|
Chapter 2
The Early Christian Church
Conscientiously Opposed
To Military Service
A. General Historical
Perspective
“The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious
objection. According to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring,
the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians
served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.;
and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious
objectors.”5
“That many early Christians
accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite
literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the
same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which
conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the
military authority. G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of
Pacifism) points out that ‘until about the close of the third
quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite
consistently pacifist.’ Harnack’s conclusion is that no
Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the
time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.
4). After that time, signs of compromise became increasingly
evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the
fourth century.”6
“During its first three
centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war
and other forms of violence. Christian opposition to war early
expanded into a denial of the rightness of all coercive action on
the part of the civil power. Thus arose that form of conscientious
objection which has been designated as political
non-participation.”7
“For years many Christians
regarded service in the army as inconsistent with their
profession. Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as
soldiers or executioners, was unlawful.”8
“During a considerable period
after the death of Christ, it is certain…that his followers
believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this
belief, many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the
consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death. These
facts are indisputable: ‘It is as easy,’ says a learned writer
of the 17th century, ‘to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny
that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war.’ Of
all the Christian writers of the second century, there is not one
who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a
Christian to bear arms.”9
“Christ and his apostles
delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct. It
was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice
in life. And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had
been delivered? They applied them to war; they were assured that
the precepts absolutely forbade it. This belief they derived from
those very precepts on which we have insisted: They referred,
expressly, to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the
authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear
arms. A few examples from their history will show with what
undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war,
and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of
peace.”10
“Our Savior inculcated
mildness and peaceableness; we have seen that the apostles imbibed
his spirit, and followed his example; and the early Christians
pursued the example and imbibed the spirit of both. This sacred
principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, lenity, and
forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age. There are
more quotations in the apostolical fathers, of texts which relate
to these points than of any other. Christ’s sayings had struck
them.”11
“If it be possible, a still
stronger evidence of the primitive belief is contained in the
circumstance, that some of the Christian authors declared that the
refusal of the Christian to bear arms, was a fulfillment of
ancient prophecy. (Isa. 2:3; Micah 4:2) The peculiar strength of
this evidence consists in this: that the fact of a refusal to bear
arms is assumed as notorious and unquestioned.” [Regardless of
the validity of the prophetic interpretation.]12
“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
endeavored to obey them. This view and this obedience of those
first followers of Jesus are the best commentary we can have upon
the problematic teaching in question, and the best answer we can
give to those who argue that it was not meant to be practiced save
in a perfect society, or that it refers only to the inner
disposition of the heart and not to the outward actions, or that
it concerns only the personal and private and not the social and
political relationships of life.”13
B. Affirmations of Early Church Orders
1. The Didaskalia
“The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church
‘from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill
men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the
Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood
without judgment,’ etc.”14
2. The Testament of Our Lord
“‘The Testament of Our Lord,’ which dates in its present
form from the middle of the fourth century or a little later,
arose among the conservative Christians of Syria or southeastern
Asia Minor.” It embodies a list of rules and regulations
governing the “acceptance of new members into the Church and
(deals) with the question of the trades and professions which it
is legitimate or otherwise for Church-members to follow. It will
be observed that…‘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 (from the
Church):
“If anyone be a soldier or in
authority, let him be taught not to oppress or to kill or to rob,
or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But let those
rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to be
baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from
the post of authority, and if not let them not be received. Let a
catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a
soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be
rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the
things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and
hath treated the faith with contempt.”15
3. The Canons of the Church of Alexandria
“The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade
volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and
authoritatively laid it down that ‘it was not fitting for
Christians to bear arms.’”16
C. Writings of Early Christian Leaders
Christian Condemnation of War
“The view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is
an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of
Christ can have nothing to do. This sentiment was expressed,
though with varying degrees of lucidity and emphasis, by Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origenes, Athanasius,
Cyprian, and Lactantius.”17
Aristeides (140 A.D.)
(He) “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.’”18
Arnobius (300 A.D.)
“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 beginning, destroy and remove some, and compel
others to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him?’
“‘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
immovable and invincible in cavalry battles or in a fight on
foot?’ 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 right of kinship, overturn their cities, devastate lands
in enmity…hate one another…in a word, all curse, carp at, and
rend one another with the biting of savage teeth.’
