I am sorry to see that Dr. P. T. Forsyth, in his Christian Ethic of War (1916), hardly touches (68) on the early Christians’ views on the subject (see below, pp. 115, 191), except in connection with the exegesis of the N.T.

See the last observation on p. xxxii.

See pp. xix f, xxiv, 85 f, 104 f n I, 141 f, 154 ff.

See vol ii, pp. 38 f, 120 f, in Bury’s edition (1897).

I have not succeeded in discovering the date of the first edition.

The third edition of Dymond’s Essays was published in 1836, the eighth in 1886. The chapter on war has been published separately, first in 1823, then in 1889 with an introduction by John Bright, and again in 1915 with a Foreword by the Rt. Hon. Thomas Burt, M. P.

pp. 61–64.

pp. 282–289. A new edition appeared in 1907.

vol i, pp. 81–87.

See vol ii, pp. 248 ff of the 1911 impression.

See pp. 88–92 (several quotations from Dymond).

pp. 51 f.

Brit. Quarterly Review , vol lxxiii (Jan and April, 1881), pp. 80–99.

See pp. 126–130, 313–317 of Backhouse and Tylor’s third edition 1892).

See the Appendix to Cunningham’s book, pp. 249 ff, 251 n 3.

See, e.g., pp. 37, 115, 126–128, 182 ff, 197, 240 f.

pp. 189–210.

pp. 164–201.

vol. ii, pp. 52–64 (ET).

pp. 516–534.

pp. 345 ff.

pp. 25 ff.

e.g. pp. 40, 70, 111, 123 ff, 153.

pp. 31, 151, 161 f (second edition).

See pp. 14 f, 23–32. I might also mention a briefer pamphlet issued by the Peace Society, and the Rectorial Address delivered by Andrew Carnegie at the University of St. Andrews, entitled, A League of Peace (Boston, 1906, pp. 6 f)

Neumann 127 f; Harnack ME ii. 57 n i, MC 48f; Bigelmair 25, 175–177, De Jong 2 f.

See below, pp. 113; 235 f.

Mt v. 21 ff, cf 27 f, 31–48.

Mt xix. 16–19 ‖s.

Mt xv. 18–20; Mk vii. 20–23.

Numb xxxv. 27, of the avenger of blood slaying a murderer; ibid. 30, of the officers of justice doing so; 1 Kings xxi. 19, of Naboth’s execution.

Herodot i. 211; Aiskhulos Theb 340: cf the Homeric use of .

Exod xvii. 13; Levit xxvi. 7; Numb xxi. 24; Deut xiii. 15, xx. 13; Josh x. 28, 30, 32, 35; Isa xxi. 15.

B.-Baker parries the force of this argument by an appeal to the well-known distinction between letter and spirit. He says ( ICW 11–13): “Thus it is that 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 meaning to observe 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 fellow-creature—in the beautiful language of the sermon on the mount, a brother—of his earthly life.” Arguing in this way, the author has no difficulty in proving that Christ “countenanced and sanctioned war” (15, 18). Something will be said later in regard to this antithesis between letter and spirit and the use here made of it (p. 23).

The Lucan parallel (vi. 27–36) adds to ‘Love your enemies’ the words: ‘do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you.’ Its other additions and differences are unimportant, and on the whole it has perhaps less claim to originality than the Matthaean version. It is worth remarking that the word used for enemies ( ), besides being used for private and personal enemies, is also used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and elsewhere, for national foes (Gen xiv. 20, xlix. 8, Exod xv. 6, Levit xxvi. 7, 8, 17, 1 Sam iv. 3, etc., etc.; Lk i. 71, 74, xix, 43 : also Orig Cels ii. 30, viii. 69).

Thus C. E. Luthardt ( History of Christian Ethics before the Reformation , ET p. 187) criticizes Tertullianus’ view that Christians ought not to wield the sword as soldiers or as magistrates as “the necessary consequence of the standpoint that makes the words of Christ which refer to the internal attitude of the disposition directly into a law for the external orders of life.” Cf Magee, in The Fortnightly Review , January 1890, pp. 38 f. B.-Baker’s view to the same effect has already been quoted (see previous p, n I). The reader 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. ( ICW 12): “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 distinction between the glory of enduring suffering and the guilt of inflicting it.

See Bishop Gore’s article on The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount in The Economic Review for April 1892, p. 149 : “The vast danger is that we should avail ourselves of a popular misinterpretation of St. Paul’s language, and observe these precepts, as we say, “in the spirit,”—which is practically not at all in the actual details of life. . . . Therefore we must apply Christ’s teaching in detail to the circumstances of our day.”

See for example Bigelmair 165 : “The abolition of war and therewith the necessity of forming armies was indeed certainly one of those ideals 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, so 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 swearing as an ideal for humanity, an ideal which will first become attainable, when the other ideals of the Kingdom of God. . . , namely that unselfishness, of which the Saviour spoke in connection with the oath, shall have succeeded in getting carried out” (zur Durchfuhrung gelangt sein werden).

See, for instance, an article by Bishop Magee in The Fortnightly Review for January 1890 (pp. 33–46) on The State and the Sermon on the Mount . Dr. Charles Mercier ( The Irrelevance of Christianity and War , in The Hibbert Journal , July 1918, pp. 555–563) frankly recognizes that Jesus’ teaching of gentleness cannot be harmonized with war; but he cuts the Gordian knot by dividing ethics into the Moral realm and the Patriotic realm, penning up the words of Jesus within the former as applicable only to individuals within the same community, and therefore as not forbidding war, which belongs wholly to the latter!

Exod xxi. 23–25; there is some difficulty about the literary setting (see Driver’s note on this passage in the Cambridge Bible ), but the scope and purport of the enactment are clear.

Troeltsch (40) remarks, a propos of the teaching of Jesus about love : “Thus there exists for the children of God no law and no compulsion, no war and struggle, but only an untiring love and an overcoming of evil with good—demands, which the Sermon on the Mount interprets in extreme cases.”

This view of the third temptation (Mt iv. 8–10 = Lk iv. 5–8) is substantially that suggested by Seeley in Ecce Homo , ch. n.

John vi. 15.

Mk i. 14 f, vi. 14–29, etc., and parallels; Lk iii 19 f, xiii. 31

Lk xiii. 1–3.

The incident of Jesus’ clearing the Temple-courts—often regarded as an exception to his usual policy of abstaining from violence—will be discussed later (see pp. 34 f).

Mt v. 5, 9.

Lk xix. 41 f ( ).

Mt vi. 12, 14 f; Mk xi. 25. The context shows that this type of forgiveness at all events is irrespective of the wrongdoer’s repentance, though there may be another type which requires it (Lk xvii. 3 f ; cf Mt xviii. 15–17, 21–35).

Mt xxvi. 51 f ‖s; John xviii. 36.

Mt xxvi. 50‖; John xviii. 22 f.

Lk xxiii. 34.

Mk x. 42–45 ‖s.

Mt xi. 27, xxiii. 10, xxviii. 18; John xiii. 13.

Mt v. 5, xvi. 19, xviii. 17 f, xxiv. 45–47, xxv. 21, 23; Lk xix. 17, 19.

John vii. 53-viii. 11 : cf Moffatt INT 555 f.

Levit xx. 10; Deut xxii. 22–24.

Mk vii. 8–13‖.

Compare Jesus’ announcement—perhaps literally meant—that he had been sent “to proclaim release to captives and restoration of sight to the blind, to set the oppressed at liberty” (Lk iv. 18), and his words in the Sermon on the Mount about judging others (Mt vii. 1 f; Lk vi. 37f : the Lucan version has a distinctly legal ring about it). His refusal to be a ‘judge and divider’ in a case of disputed inheritance (Lk xii. 13f) may have an indirect bearing on the subject.

Mk xiii. 2, 7–9, 14–20‖s; cf Lk xvii. 31–37.

On the theory that Mk xiii contains (7f, 14–20, 24–27) a ‘little apocalypse,’ dating from 60–70 a.d. , see Moffatt INT 207–209.

Mt xxvi. 51 ff : cf Lk xxii. 50f; John xviii. 10 f, 36 (Jesus says to Pilatus : “If my Kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, in order that I should not be handed over to the Jews : but now my Kingdom is not from thence”).

The question has been asked, how Peter came to be carrying a sword at all, if his Master discountenanced the use of weapons (J. M. Lloyd Thomas, The Immorality of Non-resistance , p. ix : E. A. Sonnenschein, in The Hibbert Journal , July 1915, pp. 865f). The answer is that Peter may very well have failed to understand his Master’s real meaning (particularly perhaps the ‘two swords’ saying—which we shall discuss presently), and, apprehending danger, may have put on a sword without Jesus noticing it.

Well may a present-day scholar, not himself a pacifist, say : “I think, then, it must in fairness be admitted that there is a real case for the plea of the conscientious objector that Jesus totally forbade war to his followers. . . . I cannot shut my eyes to the possibility that Jesus Himself may have been a pacifist” (Dr. A. S. Peake, Prisoners of Hope , pp. 28, 30).

Mt v. 41 :

Mt xxvii. 32 ‖ (the soldiers ‘impressed’— —Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross). See the article ‘angaria’ in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities : “The Roman angaria . . . included the maintenance and supply, not only of horses, but of ships and messengers, in forwarding both letters and burdens.” The Lexicons give no hint that the word was used for impressing soldiers.

See Lk iii. 14 : “And men on service” ( , who had received his baptism) “asked him, saying, ‘And what are we to do?’ and he said to them, ‘Never extort money from anyone ( ), or falsely accuse anyone; and be content with your pay’.”

