio est. Plane, si quos militia praeventos fides posterior invenit, alia conditio est, ut illorum, quos Johannes admittebat ad lavacrum, ut centurionum fidelissimorum, quem Christus probat et quem Petrus catechizat: dum tamen, suscepta fide atque signata, aut deserendum statim sit, ut a multis actum, aut omnibus modis