“Addressing himself to the
pagans, he says: ‘Since we… (Christians) have received (it)
from his (Christ’s) 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 to stain
one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the
ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from
Christ…But if absolutely all…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 tranquility, and would have come together in healthy
concord…’
“(He) speaks as if abstention
from warfare had been the traditional Christian policy ever since
the advent of Christ.”19
Clement
“In the third century Clement of Alexandria contrasted warlike
pagans with ‘the peaceful community of Christians.’”20
“Clement of Alexandria calls
his Christian contemporaries the ‘Followers of Peace,’ and
expressly tells us that ‘the followers of peace used none of the
implements of war.’”21
“Above all, 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.”22
Cyprianus (250 A.D.)
“Cyprianus declaims about the ‘wars scattered everywhere 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 deceitful pomp of the military office.”23
Irenaeus (180 A.D.)
“For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances
into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight.”24
Justinus (150 A.D.)
“Justinus told the Emperors that the Christians were the best
allies and helpers they had in promoting peace, on the ground that
their belief in future punishment and in the omniscience of God
provided a stronger deterrent from wrongdoing than any laws could
do.
“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 God
who is Master of all.
“And we who formerly slew one
another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the
sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we
gladly die confessing Christ.”25
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.)
“That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to
believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now
fight with our enemies.”26
“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
plows 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.”27
Lactantius (300 A.D.)
“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. Speaking of the Romans, he says:
‘Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and)
slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and,
captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of
excellence to their crimes…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.’
“In criticizing the definition
of virtue as that which puts first the advantages of one’s own
county, (he says): ‘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;…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 (in this way) do all these
things.’
“If God alone were worshiped,
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.”28
“And so it will not be lawful
for a just man to serve as a soldier—for justice itself is his
military service... And so, in this commandment of God no
exception at all ought to be made that it is always wrong to kill
a man whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature.”29
“There cannot be a thousand
exceptions to God’s commandments: Thou shalt not kill. No arm
save truth should be carried by Christians.”30
Lucifer
“Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, professed that the Christians
should defend their greatest possession, faith, not in killing,
but in sacrificing their own lives.”31
Origenes (240 A.D.)
This great Alexandrian scholar took occasion to defend early
Christian pacifism in his rebuttal to “A True Discourse,”
which was an attack on the Christian community by the heathen
philosopher Celsus, written in 178 A.D.
Arguments of Celsus: “Towards
the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal
of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold
public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in
the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe.
And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish
lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians, he mingled
appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their
fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending
the civilization of the Empire from destruction.”32
“(Celsus) not only exhorts the
Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to
help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him
(in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as
soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military
command (with him).’”
Reply to Celsus by Origenes.
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” (that all did the same as himself and took no part
in war) “the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor
would 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, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every
religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the
Christians would hold sway; and indeed, one day it shall alone
hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more)
souls.
“How much more (reasonable it
is that), when others are serving in the army, these (Christians)
should do their military service as priests and servants of
God…And we, (in) putting down by our prayers all demons—those
who stir up warlike feelings…and disturb the peace—help the
Emperors more than those who, to all appearance, serve as
soldiers. We labor with (him) in the public affairs—(we) who
offer up prayers with righteousness…And we fight for the Emperor
more (than others do); we do serve as soldiers on his behalf,
training a private army of piety by means of intercessions to the
Deity.”33
“It is noteworthy that both
Celsus and Origenes write here as if the refusal to serve in the
army was not the universal attitude of the Christians. We know
that this was not quite the case…(after 170 A.D.). Still the
language of these two writers is significant as showing what, at
both their dates (178 and 248 A.D.) was understood by
well-informed persons to be the normal Christian view and
practice.”34
“Origenes happily lays great
stress on the positive service which he claims is diviner, more
needful, and more effective than that of the soldier or
magistrate…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. (b) Influence
for good over others by the activities of the Church and the power
of Christian life, ‘educating the citizens and teaching them to
be devout towards…God’…and working effectually for their
moral and spiritual salvation.”35
“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 plowshares, 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).