Mt viii. 5–13 ‖. Seeley ( Ecce Homo , pref. to 5th edn, p. xvi), says of the centurion : “He represented himself as filling a place in a graduated scale, as commanding some and obeying others, and the proposed condescension of one whom he ranked so immeasurably above himself in that scale shocked him. This spirit of order, this hearty acceptance of a place in society, this proud submission which no more desires to rise above its place than it will consent to fall below it, was approved by Christ with unusual emphasis and warmth.” This misses the point : the centurion’s words about being under authority and having others under him expressed, not his humility or reverence for Jesus, who was not above him in military rank, but his belief in Jesus’ power to work the cure by word of command; and it was this belief that Jesus approved so heartily.

Mk xi. 15–17; Mt xxi. 12 f; Lk xix. 45 f; John ii. 13–17.

I mention this argument for what it is worth, though personally I incline to accept the historicity of the Fourth Gospel here, both as regards chronology and details.

John ii. 15 says :

Mk i. 12.

Mk v. 40 ‖.

Mt ix. 38 ‖.

Mt vii. 4 ‖.

Mt xii. 35, xiii. 52.

Lk x. 35.

John x. 4.

“It is the very point of the story, not that He, as by mere force, can drive so many men, but that so many are seen retiring before the moral power of one—a mysterious being, in whose face and form the indignant flush of innocence reveals a tremendous feeling they can nowise comprehend, much less are able to resist” (Horace Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural , p. 219).

Mk xiii. 2, 7 f, 14–20 ‖s; Mt xxiv. 28; Lk xvii. 22–37, xix. 41–44, cf xxiii. 28–31.

Mt xi. 23 f ‖, xiii. 37–43, 49 f, xxi. 41 ‖s, xxiii. 33–36; Lk xii. 54–xiii. 9, xix. 44b, xxi. 22.

Mt xxii. 7.

Lk xix. 27.

Mt xviii. 34 f, 13, xxiv. 50 f ‖, xxv. 30; cf Lk xviii 7 f.

Lk xvii. 7–10 (Moffatt’s trans).

Mk iii. 27 ‖s.

For this view, cf 1 Sam xxiv. 12: “The Lord judge between me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.”

Isa x. 5–19; Jer 1. 23, li. 20–26; Zech i. 15, etc.

Mt v. 44–48 ‖, cf vii. 11. A similar distinction appears in Paul (Rom xii. 17-xiii. 7), which we shall have to discuss later. I cannot refrain from quoting here an interesting conversation that occurs in Dickens’ Little Dorrit (Bk ii, ch. 31):

Lk xiv. 31–33.

Mt xi. 12; Lk xvi. 16.

Seeley, in the passage quoted above (p. 33 n 1), says: “As Christ habitually compared his Church to a state or kingdom, so there are traces that its analogy to an army was also present to his mind.” Seeley has, 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 of quasi-military power on the analogy of his (the centurion’s) own power lends a little colour to the view which Seeley here expresses.

Mt xxii. 6f.

Mt x. 34: cf Lk xii. 51.

Mt xxiv. 43‖.

Lk xxii. 35–38.

One recent attempt may be referred to. B.W. Bacon distinguishes two sections in Jesus’ Messianic programme; first, the gathering of the flock, when premature Zealotism was guarded against by non-resistance; secondly, when the flock would have to defend itself. Thus, Peter’s sword is “returned to its sheath to await the predicted day of need” ( Christus Militans , in The Hibbert Journal , July 1918, pp. 542, 548, 550 f). But Peter had to sheathe his sword, because “all they that take the sword will perish by the sword, because” not simply because his act was badly timed: and beyond this precarious reading of the ‘two-swords’ passage, there is nothing in the Gospels to support the idea of a coming period of violent self-defence, and much that is highly inconsistent with it.

Harnack MC 4 f.

See above, p. 30.

See above, pp. 26 f.

Mk xii. 17 ‖s :

John xix. 11.

Mk ii. 25 f ‖s, xii. 35–37 ‖s; Mt xii. 42 ‖.

Mk vii. 8–13 ‖.

Mt xxiii. 23 ‖.

Mk xv. 43; Lk vii. 2–6 viii. 3, xiv. 1, xxiii. 50 f; John iii. 1, 10, iv. 46 ff, vii. 50–52, xii. 42, xix. 38 f.

Mt v. 17–19 ‖, viii. 4 ‖s, xxiii. 2, 23 fin; Lk xvii. 14.

Mt xvii. 24–27.

Mt v. 41; cf xxvii. 32.

John vi. 15.

Mt x. 17 f, 28–33 ‖s.

John indeed tells us (xii. 42) that ‘many of the rulers believed on him’ and (xix. 38) calls Joseph of Arimathaea, who we know was a councilor (Mk xv. 43), a disciple; but how much does this prove? These people were afraid to let their discipleship be publicly known, and the rulers ‘loved the glory of men more than the glory of God’ (xii. 43). We certainly cannot argue from silence that Jesus approved of any regular disciple of his pronouncing or executing judicial penalties or acting as a soldier.

B.-Baker ICW 13.

Quoted by Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologies (1911), i. 229 f.

Ibid.

The power of Christianity to extirpate crime was insisted on by Tolstoi in his novel Work while ye have the Light (ET published by Heinemann, 1890).

pp. 176–185, 202–225.

p. 182.

p. 181.

pp. 217 f.

I borrow these words from a private pamphlet by my friend Mr. J.A. Halliday, of Newcastle, and others.

pp. 178 f., 202 f.

p. 163 (italics mine).

See above, pp. 42 ff.

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 beginning of the book, in order to avoid unnecessary explanations and repetitions in the text, and that with the same object full particulars of works quoted are given in another list, the references in the footnotes being mostly in an abbreviated form.

No purpose would be served by retailing to the reader passages in which war is cited simply as a calamity or as a mere historical incident, without any direct hint of moral blame or of divine visitation.

2 Cor vii. 5 (“wrangling all round me”—Moffatt); Jas iv. 1 f (even if the proposed substitution of (ye envy) for (ye kill) in verse 2 be rejected, and the latter given its literal meaning (so Mayor), the reference can hardly be to warfare as usually understood); 2 Tim ii. 23 f; Tit iii. 9.

Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (vii. 9–12) p. 48, cf 74 (x. 29–31).

Arist 8 (104).

Arist 10 (106 and—Syriac—43).

Just 2 Ap v. 4. When the martyr Karpos at Pergamum accused the devil of preparing wars ( Karp 17), he was referring to the persecutions carried on against the Christians.

Tat 19 (849).

Athenag Res 19 (1013).

Athenag Legat 35 (969). We shall discuss later the qualification ‘even justly’.

Acts of John 36 fin (ii. 169; Pick 148).

Clem Paed i xii. 99, II iv. 42.

Clem Quis Dives 34.

Ps-Just Orat 5 init.

Tert Pat 3 (i. 1254): itaque et gladii opera maledixit in posterum.

Tert Pat 7 (i. 1262).

Tert. Marc iii. 14 (ii. 340), Jud 9 (ii. 621).

Tert Cor 12 (ii. 94 f). In Pudic 10 (ii. 999), he groups soldiers with tax-gatherers as those to whom, besides the sons of Abraham, the Baptist preached repentance.

Hipp Dan III viii. 9.

Hipp Dan IV viii. 7, ix. 2.

ANCL xxiib. 101, 108.

Greg Thaum Paneg vi. 76 f. On the low idea entertained of the soldier’s calling in the third century, and particularly by philosophers and Christians, see Harnack MC 69 f.

Cypr Donat 6, 10 f. In Ep 73 (72) 4 he calls heretics pestes et gladii.

Commond Carm 585 f; cf Instr i. 34 (l.12), ii/ 3 (ll. 12f).22

Greg Thaum Ep Can 5 ( ).

Didask IV vi. 4 (omni magistratu imperii Romani, qui in bellis maculati sunt). We are left uncertain as to whether all—or only some—magistrates are spurned as bloodstained: but probably the latter is meant.

Ps-Just Cohort 2 (Hom 11 xix. 224): Cf 17 (wars etc. represented by Homer as the result of a multiplicity of rulers).

Clem Hom ii. 44.

op cit iii. 24, cf 25 fin, 26.

op cit iii. 62; cf ix. 2f.

op cit iii.29

op cit iv. 20.

Clem Recog ii. 24.

op cit ii. 36.

op cit iv. 31.

op cit x. 41.

Method Symp v. 5.

op cit x. i, 4.

Arnob ii. 1.

id ii. 38.

id ii. 45.

Arnob iii. 26. Rhetorical allusions to this and other aspects of the wrongfulness of war occur in ii. 39, 76, iii. 28, v. 45, vi. 2. vii. p, 36, 51.

Lact Inst I xviii. 8–10; cf 11–17.

Lact Inst ii vi. 3.

Lact Inst VI vi. 18–24. The words quoted are taken from 19 f, 22. For other passages dealing with the subject, see Inst I xix. 6, V v. 4, 12–14, vi. 6f, VI v. 15, xix. 2 f, 10, VII xv. 9 ff.

Eus PE 10b-11a, 179ab.

Eus PE 163b.

Eus PE 192c.

I have not attempted to quote or give references to the numerous allusions to murder in Christian literature. The attitude of condemnation is, as one might expect, uniform and unanimous.

Archdeacon Cunningham’s summary statements on the early Christian attitude to war are completely at variance with the facts we have just been surveying: thus, “there was not in primitive times any definite protest against this particular symptom in society of the evil disease in human hearts” ( Christianity and Politics , 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 do not appear to have been repelled by bloodshed in war . Pliny does not complain of them, and there seem to be no special warnings in regard to un-Christian conduct in connection with military service” (251) (italics mine: the argument from Plinius will be touched on later).

Ac x. 36, 48.

Rom xii. 18.

Heb xii. 14.

Mt v. 9.

Lk ii. 14: are the men generally, or Christians only, or Jews?

Lk i. 79; cf the reference to national enemies in vv. 71, 74.

1 Clem Ix. 4.

1 Clem lxi. 1 f.

Ig E xiii. 2.

Eiren IV xxvii. i (ii. 240): the reference is apparently to Ps. lxxii. 7.

Just 1 Ap xii. 1: .

Isa ii. 3 f; cf Mic iv. 2 f.

Just 1 Ap xxxix. 1–3.

Just Dial 109 f (728 f).

Eiren IV xxxiv. 4 (ii. 271 f). Cf the use made by Eirenaios of Isa xi. 6–9 in Demonstr 61 (35).

Tert Jud 3 (ii. 604): the last words are in pacis obsequia eluxit.

Tert Marc iii. 21 (ii. 351).

Tert Marc iv. 1 (ii. 361).

Orig Cels v. 33. What exactly Origenes means by I do not know: anyhow, the reference to actual warfare is clear.

Ps-Cypr Jud 9; Adamant i. 10.

Eus PE 10b-11a, cf, 179ab.

Athenag Legat 1 (892), cf 37 fin (972).

Clem Paed i xii. 98 fin, II ii. 32, iv. 42.

Tert Apol 39 (i. 478).

Tert Cor 11 (ii. 92).

Hipp Dan III xxiv. 7.

Ps-Mel 10 (ANCL xxiib. 121.)

ANCL xxiib. 111.

Ps-Just Orat 5.

Commod Instr ii. 22.

Cypr Bon Pat 20: cf Clem Hom iii. 19, Recog ii. 27–31.

Arnob i. 6 : the general prevalence of peace since the time of Christ is alluded to by Methodios ( Symp x. i fin).

Routh iv. 6 (studere paci).

Lecky ii. 39.

1 Th iii. 12.

1 Th v. 15.

Gal vi. 10.

1 Cor v. 12 f. The allusions in 2 Cor vi. 6 to ‘longsuffering’ and ‘love unfeigned’ refer to Paul’s attitude to outsiders in his missionary work.

Rom xii. 17–21, xiii. 8–10. I postpone for the present all commen on the intervening passage on the State (Rom xiii. 1–7).

Phil iv. 5( ).

Philemon, passim.

Tim ii. 24 ff (but see above, p. 49).

Tit iii. 1 f.

Jas iii. 9 f.

Pet ii. 17.

Pet ii. 21, 23: the words are actually addressed to slaves, who (vv. 18–20) are exhorted to submit patiently to unjust treatment from their masters, but, as the next quotation shows, the words apply to all Christians.

1 Pet iii. 8 f.

1 Pet iii. 17 f.

Did i. 2–4.

Did ii. 6 f: cf Barn xix. 3 ff.

Did iii. 2.

Barn xi. 8. Cf. also the allusions to meekness, for bearance, long suffering, etc., in I Clem xiii. I, xix. 3, xxx. I, 3.

Clem Quis Dives xiii. 1–15; Eus HE III xxiii. 6–19.

Ig E x. 1–3.

Ig T iii. 2.

Ig T iv. 2.

Ig P i. 2.

Pol ii. 2: on the duty of love, cf iii. 3, iv. 2, (xii. I).

Pol xii. 3.

Arist 15 (III), cf 17 (Syriac, 51).

Diog v. II, 15.

Herm M VIII 10. Hermas has many inculcations of gentleness, longsuffering, etc., etc.

2 Clem xiii. 3 f.

Just 1 Ap xiv. 3.

Just 1 Ap xv. 9.

Just 1 Ap xvi. 1–4. Similar professions are made by Justinus in Dial 96 (704), 133 fin (785), Res 8 fin (1588).

Athenag Legat 1 (893).

Athenag Legat 11 (912 f), cf 12 (913, 916).

Athenag Legat 34 fin (968).

P Scill 112. A little later, when persuaded by the proconsul to give up his Christianity, Speratus replies: Mala est persuasio homicidium facere, falsum testimonium dicere (114). I am not clear to what exactly the first clause alludes.

Theoph iii. 14.

Eiren IV xxxiv. 4 (ii. 271 f), quoted on pp. 61 f, and illustrating the direct bearing, according to the Christian view, of this teaching on the subject of war.

Eiren III xviii. 5 f (ii. 99 f).

Eiren IV xiii. 3. (ii. 182). Another paraphrase of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount in regard to returning good for evil occurs in Eiren II xxxii. 1 (i. 372).

Eiren Demonstr 96 (50).

Acts of Apollonius 37 (Gebhardt 56; Conybeare 46).

Clem Strom II i. 2, xviii. 88, IV xiv. 95.

Clem Strom VII xi. 62.

Clem Strom VII xiv. 84 f.

Clem frag in Maximus Confessor, Serm 55 (Migne PG xci. 965).

Tert Apol 37 (i. 463).

Tert Apol 46 (i. 512).

Tert Pat 8 (i. 1262 f), 10 (i. 1264) (absolute itaque praecipitur malum malo non rependendum).

Tert Cor 11 (ii. 92):. . . filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet. . . nec suarum ultor injuriarum.

ANCL xxiib. 94.

Or possibly, ‘take vengeance on’— .

Orig Cels ii. 30.

Orig Cels iii. 7.

Orig Cels vii. 26. Origenes refers in Cels ii. 10 to the incident of Peter’s sword; in v. 63 he quotes the beatitudes about the meek and the peace-makers, etc., in order to demonstrate the gentleness of the Christian attitude to opponents and persecutors; in vii. 25 he proves from Lamentations that the command to turn the other check was not unknown to the O.T.; in viii. 35 he quotes Mt v. 44 f and gives a couple of illustrations from pagan history of kindness to enemies.

Cypr Test iii. 22 f, 49, 106.

Cypr Donal 10.

Cypr Demetr 17, 25.

Cypr Bon Pat 5.

Pont Vit Cypr 9.

Commod Instr ii. 22 (noli nocere).

Didask I ii. 2 f : cf I ii. 1 (on blessing those who curse) and V xiv. 22 (on praying for enemies).

Didask II xlvi, 2; cf II vi. 1 (bishop not to be angry or contentious).

Clem Hom vii. 10f, xi. 20 fin, xv. 5. Arnobius (iv.36) also mentions the Christian custom of praying regularly for enemies.

Lact Inst V x. 10.

Lact Inst V xii. 4.

Lact Inst V xxii. 10.

Lact Inst VI x. 5.

Lact Inst VI xviii. 10–13: cf also xi. 1 f (against injuring others generally), and xviii. 6 (about speaking the truth to one’s enemy).

Lact Inst VI xx. 15–17. The martyr Pollio told his judge that the divine laws demanded pardon for enemies ( Passio Pollionis 2, in Ruinart 435); the martyr Lucianus that they required Christians “to cultivate mildness, to be keen on peace, to embrace purity of heart, to guard patience” (Routh iv. 6).

Tert Cor 11 (ii. 92): Et vincula et carcerem et tormenta et supplicia administrabit, nec suorum ultor injuriarum?

Consider how little influence for good would have remained to Jesus and the Apostles over the Gerasene maniac, the prostitute, the adulteress, the extortionate tax-gatherer, the thief on the cross, Onesimos, and the young robber of Smyrna (see above, pp. 43, 69, 71 f), if they had tried to combine with the spiritual means of regeneration any form of physical coercion or penalty.

It may be mentioned in passing that we are here dealing solely with the behaviour of Christians towards adult and responsible human beings. God’s treatment of man, and man’s treatment of his children, are, in some important respects, different problems.

What else can the Golden Rule mean here but that the Christian must defend his neighbour, not as his neighbour wishes, but as he himself —the Christian—wishes to be protected, viz. without violence?

Mk vi. 27 f.

Mk xv. 16–20, 24; Mt xxvii. 27 ff; Lk xxiii. 11, 36 f; John xix. 2, 32 ff. The soldiers of Antipas, as well as the Roman soldiers, were implicated.

Ac xii. 2: this is surely implied when it is said that Herodes slew him with a sword .

Ac xii. 6, 18 f.

Ac xxvii. 42, xxviii. 16, etc. Cf xvi. 23 f.

There is no need here to discuss 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 Christianity and the Roman Government (London, 1894), and the latter in any good Church History.

Ig R. v. 1. 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” (Gibbon, Decline and Fall , i. 9 f, ed. Bury). Harnack says: “The conduct of the soldiers during peace (their extortion, their license, their police duties) was as opposed to Christian ethics as their wild debauchery and sports ( e.g. “the Mimus”) at the Pagan festivals” ( ME ii. 52). Marcus Aurelius ( Medit x 10) called successful soldiers robbers; but he was a soldier himself, and was obliged to fill his ranks with gladiators, slaves, and Dalmation brigands ( Capitolinus, Hist. Aug. Life of M. Antoninus Philosophus xxi. 6 f).

M. Pol vii. 1 mentions xviii. I burns the body.

Karp 40.

M Lugd in Eus HE V i. 17 ff.

Clem Strom VI xviii. 167; Orig Cels i. 3.

Tert Apol 7 (i. 308): Tot hostes ejus quot extranei, et quidem proprii ex aemulatione Judaei, ex concussione milites, ex natura ipsi etiam domestici nostri.

Thus Tertullianus warns those who wished to buy themselves off: neque enim statim et a populo eris tutus, is officia militaria redemeris (Tert Fug 14 (ii. 119).

Tert Fug 12–14 (ii. 110–120).

Acts of Thomas 168 (iii. 282; Pick 360).

M Pionii xxi. 2.

Dion Alex in Eus HE VII xi. 22, VI xi. 2, 4.