“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, ‘would it have been
possible for this peaceful teaching, which does not allow (its
adherents) even to defend themselves against (their) enemies, to
prevail, unless at the coming of Jesus the (affairs) of the world
had everywhere changed into a milder (state)?’ Later he says:
‘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 their families 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 own divine legislation to allow the destruction of
any man whatever.’”36
“And the reason why Christians
avoid the public services of earthly life is not because they want
to evade them, but because they are reserving themselves for the
more Divine and more needful service of the Church of God, taking
the lead—at once needfully and righteously—in the salvation of
men, and being concerned for all men…”37
Tertullianus (210 A.D.)
“You must confess that the
prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every
individual is concerned, to whom it is applicable.”38
“…the new law pointed to
clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances
into tranquility, and refashioned the former infliction of war
upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and
cultivating the earth. And so…the new law…has shown forth in
acts of peaceful obedience.”
“Dealing specifically with the
question of military service, Tertulliansus writes (in his
Apology:) “(The question) also concerning military service,
which is concerned both with rank and power, might seem (to have
been) definitely settled in that (last) chapter. But now the
question is asked on what (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 (offering) sacrifices or (passing) capital
sentences—may be admitted to the faith. There is no congruity
between the divine and 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 Caesar. And
(yet, some Christians say), Moses carried a rod, and Aaron (wore)
a buckle, and John was girt with a leather belt (the allusions are
to various items in the Roman soldier’s equipment), and
Joshua…led a line of march, and the people waged war—if it is
your pleasure to sport (with the subject). But how will (a
Christian) make war—nay, how will he serve as 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 a
rule, although also a centurion had believed, (yet) the Lord
afterwards, in disarming Peter, ungirded every soldier. No dress
is lawful among us which is assigned to an unlawful action.”
(The military oath asks too much of a man who owes his allegiance
to Christ.)39
In another work, (De Corona
Militis), written in 211 A.D., Tertullianus writes: “Do we
believe that…(a Christian) may (give a promise in) answer to
another master after Christ…? 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 imprisonment and tortures and
executions? Shall he now go on guard for another more than for
Christ, or (shall 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 renounced? 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) how many other sins
can be seen (to belong) to the functions of camp (life)—(sins)
which must be explained as transgressions (of God’s law)…If
the faith comes subsequently to any (who are) already occupied in
military service…when faith has been accepted and signed, either
the service must be left at once, as has been done by many, or
else to resolve to endure death for God…Faith knows not the
meaning of the word ‘compulsion.’”40
Commenting on these forceful
views of Tertullianus, Cadoux says: “It is a mistake to regard
Tertullianus as an individual dissenter from the Church as a whole
on this question of whether Christians ought to serve in the army
or not…When we consider these views…agree with the testimony
of Origenes and the oldest Church-Orders as to the normal
Christian practice in the earliest part of the third century, and
were apparently endorsed by so representative a churchman as his
own fellow countrymen 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 extremists.”41
Letter from Confessors in
Prison at Rome (250 A.D.)
“The confessors of Rome wrote from prison to their brethren of
Africa: ‘What more glorious and blessed lot can fall to man by
the grace of God, than to confess God the Lord amidst tortures and
in the face of death itself…to become fellow-sufferers with
Christ?...Pray for us, then…that the Lord, the best captain,
would daily strengthen each one of us more and more, and at last
lead us to the field as faithful soldiers, armed with those divine
weapons (Eph. 6:2) which can never be conquered.’”42
D. Example of Early Christian Believers
1. Attitude Toward Military Life as a Vocational Calling
“No Christian (from 70-110 A.D.)…would voluntarily become a
soldier after conversion: He would be deterred from doing so, not
only by fear of contamination by idolatry, but also by a natural
reluctance—and doubtless in many cases by a conscientious
objection to using arms.