Pont Vit Cypr 15, 18. Similarly in the Passio Montani et Lucii iii. 1, iv. 2, vi. 3, xi. 2, xxi. 9 (Gebhardt 146 ff).

Passio Mariani et Jacobi ii 2, 4, iv. 3, vi. I (Gebhardt I35ff).

Passio Fructuosi I (Ruinart 264).

See the facts reported by Eusebios in HE VII xv. and VIII xv. and VIII iv., and cf below, pp. 151 ff.

Lact Mort Pers xii.

Eus HE VIII x. 3 ff, Mart iv. 8–13, vii. 2, ix. 7: cf Passio Tarachi, etc. 2 (Ruinart 454). It is fairly safe to assume that the infliction of torture referred to in other passages (Eus HE VIII iii. 1, v. 2, vi. 2–4 6, viii, ix., etc., etc.) was carried out by soldiers, even though they are not explicitly mentioned.

Eus HE VIII iii. 3 f, Mart ix. 2, xi. 6, HE IX ix. 20.

Eus HE VIII xi. 1: cf Lact Inst V xi. 10.

I suppose this is the meaning of speculatoribus condemnationis.

Didask IV vi. 4 (see above, p. 53 n 4).

Lact Mort Pers vii. 2 ff.

op cit xxvi. 3.

op cit xxvii. 5 ff.

op cit xxxvii. 5 f.

Eus HE VIII xiv. 11.

Eus HE VIII xiv. 3.

Such is the conclusion of Harnack, who is not likely to be suspected of exaggerating the evidence in its favour. See his ME ii. 52 (“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”), MC 11 (“We shall see that the Christian ethic forbade war absolutely (überhaupt) to the Christians”), 47 f (“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. It was not however difficult to keep to this rule, and certainly the oldest Christians observed it”).

Ac. x. 1 ff, 7 ff, 47 f, xvi. 27–34.

Ac xiii. 12.

Cf. Knowling’s note on Ac xiii. 12 in The Expositor’s Greek Testament; McGiffert, Apostolic Age , 175; Bartlet, Apostolic Age , 68 n 2. Bigelmair (125) believes in his full conversion.

Phil i. 13: .

See Purves in HDB iv. 33.

Eus HE III v. 3.

Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie (1911) i. 147.

B.-Baker 1CW 21; Cunningham 251 (quoted above, p. 58 n).

Conybeare 118.

Harnack (C i. 317 n 3) says that Conybeare has not convinced him that the Armenian text of these acts contains a genuine ancient document. The acts were rejected even by the Bollandists.

DCA ii. 2028b (Art. War ).

On the evidence of the inscriptions for Christians in military service, cf DCA ii. 2028 f, Brace, Gesta Christi , 91, Harnack MC 121 n, Bigelmair 182 f.

Ruinart 71 (ET in ANCL ixb. 192–194): Symphorosa says to Hadrianus, Vir meus Getulius, cum fratre suo Amantio, tribuni tui cum essent, pro Christi nomine passi sunt diversa supplicia, ne idolis consentirent ad immolandum. . . . Elegerunt enim magis decollari quam vinci, etc.

Lightfoot AF 11 i. 503–505.

Just 1 Ap xiv. 3: “We who were formerly slayers of one another, not only do not make war upon our enemies, but,” etc. (see above, p. 61).

Just Dial 110 (729).

Quoted in DCA ii. 2028a.

B.-Baker ICW 21.

Just 1 Ap xii. 1 (see above, p. 60 n 4).

See above, p. 50.

Tat 11 (829). Harnack ( ME ii. 55 n 5) understands the word translated ‘military command’ ( ) to indicate the praetor-ship, i.e. a magisterial office. But Tatianus has already dealt with magistracy in his first clause ( ); and in a list of this sort some reference to military life is almost desiderated.

Athenag Legat 35 (969). Hefele (quoted above) does not regard this as disapproving of the warrior’s profession: but Bigelmair (166) recognizes that it is at least possible that Athenagoras had war in mind.

Orig Cels viii. 73, 68: cf 74, 75 (see below, pp. 131 ff).

Harnack ME ii. 57 n 1. Guignebert (190 f) imagines that Celsus is attacking the doctrines of the Christians rather than the “applications pratiques qu’ils en peuvent dèjá faire.” Professor B.-Baker ( ICW 21 ff) ignores the evidence of Celsus for the latter part of the second century: he does not mention his date, but treats him along with Origenes, as if they were contemporaries ( ib. 27: cf 29: “By this time, therefore,” (i.e. the time of Origenes’ reply, 248 a.d. ) “many Christians shrank from military service”).

Harnack MC 51.

Cf Harnack MC 46 f.

Ps-Just Orat 5.

Eiren IV xxxiv. 4 (ii. 271 f), quoted above, pp. 61 f.

Clem Strom IV viii. 61.

Tert Apol 37 (i. 463). The Latin runs: Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur, si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret quam occidere? The meaning is sufficiently clear, viz. that the Christians, though few, were 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 B.-Baker, however, translates ( 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 quotes it as showing that “the chief thing by which they” (i.e. Christians in the Army) “were distinguished from their Pagan comrades—so far as concerned their action in the field—was their greater readiness to encounter death, in proportion as they had received a more excellent hope for the future” (italics mine). This surprising misinterpretation of Tertullianus has been followed by Cunningham (251 f).

Tert Apol 21 (i. 403): Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares. Further reference will have to be made later to this important passage.

Latin: neque judicet de capite alicujus vel pudore.

neque damnet neque praedamnet.

Tert Idol 17 (i. 687).

de militia, quae inter dignitatem et potestatem est.

The allusions are to various items in the Roman soldier’s equipment.

Text Idol 19 (i. 690 f).

Text Jud 3 (ii 604): see above, p. 62.

Tert Marc iii. 14 (ii. 340), cf Jud 9 (ii. 621).

Tert Marc iii. 21 (ii. 351).

Tert Pall 5 (ii. 1047): caussas non elatro, non judico, non milito, secessi de populo, etc.

An allusion to 1 Cor. viii. 10

dum tamen, suscepta fide atque signata, aut deserendum statim sit, ut a multis actum, aut omnibus modis cavillandum, ne quid adversus Deum committatur, quae nec extra militiam permittuntur, aut novissime perpetiendum pro Deo, quod aeque fides pagana condixit. The phrase ‘quae nec extra militiam permittuntur’ is difficult to construe; but by retaining this reading instead of the suggested ‘ex militia’ (so Rigaltion and Migne), one does not get rid of the proposal to desert, as the Translator in ANCL xi. 348 n seems to imagine.

Tert Cor II (ii. 91–93).

Tert Cor 12 (ii. 94 f).

It will be seen (p. 108) that he asks the question “whether a believer may turn to military service,” which almost certainly implies that some believers had already done so. Similarly in De Corona (211 a.d. ) (see p. 111) he speaks of ‘transferring one’s name from the camp of light to the camp of darkness,’ and mentions those converted when they were already soldiers as a special class, thus making it evident that there were others who had enlisted after conversion.

Harnack MC 67.

B.-Baker ICW 25. Italics mine.

Christianity and Politics , 253. What is, I think, the one solitary allusion to the early Christian attitude to war in Dr. Forsyth’s Christian Ethic of War contains a serious over-statement, if not a positive in accuracy. He says (68 f): “The demand from Christian soldiers of the military oath. . . was objected to less on the grounds of the Sermon on the Mount than because it involved a confession of the Emperor’s deity inconsistent with the place of Christ in His Gospel.”

Gass, Geschichte der christlichen Ethik , i. 93.

Trocltsch III n 56.

The remarks of Ramsay ( The Church in the Roman Empire , pp. 435 f) on the subject imply that fear of participating in heathen rites was the one ground for the early Christian refusal of military service. Cf also Milman, History of Christianity , ii. 142.

Tert Apol 1, 37, Nat i. 1, (see below, p. 234).

So Harnack MC 59f: cf B.-Baker ICW 23; Guignebert 192; Bigelmair 180; De Jong 9 ff.

Scullard 212.

See above, pp. 60, 103.

Tert Apol 33 (i. 448).

Tert Pall 5 (ii. 1047 f).

Harnack MC 67.

See p. 112 n. 1. Harnack ( MC 66) waters down Tertullianus’ ‘multis, into vielleicht viele’.

Professor B.-Baker’s treatment of this point ( ICW 22–26) is peculiarly conflicting and difficult to follow. He knows the date of ‘De Idololatria,’ 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 ) Catholic” and “( b ) Montanist,” quotes the former as testifying 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,” points out how his Montanism is revealed in his later writings, and concludes that “the opinions recorded in them must be proportionately discounted.” Some remarks have already been offered (pp. 115 f) on the real bearing to Tertullianus’ boasts in Apol 37 and Nat i. 1. They cannot be taken as showing that in his Catholic period he approved of Christians acting as soldiers.

Ramsay ( The Church in the Roman Empire , pp. 435 f) speaks as if it was only a few individuals here and there who objected to Christians serving as soldiers.

Achelis, in Texte und Untersuchungen VI 4 (38–137) gives a Latin version of the Canones Hippolyti, and argues for the authorship, in the main, of Hippolutos. Riedel, in Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig, 1900) (193–230), gives a German version based on better MSS than those used by Achelis.

See Krüger 360; Maclean 160 f: Dom R.H. Conolly in Texts and Studies VIII 4 (1916). The text is given in the last-named work, pp. 175–194, and also by Funk in Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1905) ii. 97–119.

Cooper and Maclean 41; Maclean 166.

The subject is more fully dealt with by the authors already quoted; cf also Kruger 341 f; Harnack C ii. 501–517; Funk op cit ii. xix-xx viii; Bardenhewer, Patrologie , 219, 353–357; Maclean 156 ff.

Professor B. Baker is undoubtedly mistaken in treating the Christian objection to war on the ground of bloodshed as a comparatively new development belonging to “the last forty years of the third century, when the practical life and example of Christ and the Apostles was receding far into the background,” etc. ( ICW 31; cf 29: “By this time, therefore,” (i.e. 249 a.d. ), “many Christians shrank from military service”). Archdeacon Cunningham (253) follows Professor B. Baker in this error: “there seems to have been an increasing aversion to military service on the part of Christians in the third century.” The evidence of Celsus (see p. 104) shows that the Christians as a general rule refused service at least as early as 180 a.d.

Apostolic Constitutions VIII xxxii. 10.

Cooper and Maclean 41–45.

Grouts goes so far as to argue from the absence of regulations. He contends that “nothing more can be gathered from those sayings (of the Fathers) than the private opinion of certain people, not the public (Opinion) of the Churches,” and says: “But setting aside private authorities, let us come to the public (authority) of the Church, which ought to be of the greatest weight (with us). I say therefore that those who served as soldiers were never rejected from baptism or excommunicated by the 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, De Jure Belli ac Pacis , I ii. ix, 2 and x, 2). Cf Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia , ii. 718 (“The Church as a whole never sanctioned this prohibition, or called on its converts to abandon the ranks or on its adherents to refuse to enter them”).

Bigelmair 133, 171–173.

Harnack MC 72 f.

Cooper and Maclean 209: “The Church-Orders lean to the stricter view. But we cannot therefore ascribe them to sectarian bodies, who kept themselves all of from ordinary Christian life”; etc.

Minuc xxx. 6, xxxi. 6.

Or possibly ‘take vengeance on’ —

Orig Cels ii. 30.

Orig Cels iii. 7.

Orig Cels v. 33 (see above, p. 63 n 3).

Orig Cels vii. 26.

Orig Cels viii. 65. This is the only passage I have noticed in which Origenes alludes to idolatry as a bar to state-service. Bigelmair (136) recognizes that the risk of idolatrous contamination was not brought prominently forward by Origenes.

Orig Cels viii. 68.

Orig Cels viii. 69. He goes on to explain that God had not always fought for the Hebrews, because they had not always fulfilled the conditions of receiving such help by observing His law.

Orig Cels viii. 70. On the strength of this thought of the protective providence of God, he says that the Christians look forward calmly to the possible recrudescence of persecution.

Orig Cels viii. 71. Harnack ( ME i. 264 n) says: “I do not understand, any more than Origen did, the political twaddle which Celsus (lxxi) professes to have heard 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.”

Orig Cels viii. 72.

Orig Cels viii. 73.

Orig Cels viii. 74.

Orig Cels viii. 75.

Orig Cels viii. 73 (p. 135).

Orig Cels iii. 7, vii. 26 (p. 130).

Orig Cels ii. 30 (see below, p. 207).

Orig Cels iv. 82. In the following chapter he rebukes Celsus for his attempt to depreciate the political institutions and defensive wars of men (see below, p. 207).

The question is more fully discussed below, pp. 211 ff.

Grotius, De Jure , etc., I ii. ix, 2.

Wm. Smith’s edition of the Decline and Fall , ii. 189.

B.-Baker ICW 30.

Christianity and Politics ,p. 252.

Guignebert p. 196: a note refers to Orig Cels iv. 82 f.

Bigelmair 180f. The same view is suggested by Schmidt (284).

Barbèyrac ( Morale des Pères , p. 104 fn) recognizes that Origenes does not contradict himself in this matter.

Orig. Cels viii. 73, 75 (see pp. 135 f).

Neumann (241) is surely mistaken in supposing that Origenes’ reference to soldiers as opponents of Christianity implies the presence of Christians in the army.

De Jong 15: “Considering that Origenes is here defending, not only his own opinion, but Christendom in general, we must assume that also in his time. . . the great majority of Christians was opposed to military service, and that principally out of aversion to bloodshed, and that only a small number took part in it—a conclusion to which in fact the archaeological data, negative on this point, also lead us.”

Gwatkin, Early Church History , i. 191 (cf 236).

Above, p. 115.

Orig. Cels viii. 73 f (pp. 134–136).

Gwatkin, l.c.

Lecky ii. 39 (“The opinions of the Christians of the first three centuries were usually formed without any regard to the necessities of civil or political life”); Harnack ME i. 263 f (“How extravagant (hochfliegend) are his ideas!” Yet Harnack recognizes Origenes as “a great and sensible statesman”—“ein grosser und einsichtiger Politiker”); Troeltsch 123 f (“With such presuppositions [as those of Origenes] every venture in regard to social possibilities (and) every idea of the Christian criticism of society having to be also an organic reformation of it, were out of the question. God would take care that society held together. The cutting-off of the forbidden callings suffices; the rest will remain standing. . . . Elsewhere there are not wanting compromises and compositions which recognize the necessity of these callings for the social system, and therefore enjoin here too continuance in the calling”).

See above, pp. 133 f.

Orig Cels viii. 68 fin, 72 (see pp. 132–134).

Orig Cels i. 53, viii. 4, 68.

As furnishing a modern instance of the soundness of this plea, I transcribe the following passage from W. T. Stead’s Progress of the World in the Review of Reviews for August 1890 (p. 104): “The enthusiastic Americans who constituted the driving force of the Universal Peace Congress which met at Westminster in July, were provided with a very striking illustration of the fashion in which the practical impunity with which the individual can kill has told for peace in the Far West. For years the Modoc Indians, thanks to their occupancy of the lava beds, a 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 Modocs were killed, but General Canby was slain and 160 of his men. After all, the war seemed no nearer an end than it was at the beginning. In their despair the Americans abandoned the bullet and took to the Bible. Then, according to Mr. Wood, the Secretary of the American Christian and Arbitration Society, in the providence of God one little Quaker woman, “‘believing in the Lord Jesus Christ’s power, and in non-resistent principles, has converted the whole Modoc tribe to non-resistent Quakers, and they are now most harmless, self-supporting farmers and preachers of the Gospel of Christ’.” The story of the transformation effected in the relations between the Redskins and the United States Government by substituting Christian for military principles is one of the strangest of the true stories of our day. It is not surprising that the men who have found the Gospel a talisman for civilising a Modoc and an Apache should cross the Atlantic full of faith that it would be equally efficacious in staying the blood-feud of the Germans and the French.

Neumann 240; cf Bigelmair 177.

Cypr Demetr 3 (decrescit ac deficit in aruis agricola, in mari nauta, miles in castris), 17 (deminutione castrorum).

Referring to a certain Celerinus, who had suffered in the persecution of Decius (250 a.d. ), he says ( Ep 39 (33) 3): “His paternal and maternal uncles, Laurentinus and Egnatius, themselves at one time serving as soldiers in the secular camp, but (being) true and spiritual soldiers of God, in overthrowing the devil by the confession of Christ, earned by their famous passion the Lord’s palms and crowns.” We shall have to refer to this passage later; but here we may note that it is at least possible that Laurentinus and Egnatius suffered because they wished to leave the service on the ground either of idolatry or bloodshed or both. We shall meet several similar instances later on.

Cypr Donat 6.

Cypr Hab Virg 11.

Cypr Bon Pat 14.

Ruinart 342.

Plotinos, Ennead III ii. 8 (Teubner i. 237). I owe this reference to De Jong (16).

Ruinart (341), to whom we are indebted for an edition of the Acta Sancti Maximiliani Martyris , tells us that this last question and answer are absent ‘in editis,’ the reason for the omission apparently being that the words contradict the traditional Roman Catholic view of war. Ruinart inserts the words, but suggests that they mean that Maximilianus “did not reject military service as if it were evil in itself, but on account of the 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 fact that one of the canonized saints of the Church died as a conscientious objector! It is significant that Bigelmair, throughout his full treatment of the Christian attitude to military service, makes no mention of Maximilianus at all. He is certainly an awkward martyr for a Romanist to deal with, but doubly so for one who is both a Romanist and a German.

Maximilianus’ father, Fabius Victor, is somewhat of an enigma: though he refused at Dion’s bidding to persuade his son to give way and rejoiced over the latter’s witness, yet as ‘temonarius’ (? = person responsible for finding a recruit) he had himself presented Maximilianus before the proconsul, and had got him a new coat in anticipation of his enlistment. The exact situation is a little obscure: but I do not know what grounds Harnack ( MC 85) has for assuming that Fabius Victor was himself a soldier and remained so after his son’s death. The ‘temonarius,’ as far as I can discover, was not necessarily a soldier: De Jong (19 f) discusses the meaning of the word at length.

The genuineness of the Acta Maximiliani is generally admitted (Gibbon, ch xvi, note 146 (ii. 120, ed. Bury); Harnack C ii. 473, MC 84 n 2). Harnack reprints them ( MC 114 ff) from Ruinart.

These are Guignebert’s suggestions (199).

Gibbon, ch xvi (ii. 120 f, ed. Bury); Lecky i. 460; Gwatkin, Early Church History , ii. 328 f.

See p. 147, n 2. It is also just possible that the martyrs to whom he says ( Laps 2): “(Your) forehead, pure with God’s sign, could not bear the devil’s crown, (but) kept itself for the Lord’s crown,” were soldiers who had refused some pagan rite (so apparently B.-Baker ICW 31); but more probably the phrase is simply metaphorical.

Eus HE VII xv. Cf the remarks of Harnack ME ii. 58 f, MC 78 ft.

Ruinart 344 (Projeci. Non enim decebat Christianum hominem molestiis saecularibus militare, qui Christo Domino militat); cf 345 (cum Marcellus. . . proclamaret, summa auctoritate constantiae molestiis saecularibus militare non posse).