“There were certain features
of military life which could not have failed to thrust themselves
on a Christian’s notice as presenting, to say the least, great
ethical difficulty. The shedding of blood on the battlefield, the
passing of death sentences by officers and the execution of them
by common soldiers, the judicial infliction of scourging, torture,
and crucifixion, the unconditional military oath…the average
behavior of soldiers in peacetime, and other idolatrous and
offensive customs—all of these could constitute in combination
an exceedingly powerful deterrent against any Christian joining
the army on his own initiative.”43
Harnack: “The position of a
soldier would seem to be still more incompatible with Christianity
than the higher offices of state, for Christianity prohibited on
principle both war and bloodshed…We shall see that the Christian
ethic forbade war absolutely (überhaupt) to the Christians…Had
not Jesus forbidden all revenge, even all retaliation for wrong,
and taught complete gentleness and patience? And was not the
military calling moreover 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.”44
“It has been sometimes said,
that the motive which influenced the early Christians to refuse to
engage in war, consisted in the idolatry which was connected with
the Roman armies. One motive this idolatry unquestionable
afforded; but it is obvious from the quotations which we have
given, that their belief of the unlawfulness of fighting,
independent of any question of idolatry, was an insuperable
objection to engaging in war. Their words are explicit: ‘I
cannot fight if I die.’ ‘I am a Christian, and, therefore, I
cannot fight.’ ‘Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed every
soldier,’ and Peter was not about to fight in the armies of
idolatry.”45
“It is also interesting that
neither Celsus, nor Origenes in replying to him, alludes
explicitly to the fear of contamination with idolatry as the
Christians’ (sole) reason for refraining from military service:
Celsus does not say what their ground was; but Origenes makes it
perfectly clear elsewhere in this treatise that it was the moral
objection to bloodshed by which they were mainly actuated.”46
“The prohibition of military
service was partly due to the consideration that the soldier was
required to compromise his faith by participation in the pagan
rites associated with Roman warfare, and to jeopardize his
character by association with brutal and licentious comrades, but
objection was also taken on principle to the military profession,
and was supported by arguments such as these—that the military
oath was inconsistent with the pledge of loyalty to Christ, that
Christ had warned His disciples against taking the sword (Matt.
26:52), that, if the lesser strife of litigation be forbidden,
much more is the greater (1 Cor. 6:7), that, if it be unlawful to
fight on our own behalf, it is also unlawful to fight in the
quarrels of others, and especially that in war men fight to kill,
and that intentional killing is murder.”47
“Christians objected not only
to war, but also because soldiers were called upon to execute
death sentences. Then, too, army service was intimately bound up
with the religious-political system of emperor worship, which
Christians believed was a form of idolatry.”48
“Gibbon, writing in 1776, said
of the imperial Roman armies: ‘The common soldiers, like the
mercenary troops of modern Europe, were drawn from the meanest,
and very frequently from the most profligate, of mankind.’
Harnack says: ‘The conduct of the soldiers during peace was as
opposed to Christian ethics as their wild debauchery and sports at
the Pagan festivals.’ Marcus Aurelius called successful soldiers
robbers; but he was a soldier himself, and was obliged to fill his
ranks with gladiators, slaves, and Dalmation brigands.”49
“This collection of passages
will suffice to show how strong and deep was the early Christian
revulsion from the disapproval of war, both on account of the
dissension it represented and of the infliction of bloodshed and
suffering it involved. The quotations show further how closely
warfare and murder were connected in Christian thought by their
possession of a common element—homicide…The strong
disapprobation felt by Christians for war was due to its close
relationship with the deadly sin (of murder) that sufficed to keep
the men guilty of it permanently outside the Christian community.
“It has already been remarked that the sentiments expressed by
(early) Christian authors in regard to the iniquity of war, the
essentially peaceful character of Christianity, the fulfillment of
the great plowshare 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.”50
(a) Summary of Objections to Military Service
(1) Refusal to kill—on authority of Ten Command- ments and
Jesus’ teaching.
(2) Refusal to bear arms—on authority of Master’s command not
to take sword.
(3) Refusal to violate Christian principles—love, gentleness,
and patience replacing hate, revenge, strife, and envy.
(4) Refusal to abide by unconditional military oath on ground of
inconsistency with the pledge of loyalty to Christ.
(5) Refusal to comply with
military life which necessitated:
Extortions.
Police service.
Acts of violence, scourging, torture, crucifixion.
Association with brutal and licentious comrades.
Contamination by idolatry, emperor worship, and pagan rites.
2. Christian Refusal of
Induction: Martyrdom
Maximilianus (295 A.D.)
“Maximilianus, a young Numidian Christian, just over 21, was
brought before Dion the proconsul of Africia at Teveste (Numidia)
as fit for military service. This was in 295 A.D. during the reign
of Maximilianus.