See the Passio S. Cassiani in Ruinart 345.

Anal Bolland ix. 116 ff. The historical reliability of the story is very doubtful; cf Harnack C ii. 481 f, MC 83 n 4.

Eus Mart xi. 20–22.

Acta Tarachi , etc., in Ruinart 452.

See Achelis in Texte und Untersuchungen XI 2 (esp. pp. 44 f), for a full study of the fictitious Acta of these martyrs, as well as of the historic groundwork. Harnack ( MC 83) says: “The Acts of Nereus and Achilleus. . . are to be left on one side”—but the same need not be said of Damasus’ epitaph.

I omit the words “eique fit iudicium,” which follow here in Funk’s Latin version: they are out of keeping with the context, do not appear in the parallel Greek of the Apostolic Constitutions, and are clearly a gloss.

Didask II xlv. I, xlvi. I.

Eus HE VIII i. 2.

Eus HE VIII ix. 7.

Can Illib 56. The duumvir in a provincial town was roughly what the consul was at Rome, viz. the chief magistrate. The same Synod penalized Christians who acted as ‘informers’ ( Can Illib 73).

Hefele 161.

A. W. W. Dale, The Synod of Elvira , 234 f. The Synod of Arelate (Arles, 314 a.d. ) provided that Christian magistrates, who “begin to act contrary to the discipline, then at last should be excluded from communion; and similarly with those who wish to take up political life” ( Can Arel 7).

Cf Cypr Laps 6 for an early expression of this sentiment.

Arnob i. 6: see above, pp. 65 f.

Lact Inst II ix. 23.

Lact Inst V viii. 6.

Lact Inst V ix. 2.

Lact Inst V x. 10.

Lact Inst V xvii. 12 f. The gaps in my quotation deal with the parallel case of the just man who in a wreck will not take a plank from a drowning companion. Lactantius absurdly argues that the just man will never need to take a voyage, being content with what he has. Though in this point he allows his rhetoric to get the better of his common sense, it does not follow that his argument on the other point, ill-adapted as it was to the immediate purpose in hand, was equally frivolous.

Lact Inst VI vi. 20,22.

Lact Inst VI xx. 10.

Lact Inst VI xx. 15–17.

Thess v. 8.

I Cor ix. 7; cf 2 Cor xi. 8.

2 Cor x. 3–6.

2 Cor vi. 7; cf, for other military expressions, Rom vi. 13, 23, xiii. 12.

Phil ii. 25, Philemon 2, 23, Rom xvi. 7, Col iv. 10.

Eph vi. 12–18.

2 Tim ii. 3f; cf 1 Tim i. 18. It is to be observed that the language of 1 Tim vi. 12, 2 Tim iv. 7, from which we get the familiar phrases about ‘fighting the good fight,’ is drawn, not from the battle-field, but from the race-course (cf 1 Cor ix. 25, Heb xii. 1). Harnack discusses these NT military metaphors in great detail ( MC 12–18). He finds their origin “in the pictures of the Old Testament prophets” (12), having apparently in mind such passages as Isa xi. 4 f, xlix, 2, lix. 17, Hosea vi. 5. He observes that while every Christian has to fight, it is not usually the ordinary Christian who is described as a soldier, but only the apostle and missionary. He points out that the analogy became more than a mere analogy, when it was used to prove that the missionary should be supported by the Church, and should not engage in the business of civil life.

2 Cor x. 3–5.

Eph vi. 12 f.

Lk xiv. 31–33: see above, p. 38, and cf Mt xi. 12f (= Lk xvi. 16), xxii. 7.

1 Clem xxxvii. 1–4.

Ig P vi. 2: cf S i. 2. We may remember that Ignatius was, at the time of writing, in the charge of a squad of ten soldiers.

Just I Ap. xxxix. 5.

M Paul 2–4, 6 (i. 108–116; Pick 44–48).

M Petr 7 = Act Petr 36 (i. 90; Pick 116).

Excerp Theod 85.

Eiren IV xx. 11 (ii. 223) (quotation of Ap xix. 11–17), xxxiii. 11 (ii.265) (quotation of Ps xlv. 4 f), frag 21 (ii. 490) (the armed angel that met Balaam was the Word): cf II ii. 3 (i. 255) (world to be referred to God as victory to the king who planned it).

Clem Protr x. 93, 100 fin, 110, xi. 116, Paed I vii. 54, viii. 65, Strom I xi. 51, xxiv. 159 ff, II xx. 110, 120, IV iv. 14, 16, viii. 60, xiii. 91, xxii. 141, VI xii. 103, xiv. 112, VII iii. 21, xi. 66, xiii. 83, xvi. 100 f, Quis Dives 25, 34 f.

Tert Mart 1, 3, Apol 50 init, Nat ii. 5 (i. 592 f), Spect 24 fin, cul ii. 5, Paen 6, Orat 19, Jud 7, Praescr 12, 41, Cast 12 init, Marc v. 5 (ii. 480), Fug 10 f, Res 3, Scorp 4 fin, Pudic 22 fin, Jejun 10, 17.

Tert Apol 37 (i. 463) (see above, p. 107). Harnack treats the whole subject with great thoroughness in MC 32–40.

Orig Hom in Jos XV init (Migne PG xii. 897). Cf also Orig Princ III ii. 5 (milites Christi), IV 14 (see below, p. 175), 24, Orat xiii. 3 f, xxiv, 4, Cels vii. 21 f. Harnack collects the passages from Origenes’ exegetical works in MC 26–31, 99–104. Westcott says of the Homilies on Joshua: “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 flags” ( DCB iv. 107b).

Hipp. Noet 15 (quotation of Ap xix. 11–13).

Acts of Thomas 39, 126 (iii. 157, 234; Pick 260 f, 328).

Ps-Cypr Pasch 10.

Minuc xxxvii. 1–3.

Cf Harnack M C 40–43.

Cypr Test ii. 16, iii. 117, Donat 15 init, Laud 10, 19, 26, Ep 10 (8) 1, 5, 37 (15) 1, 28 (24) 1, 31 (25) 5, 30 (30) 2, 6, 38 (32) 1, 39 (33) 2f, 46 (43), 54 (50) 1, 55 (51) 4, 17, 19, 56 (52) 2, 57 (53) 1–5, 59 (54) 17, 58 (55) 1–4, 6, 8f, 11, 60 (56) 2, 61 (57) 2f, 65 (63) 1, 73 (72) 10, 22, 74 (73) 8f, 77 (77) 2, 78 (78) 1, 80 (81) 2, Laps 2 (see above p. 151 n 3), 36, Dom Orat 15, Mort 2, 4, 9, 12, 15, Bon Pat 12, Zel Liv 2 f, Fort pref 1 f, 4, treatise 13.

Commod Instr i. 34, ii. 9–13, 20, 22, Carm 77: cf Scullard, 259.

Passio Mariani et Jacobi i. 3, iii. 4, viii. 4, x. 3 (Gebhardt 134 ff); Acta Fructuosi 3 (Ruinart 266); Passio Montani et Lucii iv. 6, xiv. 5 (Gebhardt 147 ff); Acts of Codratius (Conybeare 195, 202, 206); Passio Quirini 2 init (Ruinart 522); Acta Marcelli 1 f, 4 (Ruinart 343 f); Passio Typasii 2 ( Anal Bolland ix. 118).

Pont Vit Cypr 8, 10; Ps-Cypr Rebapt 16 fin, Fud i, 7; Arnob ii. 5, 8; Lact Inst I iii. 19, III xxiii. 2, V xix. 25, xxii. 17, VI iv. 15–19, xx. 16, VII xix. 5 f, Mort Pers xvi. 4–11.

Dion Alex De Natura (Feltoe 142), and in Eus HE VI xli. 16; Didask II vi. 10 f; Clem Ep Jas 4; Clem Hom ix. 21, Recog iv. 33, vii. 24; Eus PE 15c, 16b, 165b, 663b.

Cf Harnack ME i. 414–418.

See Harnack’s interesting note in ME i. 416–418, MC 122.

Cypr Ep 73 (72) 10.

Cypr Fort 13.

Lact Inst VI iv. 15 ff.

See above pp. 147 f, 159 f.

Harnack M C 8.

Op cit 42 f.

Gal iv. 22 ff.

Jas ii. 25; Heb xi. 31.

Ac vii. 45, xiii. 19.

Heb vii. 1, xi. 30–34. It is quite a mistake to use this passage, as Professor B. Baker does ( ICW 6, 18), in support of his view that “war is sanctioned. . . by the teaching and practice of Christ and of His immediate disciples,” if by that is meant that war is something in which the follower of Jesus was permitted to take part.

Clem xii.

Barn xii. 2, 9.

Just Dial 126 (772), 139 (796).

Op cit 83 (672).

Op cit 90 f (692 f), 111 (732), 113 (736 f), 115 (741, 744), 131 (781).

Harnack says ( MC 26): “Marcion’s grasp of the Christian idea of God was without doubt essentially accurate. But the thought of a development of the Jewish conception of God into the Christian was as remote from him as from his opponents; so that he had to break with the historical antecedents of Christianity, and his Catholic opponents had to adulterate the Christian idea of God with what was out-of-date. Both fell into error, for there was no other way out. It will however always remain a credit to the Marcionite Church, which long maintained itself, that it preferred to reject the Old Testament, than to tarnish the picture of the Father of Jesus Christ by the intermixture of traces of a warlike God.”

The reader who cares to study these allusions in detail will find them in Eiren III xvi. 4, xvii. 3, IV xxiv. 1, frags 18 f, 44 (ii. 86, 93, 232, 488 f, 509), Demonstr 20 (11), 27 (16), 29 (17); Clem Strom I xxiv. 158–164, II xviii. 82, 88; Tert Jud 4, 9 f (ii. 605, 622 f, 627 f), Marc iii. 16 (ii. 343), 18 (ii. 347), iv. 36 (ii. 451), Monog 6 fin, Jejun 7, 10; Hipp Dan I viii. 3, III xxiv. 8, IV xliv.

Tert Idol 19 (i. 690): see above, p. 109.

Novat Spect 2: ubi, inquiunt, scripta sunt ista, ubi prohibita? alioquin et auriga est Israel Helias et ante arcam Dauid ipse saltauit.

Cf Harnack MC 11 f.

Orig Princ IV i. 9 fin.

Orig Princ IV 14.

Orig Cels iii. 7, vii. 18–26.

See below, pp. 218 ff.

Adamant i. 10, 12, 13.

Tertullianus ( Virg 1) has some words about the development of righteousness from its rudiments in the natural fear of God, through infancy in the Law and the Prophets, youth in the Gospel, and maturity in the work of the Paraclete, but he does not work the theory out.

Minuc xxxiii. 3.

Cypr Test ii. 21, Fort 8.

Cypr Bon Pat 10, Zel Liv 5: cf also Ps-Cypr Jud 6; Victorinus in Routh iii. 458.

Cypr Ep 72 (71) 1, Dom Orat 32.

Lact Inst IV xvii. 12 f.

Mk xiii. 7 f ‖s. According to ‘The Vision of Isaiah,’ the war continues incessantly from the Creation to the Parousia (see above, pp. 49 f).

Lk xix. 27, cf 11.

2 Th ii. 8.

Ap vi. 1–8.

Ap iii. 21, v. 5: cf John xvi. 33.

Ap i. 16, ii. 12, xix. 15.

Ap ii. 16.

Ap ii. 23.

Ap xiv. 14–20, xvi. 13 f, 16, xix. 11–21.

Ap xx. 7–10.

Brandt in Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , v. 263b.

Isa lxiii. 1–6 (the one in dyed garments from Bosrah) is quoted by Justinus in Dial 26 (532), Dan vii. 11 (destruction of the Beast) and 26 (overthrow of the Horn) in Dial 31 (540 f), Ps xlv. 5 (arrows in the heart of the king’s enemies) in Dial 38 (557), Ps cx. 1 (“until I make thine enemies thy footstool,” etc.) and 5 (kings crushed in the day of God’s wrath) in Dial 32 (545). From Dial 32 (544) we gather that Justinus regarded the putting of Christ’s enemies under his feet as a process going on from the time of the Ascension.

M Paul 3 (i. 110 ff; Pick 45).

Excerp Theod 72.

Eus HE V xvi. 18f.

Tert Apol 20 (ii. 389 f).

Tert Marc iv. 39 (ii. 455 f, 458 f).

Hipp Dan IV xl. 3 (Dan x. 13, 20 f).

Hipp Dan IV xlix. 1, 4.

Hipp Dan IV xvii. 8 f.

Didask II vi. 6–11,

Cypr Mort 2.

Victorinus in Haussleiter, Theologisches Literaturblatt , April, 1895, col. 195.

Lact Inst VII xv. 10 f. xvi. 1–5, 12–14, xvii. 6ff, xix.

Lact Inst VII xviii. 4.

Tert Marc iii. 13 init (ii. 337 f) (a ridiculous picture of the infant Immanuel acting as warrior), 14 (ii. 340) (see above, p. 51), iv. 20 (ii. 406 f), v. 18 (ii. 516 f), Res 20 (ii. 821).

Harnack MC 10: he discusses the whole question very fully (8–12: cf 43 f).

Harnack MC 11 f (see below, pp. 193 f).

Mk xiii (see above, pp. 35, 179).

See above, pp. 98 f.

Mt xxiv. 1 f, 6–8, 15–22 (cf x. 14 f, xi. 20–24, xiii. 40–42, xxi. 41–46, xxiii. 34–39); Lk xvii. 31–37, xix. 41–44, xxi. 5 f, 9–11, 20–24.

Barn xvi. 4.

Sibulline Oracles iv. 115–118, 125–127.

Robinson and James, p. 22.

Just Dial 110 (732): the prophecies are quoted in 1 Ap xlvii.

Just Dial 139 (796).

Orig Cels iv. 22.

Theoph iii. 11.

Tert Apol 26 fin (ii. 432).

Tert Marc iii. 23 (ii. 353 f), cf Jud 13.

Hipp Dan IV lviii. 3. In De Antichristo 30, he quotes Isaiah’s prophecies about the desolation of Jerusalem as being now fulfilled, and mentions the martyrdom of Isaiah and the crucifixion of Christ in connection with them.

ANCL ixb. 41, 43–45: cf Krüger 331 f.

Minuc xxxiii. 4.

Ps-Cypr Pasch 15.

Orig Cels iv. 22.

Orig Cels iv. 73.

Orig Cels viii. 42. Cf also op cit i. 47, ii. 8, 13 fin, 34, 78, iv. 32, v. 43, vii. 26, viii. 47, 69, Orat xxxi. 7.

Orig Princ II iv. 4.

Orig Cels iv. 70 (see below, pp. 215 f), 72.

M Pionii iv. 18 (Gebhardt 99).

Ps-Cypr Quod Idola 10, cf 12 f.

Ps-Cypr Jud 6–8.

per Romanos operans; a variant reading gives inspirans for operans (cf Harnack C ii. 496 n 2).

Didask VI xix. 1.

Lact Inst IV xxi: the prophecy was contained in the so-called ‘Preaching of Peter and Paul,’ which may be as early as the first decade or so of the second century (see Krüger 61 f).

Eus PE 8d, 9a.

Adamant i. 11.

Dr. Forsyth makes great use of this argument, in his Christian Ethic of War (10, 30 f, 40, 87 f, 138, etc.).

1 Clem xlv. 7, viii. 4.

Theoph ii. 36.

Eiren Demonstr 20 (11).

Eiren IV xxxvi. 6 (ii. 282 f)—Eirenaios goes on to quote Rom xiii. 1b-6, about the magistrate’s sword, an aspect of the case which we shall deal with later. Cf Eiren frag 44 (ii. 509) (Balaam deservedly slain).

Tert Marc i. 24 (ii. 275) (nec fulminibus tantum, aut bellis, et pestibus, aliisque plagis Creatoris, sed et scorpiis ejus objectus—speaking of the Markionite’s flesh), iv. 29 (ii. 435).

Tert Scorp 3 (ii. 129).

Orig Cels iv. 9.

Cypr Demetr 2, 5.

Lact Inst I i. 15, VII xxvi. 13 f, Mort Pers lii. 3; Eus HE IX xi. 9, X i. 1, 7, etc., Vit Const i. 3, etc.

Harnack MC 11 f.

This attitude appears mainly in the Apocalypse and in Hippolutos’ Commentary on Daniel . Cf also P. Scill 112: ego imperium huius seculinon cognosco.

An inscription is preserved in which the (pagan) tenants of certain of the imperial estates in Africa express their appreciation of their landlord, the Emperor Hadrianus: they speak of “the sleepless vigilance with which he watches over the welfare of mankind” (H. Stuart Jones, The Roman Empire (‘Story of the Nations’ Series), p. 189).

Rom xiii. 1b, 3 f, 6b.

1 Pet ii. 13 f, 17.

1 Tim ii. 1 f.

John xix. 11.

Mostly with reference to Nebuchadnezzar, but also generally. The idea is not so incompatible with Hippolutos’ view of the Empire as a Satanic Beast-power, as appears at first sight. Weinel (24) has pointed out that Satan could be thought of as the servant of God.

In regard to Constantinus.

In Arnobius (i. 2) and the Pseudo-Cyprianic Quod Idola Dii non sint (4 f), we find a theory of the establishment of empires by chance or lot (cf Tert Pall 1 (ii. 1031) (At cum saecularium sortium variavit urna, et Romanis Deus maluit,. . . ); Lact Inst VII xv. 13; Scullard 96 f). For a modern opinion on the Divine appointment of the State, see Horace Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural , p. 12.

Or possibly, “who teaches (men) by the Word to do the same as they (i.e. the lawgivers) (do)” ( [Otto: ] ).

Just 2 Ap ix. 1 f. He goes on to say that the Logos had shown that some human laws were bad and some good.

Athenag Legat 35 (969): see below, p. 214.

Theoph i. 11: cf Prov xxiv. 21 f.

Eiren V xxiv. 1 (ii. 388 f).

Eiren V xxiv. 2 (ii. 389).

Eiren V xxiv. 3 (ii. 389 f).

Tert Apol 2 (i. 276 f).

Tert Spect 19 (i. 651).

Tert Anim 33 (ii. 706).

Tert Scorp 14 (ii. 150).

Ps.Mel 10 ( ANCL xxiib. 121).

Orig Comm in Rom t ix. 26 (Migne PG xiv. 1226 f).

Orig Comm in Rom t ix. 28 (Migne PG xiv. 1227 f).

Orig Cels viii. 65.

Orig Cels iv. 82.

Orig. Cels vii. 70.

Acta Disput Achat iii. 2 (Gebhardt 117)

Cypr Donat 10.

Cypr Demetr 11.

Clem Hom iii. 36.

Clem Recog ix. 15.

Method Symp ii.

Arnob vi. 26: cf iv. 34, vii. 39 ff, appx (punishment of a slave).

Lact Inst III xvi. 2.

Lact Inst V ix. 15, 17.

Lact Inst VI xx. 10 (see p. 159).

Lact Inst VII xxvi. 12: cf I i. 13: tacterrimum aliorum facinus expiasti.