“Maximilianus answered, ‘But why do you want to know my name?
I dare not fight, since I am a Christian.’ ‘Measure him,’
said Dion the proconsul; but on being measured, Maximilianus
answered, ‘I cannot fight, I cannot do evil; I am a
Christian.’ Said the proconsul, ‘Let him be measured.’ And
after he had been measured, the attendant read out ‘He is five
feet ten.’ Then said Dion to the attendant, ‘Enroll him.’
And Maximilianus cried out, ‘No, no, I cannot be a soldier, I am
a soldier of my God. I refuse the badge. Already I have Christ’s
badge…If you mark me, I shall annul it as invalid…I cannot
wear ought laden on my neck after the saving mark of my Lord.’
To the proconsul’s question as to what crime soldiers practiced,
Maximilianus replied, ‘You know quite well what they do.’”
Maximilianus was beheaded.
Unknown to most Roman Catholics,
Maximilianus has been honored as one of the canonized saints of
the church, though he died as a conscientious objector!51
Typasius (305 A.D.)
“Typasius, who (earlier) had served honorably as a soldier in
Mauretania and had been discharged because he desired to devote
himself wholly to religion, refused to re-enter the service when
recalled to the ranks and suffered martyrdom.”52
3. Desertion after Conversion: Martyrdom
“During the early period of Christianity, soldiers who were
converted usually left the army immediately, although such action
might mean death or other severe punishment.”53
“The primitive Christians not
only refused to be enlisted in the army, but when they embraced
Christianity whilst already enlisted, they abandoned the
profession at whatever cost…These were not the sentiments, and
this was not the conduct, of the insulated individuals who might
be actuated by individual opinions, or by their private
interpretations of the duties of Christianity. Their principles
were the principles of the body. They were recognized and defended
by the Christian writers their contemporaries.”54
Achilleus and Nereus
“Pope Damasus (366-384 A.D.), who took a
great interest in the records and tombs of the martyrs, put up an
epitaph to two praetorian soldiers, Nereus and Achilleus, who, he
says ‘had given (their) names to military service, and were
carrying on (their) cruel duty (but) suddenly laid aside (their)
madness, turned around (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’: they were put to death with the sword.”55
Julius
“Julius, who suffered martyrdom in Moesia,
said to the judge at his trial: ‘During the time that I was, as
it appears, going astray in vain service of war, for twenty-seven
years I never came before the judge as an offender or a plaintiff.
Seven times did I go out on a campaign, and I stood behind no one,
and I fought as well as any. 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?”56
Marcellus (298 A.D.)
Marcellus had been a centurion in the Roman
army, but “in 298 A.D. took the initiative and insisted on
resigning from his office. On the occasion of the Emperor’s
birthday, he cast off his military belt before the standards, and
called out: ‘I serve 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, 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 the military
service as such: for his last words to the judge were: ‘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 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.”57
Martin
“Martin, of whom so much is said by Sulpicius Severus, was bred
to the profession of arms, which on his acceptance of
Christianity, he abandoned.”58
Tarakhos (304 A.D.)
“Tarakhos of Cilicia, on trial because he had left the army,
told the governor he had been a soldier, ‘but because I was a
Christian, I have now chosen to be a civilian.’” He was
martyred in 304 A.D.59
4. Action of Christians in Jewish Insurrections
First Revolt (66-70 A.D.)
“Shortly before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, the
Christians of that city, in obedience to ‘an oracular response
given by revelation to approved men there’ left Jerusalem, and
settled at Pella in Peraea, thus taking no part in the war against
Rome.”60
Second Revolt (132-135 A.D.)
An insight into the conduct of Christians during this second
revolt of the Jews against Rome is afforded by ancient scroll and
manuscript findings discovered since 1947 in the Holy Land. The
following is an excerpt from a newspaper article entitled “New
Scrolls Aid Testament Study” which described some of these
findings.
“Experts have asserted that it will take
decades to decipher these manuscripts and reassemble their
fragments…but…one possible early reference to Christians has
been deciphered. A freshly translated letter written by Simon ben
Kaseba, leader of a Holy Land revolt from A.D. 132-135, refers to
a group of ‘neutralists’ in the war between Rome and Jewish
insurgents. They are called ‘Galileans,’ and conceivably may
be Christians.”61
5. Attitude Toward Gladiatorial Contests
“It was not only looking askance at military service that
Christians separated themselves from the secular life about them.
Far more sweeping was their condemnation of some of the most
prominent of the prevailing amusements. It is, of course, a
commonplace that among the outstanding popular forms of
entertainment of the pre-Christian Roman Empire were the theatre,
gladiatorial combats and contests between beasts and men…For
gladiatorial combats and the theatre many of the leading
Christians had nothing but condemnation. There was a time when the
Church refused to receive for baptism a professional gladiator
unless he promised to surrender his calling, and excluded from the
communion those of its members who entered the games.”62
“The brutality of gladiatorial combats was
something on which a Christian could not voluntarily gaze.”63
“So entire was (the early Christian)
conviction of the incompatibility of war with our religion, that
they would not even be present at the gladiatorial fights, ‘lest
we should become partakers of the murders committed there.’ (Theophilus).
Can anyone believe that they who would not even witness a battle
between two men, would themselves fight in a battle between
armies?”64
“The opposition of the Church, had, of
course, at first only a moral effect, but in the fourth century it
began to affect legislation, and succeeded at last in banishing at
least the bloody gladiatorial games from the civilized world. (The
historical Lecky comments: ‘There is scarcely any other single
reform so important in the moral history of mankind as the
suppression of the gladiatorial shows, and this feat must be
almost exclusively ascribed to the Christian Church.’)”65
E. Military Non-Conformity a Cause of Roman Persecutions
Cadoux, commenting on the various cases of early Christians who
either refused induction into the military or deserted the service
after conversion, says: “It is probably true that such instances
of refusal were sufficiently numerous to have helped to bring
about that imperial suspicion and dislike, out of which sprang the
great persecution of 303 A.D.”66
“Then, too, the conscientious refusal of the
Christians to pay divine honors to the emperor and his statue, and
to take part in any idolatrous ceremonies at public festivities,
their aversion to the imperial military service, their disregard
for politics and depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as
compared with the spiritual and eternal interests of man, their
close brotherly union and frequent meetings, drew upon them the
suspicion of hostility to the Caesars and the Roman people, and
the unpardonable crime of conspiracy against the state.”67 (From
section entitled “Causes of Roman Persecution—Obstacles to the
Toleration of Christianity.”)
“The comparative indifference and partial
aversion of the Christians to the affairs of the state, to civil
legislation, and administration, exposed them to frequent reproach
and contempt of the heathens. Their want of patriotism was partly
the result of their superior devotion to the church as their
country, partly of their situation in a hostile world…They
fervently and regularly prayed for the emperor and the state,
their enemies and persecutors. They were the most peaceful
subjects, and during this long period of almost constant
provocation, abuse, and persecutions, they never took part in
those frequent insurrections and rebellions which weakened and
undermined the empire. They renovated society from within, by
revealing in their lives as well as in their doctrine a higher
order of private and public virtue, and thus proved themselves
patriots in the best sense of the word.”68 (From the section
entitled “Secular Callings and Civil Duties.”)
F. Summary
Cadoux
“The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his
inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal
sense. They strongly identified their religion with peace; they
strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they
appropriated to themselves 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
Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.). Even then, refusal to serve was
known to be the normal policy of the Christians—as the
reproaches of Celsus testify (177-180 A.D.). In the time of
Tertullianus (200-210 A.D.), many soldiers had left the army on
their conversion.
“While a general distrust of ambition and a
horror of contamination of 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, on the one hand, and the Master’s
teaching on the other, constituted an equally fatal and conclusive
objection.”69
Dymond
“It is, therefore, indisputable that the Christians who lived
nearest to the time of the Saviour, believed, with undoubting
confidence, that He had unequivocally forbidden war—that they
openly avowed this belief, and that, in support of it, they were
willing to sacrifice, and did sacrifice, their fortunes and their
lives.”70
Tolstoy
“The declarations made before the military judges by
conscientious objectors are only repetitions of what has been said
since the appearance of the Christian doctrine. The most ardent
and sincere fathers of the Church declared the teaching of Christ
to be incompatible with…armed force; in other words, a Christian
must not be a soldier, prepared to kill every one that he is
ordered to do.”71
|