‘Capital’ punishment, in ancient times, did not necessarily mean the death-penalty, though it might do so. It meant the complete loss of one’s status as a citizen, either by death, or exile, or enslavement.

Lact Ira Dei xvii. 6 f.

Lact Ira Dei xx. 7.

Lact Ira Dei xxiii. 10: cf xvii. 16, xviii. 1 f.

Eus PE 73cd.

Eus PE 135cd, cf HE IX xi. 5 f.

Eus PE 244d.

1 Clem xxxvii. 1–4 ( ): see p. 163.

1 Clem lxi. 1, 2. Guignebert (191 n 4), Harnack ( MC 18 f, 52 f), and Weinel (26) have interesting remarks on Clemens’ view of the Roman army.

Eiren II xxxii. 2 (i. 373).

Eiren IV xxxvi. 6 (ii. 282 f).

Clem Strom I xxiv. 158–163, xxvi. 168.

Clem Strom VI xiv. 112: cf also Paed III iii. 24 f, Strom I xxiii. 157, IV iv. 14, 16.

Tert Anim 31 (ii. 701): Ecce. . . Pythagoram vero tam residem et imbellem, ut praelia tunc Graeciae vitans, Italiae maluerit quietem.

Tert Res 16 (ii. 815):. . . gladius bene de bello cruentus et melior homicida laudem suam consecratione pensabit. Passing reference will suffice to the allusions in Tert Nat ii. 17 (i. 608) to the part played by war in the rise and fall of States under the control of Providence, in Pall 1 (ii. 1031) to the exemplification of this in the wars between Rome and Carthago, in Pall 2 (ii. 1036) to the repulse of the barbarians as a sign of God’s favour to the Emperors, and in Anim 30 (ii. 700) to the useful purpose served by wars, pestilences, etc., as remedies for overpopulation.

The section on military tactics is to be found in Veterum Mathematicorum. . . Opera , Paris, 1693, pp. 227–303. A summary and partial translation of it into French was published at Berlin in 1774 by Charles Guischard, a Prussian infantry colonel, in a work entitled Memoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquites militaires . He censures Julius Africanus for his barbarity as well as for his superstition: “The Christian religion in its birth did not always cure men of their errors in point of morals,” he says, “nor of this leaning which they then had to superstition. . . . Julius Africanus therefore could be orthodox, could compose commentaries on the Bible, and at the same time a book of magic charms, and could teach the art of poisoning wells” (p. 400).

On Africanus, cf DCB i. 57a, Harnack MC 73 n 3; Bardenhewer Patrologie , 163.

See above, p. 137.

Orig Cels ii. 30. I pass over the casual allusion in i. 59 to stars portending revolutions, wars, or other events.

Orig Cels iv. 82 ( ).

Orig Cels iv. 83. It hardly perhaps needs to be said that Origenes does not here imply the existence of Christian patriotic wars, as a less rigidly literal translation in better English would more strongly suggest. Such an idea is indeed impossible in view of what he says elsewhere, not to mention the obvious facts of the situation. The phrase is nothing more than a loosely worded enumeration of the standing institutions of Church and State.

Orig Cels viii. 73. His references in 69 f to the Romans praying to the one God and so being able to conquer their enemies more effectively (see above, p. 132) must not be pressed. He is dealing with an imaginary situation and omits for the moment to make allowance for that introduction of the Christian ethic which his hypothesis strictly required. In 70 he immediately corrects the omission: “. . . or (rather) they will not fight at all,” etc.

Cypr Demetr 3 (decrescit ac deficit in aruis agricola, in mari nauta, miles in castris), 17 (ruinis rerum, iacturis opum, dispendio militum, deminutione castrorum).

Clem Recog ix. 15.

Method Symp viii. 16.

Lact Opif Dei ii. 6: cf Inst VII iv. 14.

Lact Inst III xvii. 3.

Lact Mort Pers xix. 6. The loss of military discipline is mentioned in Inst VII xvii. 9 as one of the disasters of the time of Antichrist.

Lact Mort Pers xviii. 10.

Lact Mort Pers xliv-xlviii.

Lact Mort Pers xlvi: cf Harnack MC 89 f.

Lact Mort Pers xliv. 5 f.

Lact Inst I i. 13–16, VII xxvi. 11–17.

Eus HE VIII xiv. 11. Cf Harnack ME ii. 55 n 2 (“Eusebius’s feelings thus are those of a loyal citizen of the empire”), MC 73.

Eus HE IX x. 14.

e.g. Pol xii. 3.

1 Tim ii. 1 f.

Harnack ME ii. 53 n. “. . . The emperor, even from the apocalyptic standpoint, had a certain divine right of existence as a bulwark against anarchy and the barbarian hordes; for the “pax terrena” was a relative good, even from the strictest Christian standpoint. . . . Now the emperor needed soldiers to maintain this “pax terrena.” They were part and 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 so many words, to the emperor.” Similarly MC 123.

Tert Apol 30 (i. 443).

Orig Cels viii. 73: for the context, see pp. 134 f.

Acta Disput Achat i. 3: deinde pro salute militum et pro statu mundi et orbis (Gebhardt 115).

Cypr Demetr 20.

Arnob iv. 36.

Carlyle, Mediaeval Political Theory in the West , vol. i. 91–97.

Ap xiii. 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15: see Moffatt’s note on 7 in Expositor’s Greek Test . (“The beast’s world-wide authority goes back to the dragon’s commission (2) but ultimately to the divine permission (so in 5). There is a providence higher even than the beast”).

Eiren IV xxxvi. 6 (ii. 282 f) (quoted on p. 205), V xxiv. 3 (ii. 389) (quoted above p. 199).

Rom ii. 14 f; ct i. 19 f.

Rom xii. 17-xiii. 6: cf. especially the words of xii. 19 ( ) with those of xiii. 4 ( ).

Herm S I 4: .

Athenag Legat 36(969) (i.e. the gladiatorial shows).

Orig Orat xiii. 2 f.

Orig Cels i. 1. It is a complete mistake to assume, as is apparently done by Bestmann (ii. 295) and Bigelmair (110), that Origenes meant that a Christian might justifiably conspire against and assassinate a tyrant. In the ordinary ethical code of historical Greece, to slay a tyrant was an act of the most laudable heroism (Grote, History of Greece , iii. 26 f); and Origenes simply accepts, for the purpose of his argument, this backward moral sentiment as admitted by his opponent and as relatively valid, without thereby implying that the act would be justified in the case of one on whom the full light of Christianity has come. Origenes also assumed the rightness of exempting pagan priests from military service in order that they might offer sacrifices (see above, p. 135): yet how absurd would it be to infer from this that he would have approved of Christians becoming pagan priests and offering sacrifices!

Orig Cels vii. 70: see p. 201.

Orig Cels iv. 70.

Yet Origenes was unable to do full justice to the relativity of morality see Cels v: 28, where he insists overmuch on the absolute nature of what is right, and denies that differing customs and usages can be right for different nations): hence his attitude to governmental coercion lacks something to make it entirely sound.

Clem Hom xx. 2.

Clem Hom xx. 3.

Adamant i. 9: the discussion on the point occupies i. 9–16, 18 (cf ii. 15). For Tertullianus’ view of the gradual development of righteousness, see above, p. 177, n 3.

Ac v. 1–11.

Ac xvi. 35–39, xxii. 23–29, xxiv. 10 ff, xxv. 6–12.

Ac xiii. 9–11.

Ac xvi. 29–34.

Ac x, xi.

Gal v. 12.

1 Cor v. 1–5.

Rom xiii. 1–6.

Ac xxiii. 12–24.

Bigelmair 94 f.

Bestmann i. 403–405.

Just 1 Ap xvi. 14.

Backhouse and Tylor, Early Church History , p. 130.

Clem Hom xx. 13, Recog x. 54 f.

Eus HE VII xxx. 19.

Eus HE VIII i. 2.

Eus HE VIII ix. 7.

Eus HE VIII xi. 1: see above, p. 95.

Eus Vit Const i. 16 f.

See above, pp. 156 f.

See above, pp. 89–96.

Lk. iii. 14.

Lk. vii. 2–10‖.

Mk xv. 39‖s.

Ac x. 1–8, 22.

Ac xiii. 7, 12.

Clem Alex in Eus HE II ix.

Ac xvi. 24, 27, 33 f.

Ac xxi. 31–40, xxii. 24–29, xxiii. 10, 17–35, xxiv. 22 f, xxviii. 16, 31.

Ac xxvii. 1, 3, 43.

Acts of John 6 (ii. 154; Pick 129 f).

Eus HE VI v. 3: see more fully below, p. 233.

Perpet 9, 16, 21.

Eus HE VI xix. 15, xxi. 3 f.

Greg Thaum Paneg v. 67–72.

Dion Alex in Eus HE VI xli. 16.

Didask V i. 1.

Pont Vit Cypr 16.

Eus HE VII xxxii. 8 f.

See above, p. 224.

See above, pp. 97 f.

See above, p. 226.

Ac x. 1, ff, 7 ff, 47 f, xvi. 27–34.

Harnack MC 53.

So Harnack ME ii. 52.

See pp. 99–101.

The pagan witnesses are the pillar of Marcus, Dio Cassius (lxxi. 8, 10), and Capitolinus (Hist. Aug. Life of M. Antoninus Philosophus , xxiv. 4).

So Harnack ( C i. 360 f), though the dates are a little difficult to reconcile.

Eus HE V v. 3 f.

So Lightfoot AF II i. 491.

DCB iv. 1024a.

Tert Apol 5 (i. 295) (illam germanicam sitim christianorum forte militum precautionibus impetrato imbri discussam), Scap 4 (i. 703) (christianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis).