Military Service in the Church Orders by Kreider

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING PROOFS

These are the proofs for your article exactly as it will appear in the next issue of Journal of ReligiousEthics. It is the authors’ responsibility to read and correct these proofs; all queries on them are directedto the author and should be resolved before proofs are returned to the publisher.Please remember to read everything: quoted material, headings, captions, and page numbers as wellas the text of your article. Check the placement of tables and illustrations. It is your responsibility toinsert page numbers where the typesetter has set “see p. 000” for cross references.

Making Corrections

Please make corrections directly on the proofs using any consistent set of marks. Each correctionshould be labeled in the margin in one of three categories:

1. Printer’s Errors: where the typesetter has strayed from the original copy (for example, by misspellinga word or omitting some copy). These should be marked with the legend “PE” in the margin.

2. Editor’s Alterations: errors that should have been noted by the copyeditor before the manuscriptwas sent to the typesetter. These should be obvious errors, not choices that might be subject tointerpretation (e.g., these should be limited to grammatical error or some misuse of a name or term).These should be marked with the legend “EA” in the margin.

3. Author’s Alterations: these are restricted to absolutely essential changes, such as errors of fact, andare allowed only at the editor’s discretion and at the author’s expense. Note that making corrections atthe proof stage is very costly. As the pages are already numbered, any change affecting the length ofa page must be avoided and author’s changes should involve a character-for-character exchangewherever possible. These should be marked with the legend “AA” in the margin.

Returning Proofs

Your corrected proofs must be returned no later than 10 days of receipt to: Michael Harrup, PMB#312, 222 West 21st Street, Norfolk, VA 23517. You may also e-mail your corrections (citing pageand line number and indicating whether the error is PE, EA, or AA) to him at [email protected]. Theeditors reserve the right to correct proofs themselves if proofs are not received within the specifiedtime.

If you would like offprints, please fill out the order form on the following page and return it with yourproofs.

OFFPRINT ORDER FORM for Journal of Religious Ethics All first-named authors receive 5 free copies of the journal. If you wish to order additional offprints at your own expense, you must complete the form below and return it (with the correct remittance*) to:

Sheridan Reprints Chris Jones 450 Fame Avenue Hanover, PA 17331 Phone 1-800-352-2210, ext 8128 Fax 1-717-633-8929 Email: [email protected]

Please return this form within 5 days of receiving it. Required fields must be completed correctly before the issue goes to press in order for this pricing to apply. Authors may also obtain a PDF version of their article through Synergy, our online content site http://www.blackwell-synergy.com. If your library has a subscription to the journal, you can obtain a PDF without charge. If your library does not have a subscription, you may download a copy via our pay-per-view service. Please refer to the copyright assignment form submitted with the article for terms and conditions of use. Please fill out the following information: (PLEASE PRINT) Name: ________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Phone: __________________ Email: ________________________

Payment Information:

Number of pages

Charge per 50 copies***

Charge per 100 copies

Additional 100s

1-8 $70.00 $80.00 $40.009-16 $110.00 $135.00 $65.0017-24 $130.00 $170.00 $95.0025-32 $175.00 $225.00 $120.00Over 3 2 $4.50/page $4.50/page $4.50/page

❏ Check enclosed ❏ Purchase order enclosed ❏ Credit card: ❏ MasterCard ❏ VISA Exp. date: _____/_____

Number: _____-_____-_____-_____ Signature: _________________________________________________ *Payment must be in U.S. funds drawn on a U.S. bank. **If paying with credit card, you may fax your order to the number listed above. ***Minimum order is 50 copies. Notes: This pricing is for black and white only. Orders are shipped 3-4 weeks after the issue is published; please note that delivery may take 6-10 weeks. Actual Page Range of Article*

Volume/Issue* Qty.* Total Price

─ / $ .00Cover (optional, add $80) $ .00

Domestic Shipping (add $5) $ .00

International Shipping (add $15)** $ .00

TOTAL (please do not forget to include charges for covers and shipping)

$ .00

*Required fields. **Shipping is not traceable, for other shipping options please contact Chris Jones.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31

MILITARY SERVICE IN THE CHURCH ORDERS

Alan Kreider

ABSTRACT

The debate concerning the approach of the early Christians to the militarycan be advanced by paying attention to a genre of literature that scholarshave largely ignored: the church orders. These documents—the ApostolicTradition, Canons of Hippolytus, Testament of Our Lord, and ApostolicConstitutions—are illuminating in that they deal with ethics within com-prehensive treatments of worship, catechesis and pastoral life. They alsoare useful in that they, as variations upon a common original, are meansof monitoring change across the third and fourth centuries. This articleuses the church orders to assess four elements of a “new consensus” (DavidHunter) on Christians in the military. By and large it confirms these, butat times it alters emphases and adds nuances. It argues that: (1) the churchorders viewed killing as the big problem for Christians in the legions, notidolatry; (2) the church orders confirm that the pre-Christendom churchwas divided on Christian participation in the legions; (3) the church or-ders provide evidence for both discontinuity and continuity on the issueacross the centuries, although the deepest continuity, based on John theBaptist’s “rule” of Luke 3.14, is between the pre-Constantinian laity andlater theologians; (4) the church orders confirm a regional variation inattitude and practice. The church orders’ authority in practice is neverclear.KEY WORDS: war, peace, military service, early church, church orders

MILITARY SERVICE IN THE EARLY CHURCH: to discuss this subject is to wan-der into a minefield.1 The Christian traditions, East and West, Catholicand Protestant, state church and free church, have not primarily beenpacifist. But some Christian writers of the early centuries wrote thingsthat could make it appear that the pre-Constantinian believers had beenpacifist. A lapidary sample comes from Tertullian (De Idololatria 19):“Christ, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.” Within the pastcentury scholars in the pacifist pockets of the Christian churches havewritten substantial books to demonstrate that the early church was aspacifist as they; they have also attempted to explain how a once-pacifistchurch (to quote the title of one book on the subject) “made its peace

1 The arguments in this paper were first presented in the Centre for the Study of Chris-tianity and Culture, Regent’s Park College, Oxford, England, May 5, 1999.

JRE 31.3:415–442. C© 2003 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31

416 Journal of Religious Ethics

with war” (Cadoux 1919; Driver 1988). These writings have irritatednon-pacifist Christian scholars, who have attempted to respond withsounder scholarship and juster argument, thereby liberating us all from“the burden of mistaken assumptions and misread history” (Helgelandet al. 1985).

In the latter half of the twentieth century the debate seesawed backand forth. In 1960 the pacifist side of the debate was strengthened bythe appearance of the French Reformed scholar Jean-Michel Hornus’sEvangile et Labarum, which was quickly translated into German andwhich many academic reviewers in Europe took with great serious-ness (Hornus 1960; Hornus 1963). The English translation of 1980 andits Hungarian sequel of 1993 have made less impact.2 This is a pity,for Hornus made at least one contribution—he studied the church orders,thereby adding a potentially illuminating genre of evidence to the debate.But Hornus was weakened by his penchant for polemic, and by his be-lief that one could generalize about early Christianity. So he spoke about“The Christian Attitude” and about “Antimilitarism—The Church’s FirstOfficial Position.” Towards the end of his book he confidently referred tothe views of those who queried the non-violence of the early Christiansas “the old orthodoxy” and “the former historical doctrine” (Hornus 1980,96, 158, 227, 232). Hornus thought that he had settled the question forgood.

Hornus was less successful than he imagined. In the two decades sincehis book was published prominent ethicists who have studied militaryservice in the early church have either ignored his work or dismissedit (Cahill 1994; Johnson 1987, 6). And, on the part of historians, otherstudies have appeared—notably by the Lutheran John Helgeland and theRoman Catholic Louis Swift—which have come to dominate the field.3

Helgeland has been especially influential. His study of Roman army reli-gion convinced him that early Christians’ antimilitarism was primarily aresponse to the idolatry that permeated life in the legions, not a repudia-tion of killing; therefore after the conversion of the emperor ConstantineI there was no need for Christians to rethink their position on partic-ipation in warfare. Swift’s study was more mediating, finding that “inthe period before Constantine . . . both pacifist and non-pacifist positionsexisted side by side and . . . neither was able to supplant the other” (Swift1983, 79).

2 The English edition was easy to miss because it was published, not by a major the-ological publisher, but by a Mennonite denominational press (Herald Press); the Hungar-ian translation was privately printed by members of Bokor, a radical Catholic renewalmovement.

3 Helgeland 1974; Helgeland 1979; Helgeland, et al., 1985; Swift 1979; Swift 1983.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31

Military Service in the Church Orders 417

1. The “New Consensus”

Studies of the subject have continued to appear, and the literature isnow immense (Brock 1988).4 David Hunter, a Roman Catholic theolo-gian now at Iowa State University, has recently written two surveysof the literature which present a “new consensus” which he believeshas emerged (Hunter 1992; Hunter 1994). The consensus is on threeassertions:

1. Idolatry: the early Christians were as repelled by the idolatry of theRoman army as they were by killing, if not more so; and the most vocalof early Christian opponents of military service based their objectionsas much upon their “abhorrence of Roman army religion” as theirrejection of shedding blood.

2. Division: at least from the end of the second century it is clear thatvarious Christians had different approaches to warfare. Especiallythere was a “divergence in Christian opinion and practice.”

3. Continuity: Christians such as Augustine who justified participationin warfare for a “just cause” were in “fundamental continuity with atleast one strand of pre-Constantinian tradition.”Quite a few scholars, I believe, would accept this summary of a newconsensus. To it I would add a fourth assertion which I believe is widelyattested in the literature:

4. Regional variation: attitudes and practices probably varied accord-ing to geographical location. Antimilitarist sentiment was strongestamong Christians in the imperial heartlands and weakest on the bor-ders (Karpp 1957, 500–501; Young 1989, 491).

I find much that is sensible in the new consensus. And it is persuasivenot least because it allows for a degree of messiness and inconsistencyin early Christian thought and practice. This is more credible than theattempts of Hornus and some anti-pacifist scholars as well to make theearly Christians as coherent as they would like them to have been. Noserious scholar can again write, as Hornus did, about “The ChristianAttitude.”

2. The Church Orders and Their Use

But we must, of course, constantly test every consensus by the sources.And there is one genre of sources on which Hornus concentrated towhich Johnson, Cahill, Helgeland, Swift and other recent scholars have

4 Brock 1988 lists 111 books, articles and chapters in books which appeared in theprevious century.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


given very little attention—the “church orders.”5 These documents, of-ten claiming apostolic or even dominical authority, were manuals whichpurported to guide church leaders in ordering the liturgy, organization,communal life and discipline of early Christian communities. Some ofthese, such as the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition, have becomewell-known; and the Apostolic Tradition has had a formative role in theliturgical life of many Christian traditions in the past half century. Oth-ers, such as the Canons of Hippolytus, the Testament of our Lord, and theApostolic Constitutions, have been less well publicized. But all of these,in my view, are important in the debate about early Christianity and war-fare. The reason is simple. The church orders as a genre are cumulative.Many of them drew extensively on previous documents, adding, delet-ing, revising. In the 380s, for example, the Syrian compiler of the Apos-tolic Constitutions incorporated and revised materials from the second-century Didache, the third-century Didascalia Apostolorum, and thelargely third-century Apostolic Tradition. Thus, across a period of sev-eral centuries, the church orders enable us to monitor the changing viewsof thinkers in several early Christian communities as they handled thesame texts and dealt with similar problems. And specifically they enableus to observe changing approaches to the question of military service.

In this paper I shall examine the church orders as they open windowsto the cultures and practices of certain early Christian communities.6

Unlike Hornus, I will not claim that the church orders at any point rep-resented “the position” of the Christian church as a whole; there wascertainly much regional variation and the authority for practice of thechurch orders is, as I shall indicate, open to question. But I find thechurch orders to be both intriguing and significant.

So how did the church orders treat the question of military service?Let us begin to answer this by examining the Apostolic Tradition, whichspeaks about military service explicitly.7

5 Johnson 1987 and Cahill 1994 deal with other patristic sources, but not the churchorders. Helgeland 1979, 752 and Swift 1983, 47 each devote a single page to the ApostolicTradition and say nothing about the subsequent church orders. The best introduction tothis genre is Bradshaw 1992, chap 4.

6 My reading of these documents has been helped by the work of a cluster of scholarsassociated with the University of Notre Dame: Bradshaw 1992; Bradshaw, 1996; Johnson1996; Yoder 1996. I have also built upon several parts of Hornus’ work—notably his com-paratively extensive treatment of the church orders (Hornus 1961; Hornus 1980, chap 5).

7 For editions, see Apostolic Tradition 1968 (ed Dix/Chadwick); 1989 (ed Botte); 198 (edCuming); and 2001 (ed Stewart-Sykes). The Hermeneia edition, edited by Paul F. Bradshaw,Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips, has appeared since this article was acceptedfor publication (Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002), and I have made some slight alterationsto my text in light of it. It is now the standard translation of the variant sources, and itseditorial comments are learned and suggestive.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, c.16:In the Legions without Killing

Apostolic Tradition c 16 (variant texts): Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, 88–90

Sahidic Arabic EthiopicA soldierwho has authority,

let him not kill a man.If he is ordered,

let him not go to thetasknor let him swear.

But if he is not willing,let him be cast out.

A soldierin the sovereign’s army

should not kill,or if he is orderedto killhe should refuse.

If he stops,so be it;otherwise,he should be excluded.

They are not to acceptsoldiersof an official,

and if he is given an orderto killhe is not to do it;if he does not stop,he is to be expelled.

Concerning other people,

Concerning those whowear redor believers whobecomes soldiersor astrologers or magiciansor such like:let them be excluded.

either a believer whobecomesa soldier or an astrologeror magicianor the like

One who hasauthority of the sword,or a ruler of a citywho wears the purple,either let him ceaseor be cast out.

One who has the powerof the swordor the head of a cityand wears red,let him stopor be excluded.

An officialwho has a swordor a chief of appointedpeople and who wearspurple is to stopor be expelled.

A catechumenor faithful [person]if he wishesto become a soldier,let them [sic] be cast out,because they despised God.

A catechumen or a believer,if they wantto be soldiers, let them beexcluded because theydistance themselves fromGod.

A catechumenor believer,if they wishto become a soldier,are to be expelledbecause they are farfrom God.

John Helgeland and his colleagues, who argue that the early Chris-tians were worried about idolatry in the Roman legions but not killing,have paid little attention to the Apostolic Tradition.8 Some liturgicalscholars, in contrast, have paid immense attention to it, believing that it

8 Helgeland 1979, 752 comments that the Apostolic Tradition has two “very brief ” state-ments, whose meaning is unclear: was the objection to enlistment on the basis of combat,idolatry, or some other reason? The document, says Helgeland, was clearly worried aboutthe oath, which was probably its “chief objection.” The most fruitful approach, according toHelgeland, is to see the clauses about military service in the context of the Apostolic Tradi-tion’s treatment of crafts and professions, in which concerns about immorality and idolatry

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


provides nothing less than the official liturgy of the church of Rome in thethird century. In part because of its purported Roman origin, the Apos-tolic Tradition has arguably been the most influential of early Christianwritings in the reform of the eucharistic liturgy and the renewal of thecatechetical processes of many contemporary churches. Recent scholar-ship, however, has established a more complex view of the document’sorigins (Metzger 1988; Metzger 1992; Metzger 1992a). Scholars have longknown that the purported Greek-language original of the Apostolic Tra-dition doesn’t exist; all that we have is versions in Latin, Sahidic (Coptic),Arabic and Ethiopic—and for chapter 16, which concerns us, the best ver-sion, Latin, is lacking. Furthermore, scholars such as the team, led byPaul Bradshaw of the University of Notre Dame, who have just producedthe Hermeneia commentary on the Apostolic Tradition, have studied thetexts of these documents very closely. They now see this as “an aggrega-tion of material from different sources, quite possibly arising from differ-ent geographical regions and probably from different historical periods.”Some of these materials may come from as early as the mid-second cen-tury, while other materials may come from as late as the mid-fourth cen-tury (Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips 2002, 14).9 All of this complexity makesthis an endlessly intriguing document. The document’s significance is ob-vious: it was copied repeatedly, and altered by local churches to adapt it toimmediate needs; it was, as we shall see, incorporated with adaptationsinto many later church orders. Its authority for practice is never clear.Nevertheless, in its bewildering variety of versions extending across sev-eral centuries, the Apostolic Tradition remains one of the most informa-tive texts about the life and worship of early Christian communities.

were very clear. Helgeland, et al. 1985, 35-35 add: “There is no reference whatever to pro-hibition of killing in combat whether in defense or in expansion of the empire.” Helgelandand his colleagues, we may note, use the Dix translation, which, unlike other translations,renders “execute” instead of “kill”. They do not explain why the early Christians wouldhave had theological or pastoral problems with capital punishment, but not with killingin warfare. Nor do they examine the later church orders as a means of understanding theconcerns of the Apostolic Tradition.

9 Since I wrote this article, a new edition of the Apostolic Tradition has appeared (ed.Stewart-Sykes, 2001). This edition, which draws on the researches into the history of thechurch in Rome by Allen Brent of Cambridge, like the work of Bradshaw, Johnson andPhillips, sees the Apostolic Tradition as a “multilayered work.” But according to this anal-ysis, all the layers come from Rome: some represent the ancient traditions of the Romanhouse churches; others reflect third-century trends in a church that has recently adoptedmonepiscopal leadership. Both of these layers are reconciled in the Apostolic Traditionwhich expresses the position of a united community under the leadership of Pontianus,bishop of Rome, who was martyred in 235 (see Stewart-Sykes 2001, 14, 49–50). There willclearly be detailed debate between Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, on the one hand, andStewart-Sykes and Brent, on the other. If the latter are correct, the Apostolic Tradition hadconsiderably more authority than I in this article, following Bradshaw and his colleagues,have claimed.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


The excerpt from chapter 16, which I have included here, survives inthree languages—Sahidic, Arabic and Ethiopic. The provenance of these,in location and date, is uncertain. The severest of the three versions isthe Ethiopic, which refuses to admit soldiers into the catechumenateeven if they refuse to kill. The Cistercian scholar Eoin de Bhaldraithesees this as the earliest, “primitive” formulation (De Bhaldraithe 2001,170). Together with the somewhat more lenient Sahidic and Arabic ver-sions, which are willing to catechize and baptize lower-ranked soldierswho commit themselves to refrain from killing, the Ethiopic version mayreflect a church policy prior to and somewhat less flexible than thatto which Tertullian refers in his De Idololatria and De Corona.10 TheSahidic and Arabic texts would thus be thinkable for early third-centuryNorth Africa, and these may parallel Roman practice (De Bhaldraithe2001, 170). Let us note four things about these texts.

First, the location of these texts within the Apostolic Tradition is sig-nificant. They occur in the midst of a section (chaps. 15–16) which pro-vided guidance for teachers who were screening people for their suitabil-ity as potential catechumens. The early churches, unlike most churchestoday, did not welcome prospective members with open arms. Insteadchurch leaders assessed each candidate by asking questions about theircommitments and lifestyle. The catechists’ concern was not to determinewhether their behaviour was sinful or wrong; it was rather to find outwhether they were living in such a way that they were, in the words ofchapter 15, “able to hear the word.”11 So when the catechists inquiredinto the marital state of their candidates, their relationship to their mas-ters (if they were slaves), and their crafts and professions, their primaryconcern was: were these such as to enable them to hear the word? Ac-tors, for example, who gave pagan theatrical performances—could thesehear the word in a community which vigorously repudiated polytheism?Gladiators, who killed in the arena—could these hear the word in a com-munity which forbade the taking of life? Prostitutes—could these hearthe word in a community that emphasized chastity and continence? All of

10 Tertullian (De Idololatria 19; De Corona 11) sees Christians as “sons of peace” forwhom service in the military is intrinsically difficult. He recognizes that two conditionsmitigate the difficulties: a) when a soldier is in “the rank and file,” in which case “thereis no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments,” which were harderfor the upper ranks to avoid; b) when a soldier is serving “even in time of peace,” doingguard duty, in which case he could serve “without a sword, which the Lord has taken away,”in contrast to war-time service. Tertullian admits that a soldier “may be admitted to thefaith,” but would ideally like a newly-baptized soldier immediately to abandon militaryservice, or “all sorts of quibbling” will be necessary. He does not allow for a believer toenlist. Nevertheless, it is clear that things weren’t always happening as Tertullian wished.

11 For another explanation of the church’s refusal to admit catechumens, see Dickie,2001.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


these needed to leave their professions or be rejected as potential Chris-tians; their professional commitments rendered them unable to compre-hend the life and message of the Christians. Were they to be admittedas catechumens, they simply could not “hear the word.” The ApostolicTradition adjudged members of certain other professions, however, tobe capable of hearing the word if they took the socially-costly steps ofmodifying their behaviour. Sculptors or painters, for example, could beaccepted as catechumens if they refrained from depicting pagan themes.And this is where the soldiers enter. The Apostolic Tradition assessed sol-diers, like the members of other professions, by their capacity to hear theword: did their external professional commitments—the tasks and mi-lieux and religious concomitants of their jobs—enable them to receive theChristian good news in churches in which reconciliation with the alien-ated brother was a precondition for prayer (e.g. Cyprian, Lord’s Prayer23)? The Apostolic Tradition’s assumption is clear. Inner and outer areinextricable; if you live in a certain way outside of the church you cannothear, comprehend, or live the gospel that the Christian community isseeking to embody as well as teach.

Second, the three strands of the Apostolic Tradition dealt separatelywith soldiers who were under orders (“a soldier who has authority”[Sahidic])12 and soldiers who gave orders (“One who has authority ofthe sword” [Sahidic]). All three versions refused to admit soldiers in po-sitions of command to be catechumens or members; but the Sahidic andArabic versions did admit the rank-and-file soldiers to catechesis, undercertain conditions.

Third, all three strands of the Apostolic Tradition forbade catechu-mens or believers to enlist voluntarily as soldiers; if they did so, theywere adjudged to have despised God, and hence were to be rejected—dismissed if they were catechumens and (it appears) excommunicated ifthey were believers.

Finally, the Apostolic Tradition in all strands indicated certain be-havior, characteristic of military service, which disqualified men fromadmission to the Christian community. The Sahidic text forbade the sol-dier to “swear”; the soldier’s sacramentum was incompatible with theChristian’s sacramentum—his baptismal commitment to the Lord. Fur-ther, in all three strands there is a manifest concern with killing. A

12 The translation of these texts varies. The literal translation of the Sahidic textwould seem to be “a soldier in command,” and this is how Dix translated it (1968, 26);Bradshaw/Johnson/Phillips render the text “a soldier who has authority” (2002, 88). Butas Stewart-Sykes following Botte points out, the context would indicate that the soldierin question is not in command but under the authority of a superior (Stewart-Sykes 2001,102; Botte 1989, 37n). Cuming (1987, 16) renders this meaning in his translation: “a soldierunder authority.”

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


rank-and-file soldier shall “not kill a man” (Sahidic).13 Not even if heis commanded to do so: “If he is ordered, let him not go to the task.” TheApostolic Tradition did not forbid the soldier who was a catechumen toburn incense to the legion’s gods; it forbade him to kill. If idolatry hadbeen the primary issue, and if army religion was as unavoidable as somescholars have indicated (“the Christian in the army was caught in a re-ligious net of exceedingly fine mesh”; Helgeland et al. 1985, 51)), it ishard to see how any Christians could have stayed in the army. But thedocument assumes that it was possible to be a rank-and-file soldier inthe Roman legions without committing acts of idolatry (a tacit assump-tion) and without killing (an explicit assumption). It is killing that theApostolic Tradition expressly proscribes.14

3. Divergent Early Christian Arguments and Practices

Soldiers in the imperial legions who for Christian reasons didn’t kill—was this thinkable? From the late second century onwards there is ev-idence that some Christians found it possible to justify being both aChristian believer and a Roman legionary. In 176 there is the famousstory of the “Thundering Legion” from Asia Minor, whose prayers pre-ceded (and elicited?) a colossal rainstorm which defeated their opponents.From this time onwards there are reports, growing in number as the thirdcentury progressed, of Christians in the legions.15 These may have beenmore numerous in the East than the West, and more on the fringes ofthe empire (e.g. on the eastern frontiers) than in the imperial heartlands.According to a recent study the congregation which met in the famousdomus ecclesiae of Dura Europos was “primarily made up of soldiers”(Wischmeyer 1992, 37). Already in Tertullian’s day, in North Africa,there were Christians who were serving as soldiers, and they (possiblywith others) were beginning to develop a Christian rationale for theirmilitary calling. Tertullian (De Idololatria 19) was not impressed by theirthinking (he called it “making sport with the subject”), so he did not

13 Dix’s edition (p. 26) translates the Sahidic as “execute men,” as if the import wascapital punishment and not combat; Cuming’s translation is the more general “shall notkill a man” (p. 16). According to Maxwell E. Johnson, one of the editors of the Hermeneiaedition, the words in context may have to do with capital punishment, but linguisticallythey do not restrict themselves to capital punishment, and their import is general: “ifsomeone is in the military already at the time he is converted, then he has to agree to stopkilling people, even under orders” (personal communication 22 April 1999).

14 According to Tertullian (De Idololatria 19), both killing and idolatry seem to havebeen inescapable for soldiers of the upper ranks; they faced the “necessity for taking partin sacrifices or capital punishments.”

15 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.5.1–4; Tertullian, Apology 5.6; for comment,Harnack 1908, II, 52–64 (“The spread of Christianity in the army”).

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


report it in detail; but he provided an outline of their arguments. TheseChristians appealed to the Old Testament (“Joshua the son of Nun leadsa line of march; and the people warred”); in the New Testament theyfound encouragement from a centurion who had believed (Mt 8.5ff or Lk7.1ff or Acts 10?). But their chief argument seems to have been an ap-peal not to Jesus but to John the Baptist. When soldiers came to John,he had not forbidden them to kill, but had given them “the formula oftheir rule”—they were not to engage in extortion or threats and theywere to be contented with their wages (Luke 3.14). Prior to ConstantineI have not found theologians and writers who elaborated upon these ar-guments (Bainton 1960, 66), but they may have been common amongChristians in the legions, and they certainly were to have a great futurein the Christianized empire.

In contrast, the theologians of the pre-Constantinian church vigor-ously, and with considerable unanimity, forbade killing in its many guises(Schopf 1958).16 In Athens Athenagoras (Legatio 35) argued that Chris-tians could not “endure to see a man being put to death even justly,” anddistanced believers from gladiatorial contest, abortion, and the exposureof infants. “We are altogether consistent in our conduct,” he proclaimed.In Palestine the mature Origen (Contra Celsum 3.7) stated of warfare:“the lawgiver of the Christians . . . [forbade] entirely the taking of humanlife.”17 Similar texts are numerous, and are not in doubt. They are con-gruent with the traditional Christian emphasis upon loving the enemy,and with the attempts of church leaders to construct Christian commu-nities as cultures of peace (Ferguson 1999). The question is: how did thisfit together with the apparently small but growing number of Christiansin the legions?

3.1 Militare without bellare

The Apostolic Tradition attempted to provide a way for Christians tobe in the legions without taking life. In its Sahidic and Arabic variants itrealistically accepted that there would be Christians in the legions, butit attempted to equip them to be there without abandoning the valuesand the theology of the Christian church. Christians could be soldiers,but they were not to fight.

It is hard to assess how this worked out in practice, but socio-politicalrealities of the third century may have made it possible. Forty years ago

16 Schopf 1958, 242–243, who however argues that the pre-Constantinian Christianswere less than unanimous about capital punishment and were at times equivocal aboutwarfare.

17 For other early Christian texts on shedding blood, see Minucius Felix, Octavius 30.6;Tertullian, Apology 37; Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.18, 6.20; Arnobius, Adversus Na-tiones 1.6.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Yale ancient historian Ramsay MacMullen argued that in the late secondcentury the emperor Septimius Severus sought to promote military re-cruitment and social stability by lowering the barriers between soldiersand civilians; troops, who had been confined to camps, were now foundin the imperial cities, where they became involved in a wide variety ofactivities that we would call civil service. “Many, for their full twenty-fiveyears, did nothing but write; many attended magistrates as messengers,ushers, confidential agents, and accountants, measuring their promotionfrom chair to chair.” By this process, the later empire was progressively“militarized” (MacMullen 1963, 155–157, 176). In certain parts of theempire, it was possible for Christians to think of being in the legions butnot fighting, of being willing to serve (militare) but not to kill (bellare)(Secretan 1914; Rordorf 1969, 109–110; Brock 1994).

A picture of what this might have been like comes from JohnChrysostom, catechizing in Antioch a century later, but reflecting a real-ity that would have been familiar earlier (Baptismal Instructions 8.17).He refers to Christians, among them soldiers, who gathered in Antiochat dawn for prayer. After prayers, strengthened with God’s assistance,each one scattered to his daily tasks, “one hastening to work with hishands, another hurrying to his military post, and still another to hispost with the government.” During the day they avoided idle talk, inde-cent thoughts, and failure “to control [their] eyes.” In the evening theyreturned to church to render account for their day’s activities. The sol-dier in this account appears to have had an office job, and Chrysostomdidn’t express the concern that he might have to kill. In Antioch it wasevidently possible for soldiers to live without warring, although Chrysos-tom recognized that wars were occurring “in the distance, on the bordersof the Roman Empire” (Comm on Isaiah 2.4). There soldiers might haveto take life, but in the imperial heartland even at the end of the fourthcentury it seemed possible for the Apostolic Tradition’s apparent solutionto work—to serve but not to kill, militare but not bellare.

CANONS OF HIPPOLYTUS, c. 13–14:Penance in event of killing

Concerning the Magistrate and the Soldier they are not to kill anyone,even if they receive the order: they are not to wear wreaths. Whoever hasauthority and does not do the righteousness of the gospel is to be excludedand is not to pray with the bishop.

Whoever has received the authority to kill, or else a soldier, they are notto kill in any case, even if they receive the order to kill. They are not topronounce a bad word. Those who have received an honour are not to wearwreaths on their heads. Whoever is raised to the authority of prefect or to

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


the magistracy and does not put on the righteousness of the Gospel is tobe excluded from the flock and the bishop is not to pray with him.

A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become asoldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not toburden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is notto partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears,and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.Canons of Hippolytus, 13–14: Bradshaw 1987

It is fascinating to trace the revisions which the fourth-century churchorders made in this passage from the Apostolic Tradition. In these churchorders we can observe writers in Christian communities, mainly in theEast, as they tried to come up with coherent Christian approachesto warfare in a changing environment. Not surprisingly, these docu-ments record both continuity and change. The earliest of these is theso-called Canons of Hippolytus. This was written in Egypt between 336and 340 and was then translated from Greek into Coptic and finallyArabic, in which it survives.18 Like the Apostolic Tradition, the Canonsof Hippolytus (chaps 3–14) assumed that there would be catechumensand believers in the legions. However, unlike the Apostolic Tradition(Sahidic and Arabic), the Canons of Hippolytus did not make a distinc-tion between the magistrate and the soldier; and, it assumed that Chris-tians who issued commands as well as those who received commandswould be in the legions. The Canons insisted that all Christians in thelegions must “do the righteousness of God.” For example, it states twicethat they were not to wear wreaths; they were not to “pronounce a badword” (swear an oath?). And above all, they were not to “kill in anycase, even if they receive the order to kill.” The final paragraph statesthat the Christian soldier was not “to burden himself with the sin ofblood.”

But the author of the Canons was aware that Christians were living ina world they could not control. So the Christian was not to become a sol-dier, “unless he is compelled by a chief bearing a sword.” A similar adjust-ment was provided for soldiers who transgressed against the apparentlywell-established Christian refusal to “shed blood” by introducing a sig-nificant innovation—an early version of the system of canonical penance.If a Christian soldier took life, he was to be excluded from the mysteriesuntil he had been “purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing.” TheCanons did not stipulate how long this period of penitential exclusion wasto last; but soon writers in other communities were being more specific.In the 370s in Cappadocia, for example, Basil of Caesarea (Ep 188.13)

18 English translation by Carol Bebawi, in Bradshaw 1987; for comment, see Bradshaw1992, 92–93.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


counselled that “those whose hands are unclean. . . abstain from commu-nion for three years”—which, as the twelfth-century canonist Balsamonobserved (Commentary on the Canons 13.2.65), if enforced, would meanthat combatants “who are engaged in successive wars” would “never par-take the divine Sanctified Elements.” This, according to Balsamon, was“unendurable” and required revision (Viscusso 1995). In the West, Coun-cils and penitential documents, in similar fashion to the Canons of Hip-polytus in the East, also excluded soldiers who killed from the eucharistsfor varying periods (Vanderpol 1925, 116–118).

TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD, 2.2:Luke 3.14 for catechumens

If anyone be a soldier or in authority, let him be taught not to oppressor to kill or to rob, or to be angry or to rage and afflict anyone. But letthose rations suffice him which are given to him. But if they wish to bebaptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the [postof ] 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 hathdespised God by his thought and, leaving the things of the Spirit, he hathperfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt.Testament of our Lord, 2.2, Syriac version: Cooper & Maclean 1902

Later in the fourth century, an author penned a second revision of theApostolic Tradition, this time claiming dominical authority. This docu-ment, the Testament of Our Lord, was probably written in Greek, verypossibly in Asia Minor, and has survived in Syriac and Ethiopic versions,of which I use the Syriac.19 The Testament, like the Canons of Hippoly-tus, both continued and altered the emphases of the Apostolic Tradi-tion. Like the Ethiopic version of the Apostolic Tradition, but unlike theSahidic and Arabic versions, the Testament (2.2) makes no distinction be-tween the rank-and-file soldier and the soldier in authority. Both couldbe taught, evidently as catechumens, what appropriate behaviour mightbe for a soldier who wanted to become a catechumen. This advice is fa-miliar to us—it is an amplified version of John the Baptist’s instructionsto soldiers. The Testament’s amplification is significant. It forbade notonly robbing and discontentment with wages, as in Luke 3.14, but also

19 English translation by Cooper and Maclean 1902. The Ethiopic version of the passageon military service is, according to the French translation of Robert Beylot, very similar onessential points to the Syriac (Beylot 1984, 214–215). For the document’s date and place ofplace of origin, see Sperry-White 1991, 6. The document’s refusal of military service and itsrepeated mention of prophetic and charismatic gifts would seem to be additional evidencepointing to a fourth- rather than fifth-century date for the document.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


various misdeeds which it evidently viewed as characteristic ofsoldiering—“to oppress or to kill or to rob, or to be angry or to rageand afflict anyone.” In keeping with the Apostlic Tradition, among theactions which the Testament prohibited was killing. This teaching, how-ever, was only for the catechumens. If soldiers of any rank wished to bebaptized and become believers, they must “cease from military serviceor from the [post of ] authority.” If they did not they were to be rejected.So John the Baptist’s counsels were provisional, for catechumens whilethey were learning; these counsels were to be superceded by a more com-plete fidelity specified by Christian teaching—which must have beenimparted in the catecheses—which forbade military service and killing.In denying that Christians may be soldiers, the Testament is similar inits severity to the Ethiopic version of the Apostolic Tradition. And thedistaste with which the Testament viewed the military is indicated byits emendations to the clause which prohibited catechumens or believersto enlist as soldiers. Such a person, “leaving the things of the Spirit, . . .hath perfected himself in the flesh . . . .”

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS, 8.32.10:Luke 3.14 for all

If a soldier come, let him be taught to do no injustice, to accuse no onefalsely, and to be content with his allotted wages; if he submit to those rules,let him be received; but if he refuse them, let him be rejected. ApostolicConstitutions, 8.32.10: Donaldson 1989

It was the words of John the Baptist from Luke 3.14 which pointedthe way forward for Christians as they entered Christendom. The Apos-tolic Constitutions, probably compiled in or near Antioch in the 380s,represents a more accommodating approach to warfare than any earlierchurch order in the Apostolic Tradition’s tradition.20 It is fascinating tocompare the Apostolic Constitutions with the prior documents which itincorporates and revises. In book 7, for example, it revises the Didache’s“two ways” teaching. Whereas the Didache (1.4) had said “If anyone givesstrikes you on the right cheek, turn your other one to him too,” the Apos-tolic Constitutions added, “Not that revenge is evil, but that patience ismore honorable” (7.2). “Do not murder,” the Didache had stated, quotingthe decalogue (2.2), which the Apostolic Constitutions also nuanced: “Notas if all killing were wicked, but only that of the innocent; but the killingwhich is just is reserved to the magistrates alone” (7.2).21 Soldiers, it is

20 English translation by James Donaldson repr. 1989; but see also the critical editionof Metzger 1985–1987, along with Metzger 1992, which presents his French translation inone volume.

21 Similar nuancing took place in the Apostolic Constitutions’ softening of the Didache’s

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


clear, were now a part of the Apostolic Constitutions’ immediate world ofexperience. They could still seem threatening, so the community prayedat the eucharist “for the king and all in authority, for the whole army, thatthey may be peaceable towards us” (8.12). But soldiers were now givinggifts to the church. The third-century Didascalia Apostolorum, a Syrianchurch order, viewed soldiers among the “reprehensible persons” whosepolluted donations, if received at all, could only be used for firewood(162–163 [4.5]). In contrast, the Apostolic Constitutions 4.6 was happyto accept accept donations from a soldier, provided he could meet thefamiliar standards of John the Baptist; the church must, however, turndown the gifts of “a soldier who is a false accuser and not content withhis wages, but does violence to the needy, a murderer, a cut-throat . . .”

Luke 3.14 also was the means by which the Apostolic Constitutionsjustified receiving soldiers as catechumens and members. Compared tothe Apostolic Tradition and the other church orders we have examined,the Apostolic Constitutions stated an approach that is shorter and lesscomplex. Gone is all concern about distinctions between soldiers in posi-tions of command and those in the rank-and-file; gone is all worry aboutChristians joining the forces; gone is any articulated worry about killing.Instead the Apostolic Constitutions now adopted John the Baptist’s re-quirements for repentant soldiers as its “rules.” The church was to teachsoldiers not to do injustice, not to accuse people falsely, and to be con-tent with their wages. That was enough. If soldiers refused this, theywere to be rejected. Of course, as Ramsay MacMullen has pointed out,in view of the typical behaviour of Roman legionaries these stipula-tions must have made some soldiers squirm as they examined their con-sciences and careers (MacMullen 1988, 130–132, 153, 160). It is alsoclear that some churches which were influenced by the Apostolic Consti-tutions viewed these rules as too lax. The Ethiopic version of the so-calledAlexandrine Sinodos, a fifth-century variant of the Apostolic Constitu-tions, still required that a potential catechumen have “left that [military]occupation.”22

Nevertheless, the Apostolic Constitutions, by making Luke 3.14 cen-tral to its provision re soldiers and by deleting reference to killing, indi-cated the way in which the church would go. John the Baptist’s require-ments became a central proof-text in the anti-pacifist argumentation ofmany theologians. Augustine was typical here. In correspondence with

prohibitions of anger with a brother (“without a cause”) and of swearing oaths (“But if thatcannot be avoided, thou shalt swear truly”)(2.53; 7.3).

22 “If there is a man of the army, and if he wishes to come in and know (the Faith), and ifhe came into our law, let him leave his robbery and violence and calumny and transgressionand folly, and he shall be content with his pay, and if he left that occupation he shall bereceived, otherwise he shall be rejected” (Horner 1904, 149, 208).

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Count Boniface (Ep 189.4), who was troubled by the (traditional?) ideathat it was “impossible for any one to please God while engaged in activemilitary service,” Augustine appealed to Luke 3.14. “The sacred forerun-ner of the Lord,” he wrote, “certainly . . . did not prohibit them to serve assoldiers when he commanded them to be content with their pay for theservice.”23 But Augustine was also aware of the potential of this passageto critique military behaviour; in Sermon 302.15 he quoted it to rail atsoldiers “by whom the poor are oppressed.” At their best, the moralistsof Christendom would not provide carte blanche for soldiers.

4. The New Consensus in Light of the Church Orders

Having surveyed one category of early Christian writing—the churchorders—over a period of a century and a half, let us revisit the fourpoints of the “new consensus” with which we began: idolatry, division,continuity, and regional variation. Have the church orders brought anyillumination?

4.1 Idolatry: in the early church orders, killing was the prohibited abuse

Was the fear of unavoidable idolatry as important a reason to avoidarmy life as the possibility of unavoidable blood-letting? About idolatrythe church orders say a lot, but with reference to other professions—suchas sculptors and pagan priests—and not to soldiering. Hints of idolatryoccur in references to the soldiers’ sacramentum, which the Sahidic Apos-tolic Tradition repudiated (as also in the “bad word” which the Canons ofHippolytus prohibited); conceivably also in the wreaths which the Canonsrejected. The discomfort with the Christian serving as magistrate whichis evident in many of the church orders may have had as much to dowith idolatry (which the documents do not mention) as with the use ofthe sword (which they do mention in this connection). But the church or-ders’ main concern, which they expressed repeatedly in their treatmentof military service, was with killing. All variants of the Apostolic Tradi-tion explicitly express this concern, as do fourth-century church orderslong after idolatry had ceased to be a major issue in the army. A soldier,as the Canons of Hippolytus put it, has “burdened himself with blood,”

23 Cf Augustine’s Ep 138 to Marcellinus: “For if the Christian religion condemned warsof every kind, the command given in the Gospel to soldiers taking counsel as to salvationwould rather be to cast away their arms, and withdraw themselves wholly from militaryservice.” Augustine then quotes Luke 3.14, observing “the command to be content withtheir wages manifestly implying no prohibition to continue in the service.” For anotherfifth-century bishop’s use of Luke 3.14, see Maximus of Turin, Sermon 26.1 (1989, edRamsey, 63).

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


and the church orders—at least prior to the Apostolic Constitutions inthe 380s—found this intolerable.

4.2 Division: the church orders stated conservative but mediatingpositions in a divided church

Were the Christians of the first three centuries “divided on the ques-tion of warfare and military service” (Hunter 1994, 179)? The churchorders were authoritative-sounding directives for church leaders, so wemight not expect them to record differences of approach; and generallythey did not do so. However, if as we read them we bear in mind theevidence of other sources that Christians were in fact in the legions, andif we recall the arguments which Tertullian reported that other Chris-tians were deploying, the church orders might be viewed as one side—theconservative side—of an argument.

Who were the parties to the argument? Some scholars, such as JacquesZeiller, have argued that in the early centuries there was a conflict be-tween certain “intellectuals,” who in their ivory towers were out of touchwith real life, and the “ecclesiastical magisterium,” which never adoptedpacifist-sounding positions (Zeiller 1946–1947, 1156–1159).24 This is apossibility. The theologians such as Tertullian, Origen and Lactantiuswho wrote about Christianity and warfare argued their positions in dif-ferent ways, but—as we have noted earlier—no Christian theologian be-fore Constantine justified Christian participation in warfare.

But what about the position of the “magisterium”? That is harder todiscern. Do the church orders represent that? In the past some schol-ars have accorded great weight to the church orders, presenting themas virtual offical handbooks of their churches and, in the case of theApostolic Tradition, of the church in Rome. Scholars at the forefront ofresearch into the church orders today have become more cautious.25 PaulBradshaw, for example, sees the church orders as the work of “armchairliturgists,” of people, no doubt men, who would like to have ordered thelife and liturgy of their various communities but apparently lacked thepower to do so. These authors “may have been indulging in an idealizingdream—prescribing rather than describing.” On the other hand, therewas, according to Bradshaw, “undoubtedly some foundation based on thereality either of the local tradition or of influences from other churches.”So what the church orders describe, on any matter of liturgy or pastoral

24 Cf. Young 1989, 496, who finds concern about bloodshed at least in “rigorist groups”;also Jean Danielou 1964, 140–141 who contrasts “the intellectuals who imagined an idealChurch” with “prelates aware of the conditions of the real Church” and who were engagedin a “quest for a realistic Christianity.”

25 Although cf. the new work of Alastair Stewart-Sykes and Allen Brent, in the former’s2001 edition of the Apostolic Tradition.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


discipline, may represent local practice—or again it may not. We cannotbe sure. The church orders may provide a window into the teaching andpolicies of the bishops on questions of military service, or the church or-ders may have been perfectionist and out of touch. As Bradshaw (1992,72, 107–108) emphasizes, if we are to accord complete credence to thewitness of a church order as to what was actually going on in a givenchurch we must seek corroboration from other sources.

So what other sources can we turn to for insight into the views ofthe bishops? As far as the surviving sources are concerned, the bishopsseem to have been silent on the question of Christian participation inthe legions, idolatry and killing. This is puzzling. If the bishops reallywanted to distance themselves from the “intellectuals,” if they were ea-ger to give support (cautious or otherwise) to Christians in the legions,they left no surviving records to that effect. Equally no record has sur-vived in which bishops, writing in their own names, struggled with thereality of Christians in the legions and attempted to provide pastoralguidance for them so that they would not kill or commit acts of idola-try. Various sources enable one to hazard a guess as to their position. InNorth Africa, Tertullian, in De Corona 1, longs for a decisive Christiandisavowal of violence and idolatry, and is impatient with the soldiers’ pas-tors who are “lions in peace, deer in the fight”; Tertullian seems to havefelt that the bishops were on his side but were too cautious by half ! An-other hint, this time from the East, comes from the Passio of St Marinus,in which Theotecnus, student of the pacifist Origen and bishop of Cae-sarea, confronted the legionary Marinus, on trial for his life, with thechoice between his sword and the gospel (Musurillo 1972, 241). The ActaMaximiliani provide a third indication. The decision which it reportsof the church in Carthage to bury the anti-military martyr Maximilian“next to the body of the martyr Cyprian” may indicate that the currentsof anti-militarism ran deep in the spirituality and practice of the NorthAfrican church (Musurillo 1972, 249).26 Yet another indication comesfrom early fourth-century Spain: Canon 57 of Elvira ordered, evidentlywith episcopal authority, Christian magistrates to keep away from thechurch during the one year of their term as duumvir, which may indicatean offical repudiation of killing (Dale 1883, 232–235; Hefele 1907, I, I,252).27

26 For comment, see Brock 1994, 198, drawing upon the careful work of Siniscalco 1974;also Spanneut 1970.

27 Canon 3 of the Synod of Arles of 314 (“Concerning those who throw down their arms intime of peace, we have decreed that they should be kept from communion”) is also relevantand has elicited a wide variety of comment which there is insufficient space to unpack here.I think that Henri Secretan (1914, 360) got it right: Christian leaders, grateful though theywere for imperial toleration, were unable “to censure the soldier who, in a campaign, refusedto use his arms.” For a contrasting view, see Ryan 1952, 28; Helgeland, et al. 1985, 71–72.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


This is not much. What church leaders might have done, had theywished to distance the church from military violence, is indicated by theresponse of leaders of a modern “peace church”—the Mennonite Churchin the United States during World War II. Despite the four-century oldpacifist tradition of the Mennonites, thirty per cent of Mennonite menof draft age went into either combatant or noncombatant forces.28 Facedwith this reality, Mennonite leader Harold S. Bender thundered, “Onlyseventy per cent loyal! . . . Is this a passing grade for the MennoniteChurch in God’s great record book?” Bender and other Mennonite lead-ers responded to this by a systematic programme of pacifist educationin Mennonite churches. And many Mennonite congregations respondedto their coreligionists who were soldiers by excommunicating them andmaking them very uncomfortable; as one Mennonite soldier reported,when he came home a fellow member “ran me down and really chewedme out” (Bush 1998, 87, 98, 121–122).

No comparable records—of episcopal outrage or lay displeasure—havesurvived for the early centuries. There are, as I have said, indicationsof soldiers in the legions; this is not surprising, and may simply be anexpression of acculturation, no more an indication of the “responsibil-ity” or bellicism of the early Christians than is the presence of Men-nonites in the American forces in World War II. Tertullian, however,posited that some Christians were presenting biblical and theologicalarguments for participation in the legions. In De Idololatria 19 he listedthese: “Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (theBaptist) is girt with leather, and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line ofmarch; and the people warred . . . soldiers had come unto John, and hadreceived the formula of their rule.” This rule, to which he also referredin De Corona 11, is that of Luke 3.14: “Do not extort money from anyoneby threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” Whowas it who advanced these arguments? Were they soldiers and lay peo-ple? We cannot tell, nor can we know how many people were arguing inthis way.

But this was the setting—of a growing, missional church, of spreadingChristian participation in the legions, and of debates among the Chris-tians about military service—in which the church orders were written.The church orders show that some people, who styled themselves (de-pending on the church order) as bishops or apostles, were monitoring

28 This fact alone is enough to put into perspective the presence of Christians in theRoman legions. Although this may prove that the early Christians had no principled ob-jection to military service, it may equally be an example of the capacity of Christians in allages to do what they want regardless of the traditions of their churches or the admonitionsof their leaders. For similar evidence from the Society of Friends in World War I, see Smith1998, 4-5. I owe this reference to Susan Sawtell.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


the life of the church and were thinking about the its witness andpastoral strategy. Further, they were trying to find mediating approaches(staying in the legions, but not killing; later, prescribing penance forthose who killed) without surrendering fundamental convictions. Thestrategies of the Apostolic Tradition (Sahidic and Arabic) make senseof the situation that Tertullian described: Christians in the legionswere facing challenges which differed in peacetime and in wartime,as “rank and file” and as officers; further, these soldiers were strug-gling against the understandable danger that they might have to sac-rifice or kill. We cannot know what authority the Apostolic Tradi-tion and the subsequent church orders had in the churches. But theirprovisions concerning military service show them to be, not extremestatements of a theoretical ideal, but practical attempts to be pas-torally helpful. I find it quite possible to imagine that at least incertain places on some issues the church orders represented viewswhich “the magisterium” had held in the past and may still haveheld.

4.3 Continuity: Augustine ratifies the argument of the laity

Were there continuities of emphasis and approach between the pre-and post-Constantinian Christians? The answer to this must be nuanced.On the one hand, the church orders are evidence of an astonishing con-tinuity, extending over a period of more than a century and a half. Theydemonstrate that there was no sudden volte-face when the emperor Con-stantine emerged on the ecclesiastical scene. Almost all the church or-ders show a recurring objection to Christians voluntarily choosing themilitary career, and they do this well into the fifth century (throughthe Alexandrine Sinodos, but not the Apostolic Constitutions). Further-more, time and again the church orders reiterated an objection to takinglife.

But in the late fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions something newis evident. With regard to the taking of life the compiler of the ApostolicConstitutions broke with earlier church orders. He no longer merely ac-cepted Christians who were already in the military when they becamebelievers; he now allowed baptized Christians and catechumens volun-tarily to enlist in the military; he tacitly accepted that they might haveto kill; and he justified this by quoting John the Baptist’s advice to sol-diers from Luke 3.14. But it is intriguing: by doing this, the compilerof the Apostolic Constitutions affirmed another form of continuity—withChristians (most likely lay Christians in the legions and possibly civil-ians as well) who from Tertullian’s time onwards had been developing arationale for service in the army based especially upon this passage. Inthe Syria of the Apostolic Constitutions the author, adjusting to changed

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


circumstances, thus adopted a position which the laity had argued for,even if this acceptance meant that the leadership had to change its po-sition. A similar change was likely taking place in other parts of theempire. In the West Augustine of Hippo eloquently ratified this position.So was Augustine in continuity with the earlier Christians? Of course,but not with the earlier position of the theologians or of the ApostolicTradition and the other church orders. Instead, he was in continuitywith the laity in the legions. Is this the only time, one might wonder, inwhich change in the church has filtered upwards, and in which bishopsand theologians have eventually blessed the practice and thinking of thelaity?

4.4 Regional variation

Was there a variety of thought and practice from place to place? Ofcourse, although we have less evidence than we would like. The Apos-tolic Tradition reflects the teaching of churches in the third-century West(North Africa and Rome); and subsequent church orders (Canons of Hip-polytus, Testament of Our Lord, Apostolic Constitutions) which devel-oped its provisions reflect teaching in various parts of the fourth- andfifth-century East. We do not know how representative these were ofpractice in either West or East. Paul Bradshaw (1992, 67) has cautioned,“Authoritative-sounding statements are not always genuinely authori-tative.” So we do not know to what extent bishops actually sought togive effect to the church orders’ prescriptions, nor to what extent theseprescriptions made a difference in the lives of lay Christians. Recordshave survived of Christian soldiers in the legions who killed; no recordsthat I know of have survived of bishops who disciplined catechumens ormembers who transgressed the teachings of the church orders by takinglife.29 To understand regional variation more fully, we really need moreresearch.

Conclusion

So this paper leaves us with questions. Some of these are histori-cal. The evidence in this article demonstrates that the teaching of the

29 Julius the Veteran, a soldier-martyr who “went on seven military campaigns, andnever hid behind anyone nor was I the inferior of any man in battle” (Passio Iuli Veterani2, in Musurillo 1972, 261) represents the Christian combatants, of whom there must havebeen “some” (Jones 1963, 23–24). Martin of Tours represents the probably smaller numberof Christians in the legions who refused, declaring “it is not lawful for me to fight” (SulpiciusSeverus, Vita Martini 4; Hornus 1980, chap. 4). Cf the interaction of Bishop Theotecnuswith the legionary Marinus (Martyrdom of St Marinus, in Musurillo 1972, 241).

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


church orders on warfare shifted between the Apostolic Tradition and theApostolic Constitutions. But the relationship between church orders andthe bishops, and between both of these and the laity, requires furtherinvestigation. If my findings have helped, even slightly, to liberate usfrom “the burden of mistaken assumptions and misread history,” andif they are a stimulus to additional research, I will be grateful. Otherquestions are theological, ethical and pastoral. I close with one. Up tonow, ethicists and historians have argued at length about the stance ofthe early Christians towards military service and killing. These argu-ments will continue. But scholars have given little attention to peace asa theme in the common life of the early churches, a peace which needed tobe tended as well as taught.30 I sense that this is changing, and that it isno longer possible to say much that is interesting about Christian ethicsthat is not somehow related to worship and pastoral life (Kreider 1995).The church orders can help us here. They demonstrate an approach toethics which was integrated in a comprehensive treatment of worship,catechesis and common life. Encouragingly, David Hunter, the formula-tor of our “new consensus,” is alert to this: in his article on early Christianapproaches to warfare he asserted that “the evidence of the first threecenturies suggests that there was a strong and consistent tradition thatsaw peacemaking as a primary mark of the church” (Hunter 1995, 180).When we listen to the early Christians’ disciplines of worship and day-to-day peacemaking together with their approaches to participation inwarfare, we will come much closer to understanding how their life andwitness cohered—and to assessing their challenge to our life and thoughttoday.

REFERENCES

Apostolic Constitutions1989 Ed James Donaldson, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7. Repr Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans.1985–1987 Ed Marcel Metzger. Les Constitutions apostoliques. Sources

chretiennes, 320, 329, 336. Paris: Cerf.1992 Ed Marcel Metzger. Les Constitutions apostoliques. Paris: Cerf.

Apostolic Tradition1968 The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus of

Rome. Ed Dom Gregory Dix, rev. Henry Chadwick. London:SPCK.

1987 Hippolytus: A Text for Students. Rev ed by G. J. Cuming. Bramcote,Notts: Grove Books.

30 A pioneering statement of this is interrelationship is Lohfink 1986.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


1989 La Tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: Essai de reconstitu-tion. 5th ed by Bernard Botte, OSB. Munster: Aschendorff.

2001 Hippolytus, On the Apostolic Tradition. Ed Alistair Stewart-Sykes.Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

2002 The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Ed Paul F. Brad-shaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips. Hermeneia.Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Athenagoras1970 Ed. C.C. Richardson. Early Christian Fathers. New York:

Macmillan.Augustine of Hippo

1988 Epistles, ed J.G. Cunningham, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,1st ser., 1, 219–593. Repr Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Basil of Caesarea1989 Epistles, ed. Blomfield Jackson, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,

2nd ser., 8, 109–327. Repr Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Bainton, Roland H.

1960 Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey andCritical Re-Evaluation. Nashville: Abingdon.

Bradshaw, Paul F.1987 The Canons of Hippolytus. Transl. Carol Bebawi. Alcuin/GROW

Joint Liturgical Studies, 2. Bramcote, Notts: Grove Books.1992 The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Meth-

ods for the Study of Early Liturgy. London: SPCK.1996 “Redating the Apostolic Tradition: Some Preliminary Steps.” In

Rule of Prayer, Rule of Faith: Essays in Honor of Aidan Kavenagh,O.S.B., eds. N. Mitchell and J. F. Baldovin. Collegeville: LiturgicalPress: 3–17.

Brock, Peter1988 The Military Question in the Early Church: A Selected Bibli-

ography of a Century’s Scholarship, 1888–1987. Toronto: privateprinting.

1994 “Why Did St Maximilian Refuse to Serve in the Roman Army?”Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45:195–209.

Bush, Perry1998 Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern

America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Cadoux, C. J.

1919 The Early Christian Attitude to War. London: Headley Bros.Cahill, Lisa Sowle

1994 Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory.Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Canons of Hippolytus1987 Ed. Paul F. Bradshaw, transl. Carol Bebawi. Alcuin/GROW Joint

Liturgical Studies, 2. Bramcote, Notts: Grove Books.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Cyprian of Carthage1990 The Lord’s Prayer. ed Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,

Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5. Reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 447–457.

Dale, A. W. W.1882 The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth Century.

London: Macmillan.Danielou, Jean

1964 The Christian Centuries: The First Six Hundred Years, with H.-I.Marrou. Transl Vincent Cronin. New York: McGraw-Hill.

De Bhaldraithe, Eoin, O. Cist2001 “Early Christian Features Preserved in Western Monasticism.”

In Alan Kreider, ed., The Origins of Christendom in the West.Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark: 153–178.

Dickie, Matthew W.2001 “Exclusions from the Catechumenate: Continuity or Discontinuity

with Pagan Cult?” Numen 48:417–443.Didache

1998 ed Kurt Niederwimmer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.Didascalia Apostolorum

1979 The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. Ed Arthur Voobus. Vol. 401–2, 407–8, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 401–2,407–8. Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO.

Driver, John1988 How Christians Made Peace with War: Early Christian Understand-

ings of War. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Ferguson, Everett

1999 “Love of Enemies and Nonretaliation in the Second Century,” in TheContentious Triangle: Church, State and University: A Festschriftin Honor of Professor George Huntston Williams, eds. Rodney L.Petersen and Calvin Augustine Pater. Kirksville, Missouri: ThomasJefferson University Press: 81–95.

Hanssens, Jean-Michel1970 La Liturgie d’Hippolyte: Documents et Etudes. Rome: Libreria Ed-

itrice dell’Universita Gregoriana.Harnack, Adolf von

1908 The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Cen-turies. London: Williams and Norgate.

Hefele, C. J. von1907 Histoire des Conciles d’apres les documents originaux, 2nd ed., by

H. Leclercq. Paris: Letouzey et Ane.Helgeland, John

1974 “Christians and the Roman Army: AD 173–337,” Church History43:149–163.

1979 “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Con-stantine,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, II

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


(Prinzipat).23.1, Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds.Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter: 724–834.

1985 Christians and the Military: The Early Experience, with Robert Dalyand J. Patout Burns. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Horner, George W.1904 The Statutes of the Apostles, or, Canones Ecclesiastici. London:

Williams and Norgate.Hornus, Jean-Michel

1960 Evangile et Labarum: Etude sur l’attitude du christianisme primitifdevant les problemes de l’Etat, de la guerre et de la violence. Geneva:Labor et Fides.

1961 “L’Excommunication des militaires dans la discipline chretienne.”Communio Viatorum 3:41–60.

1963 Politische Entscheidung in der alten Kirche, transl. R. Pfisterer.Munich: Chr. Kaiser.

1980 It is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes To-ward War, Violence, and the State, transl. Alan Kreider and OliverCoburn. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

1993 Nem harcolhatok! Az oskeresztenyek viselkedese a haboruval, azeroszakkal es az allamal kapcsolatban, transl. Gyula Simonyi.Szekesfehervar: private printing.

Hunter, David G.1992 “A Decade of Research on Early Christians and Military Service.”

Religious Studies Review 18(2): 87–94.1994 “The Christian Church and the Roman Army in the First Three

Centuries.” In The Church’s Peace Witness, eds. Marlin E. Millerand Barbara Nelson Gingerich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 161–181.

John Chrysostom1963 Baptismal Instructions, ed Paul W. Harkins. Ancient Christian

Writers, 31. Westminster, MD: Newman PressJohnson, James Turner

1987 The Quest for Peace: Three Moral Traditions in Western CulturalHistory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Johnson, Maxwell E.1996 “The Postchrismational Structure of Apostolic Tradition 21, the

Witness of Ambrose of Milan, and a Tentative HypothesisRegarding the Current Reform of Confirmation in the RomanRite.” Worship 70(1):16–34.

Jones, A. H. M.1963 “The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and

Christianity,” in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianityin the Fourth Century, ed. Arnaldo Momigliano. Oxford: ClarendonPress: 23–24.

Karpp, Heinrich1957 “Die Stellung der alten Kirchen zu Kriegsdienst und Krieg.” Evan-

gelische Theologie 17:496–515.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Kreider, Alan1995 Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom. Alcuin/GROW Joint

Liturgical Studies, 32. Cambridge: Grove Books.2001 The Origins of Christendom in the West, ed. Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark.Lohfink, Gerhard

1986 “‘Schwerter zu Pflugscharen’: Die Rezeption von Jes 2, 1–5 par Mi4, 1–5 in der Alten Kirche und im Neuen Testament,” TheologischeQuartalschrift 166:184–209.

MacMullen, Ramsay1963 Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Harvard Histori-

cal Monographs, 52. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.1988 Corruption and the Decline of Rome. New Haven: Yale University

Press.Maximus of Turin

1989 The Sermons of St Maximus of Turin, ed. Boniface Ramsey, OP.Ancient Christian Writers, 50. New York: Newman Press.

Metzger, Marcel1988 “Nouvelles perspectives pour la pretendue Tradition apostolique.”

Ecclesia Orans 5:241–259.1991 “Enquetes autour de la pretendue ‘Tradition apostolique’.” Ecclesia

Orans 9:7–36.1992 “A propos des reglements ecclesiastiques et de la pretendue Tradi-

tion apostolique.” Revue des sciences religieuses 66:249–261.Musurillo, Herbert

1972 The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Origen

1965 Contra Celsum, ed. Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Ryan, E. A.1952 “The Rejection of Military Service by Early Christians,” Theological

Studies 13:1–32.Rordorf, Willy

1969 “Tertullians Beurteilung des Soldatenstandes.” Vigiliae Chris-tianae 23:109–110.

Schopf, Bernhard1958 Das Totungsrecht bei den fruhchristlichen Schriftstellern bis

zur Zeit Konstantins. Studien zur Geschichte der katholischenMoraltheologie, 5. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet.

Secretan, H. F.1914 “Le Christianisme des premiers siecles et le service militaire,” Re-

vue de Theologie et de Philosophie 2:345–365.Siniscalco, Paolo

1974 Massimiliano: un obiettore di coscienza del tardo impero: studi sulla‘Passio S. Maximiliani’. Turin: G. B. Paravia.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Smith, Peter1998 “Remembering the Quaker Fallen,” The Friend, November 13:4–5.

Spanneut, Michel1970 “La Non-violence chez les peres africains avant Constantin,”

in Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon:Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Munster: Aschendorff: I, 36–39.

Sulpicius Severus1986 Life of St Martin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., 11. Repr

Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.Swift, Louis J.

1979 “War and the Christian Conscience I: The Early Years,” in Aufstiegund Niedergang der Romischen Welt, II (Prinzipat).23.1, HildegardTemporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Berlin/New York: Walter deGruyter: 835–868.

1983 The Early Fathers on War and Military Service, Message of theFathers of the Church 19. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier.

Tertullian1989 De Corona. Ed Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-

Nicene Fathers, III. Repr. Edinburgh: T and T Clark: 93–103.

1989a De Idololatria. Ed Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, III. Repr. Edinburgh: T and T Clark: 61–76.

Testament of Our Lord1902 Ed. J. Cooper and A. J. MacLean. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.1984 Ed Robert Beylot. Testamentum Domini Ethopien. Louvain: Edi-

tions Peeters.1991 Ed Grant Sperry-White. The Testamentum Domini: A Text for Stu-

dents, with Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Alcuin/GROWLiturgical Study, 19. Bramcote, Notts.: Grove Books.

Vanderpol, Alfred1919 La Doctrine scolastique du droit de guerre. Paris: A. Pedone.

Viscusso, Patrick1995 “Christian Participation in Warfare: A Byzantine View.” In T. S.

Miller and J. Nesbitt, eds., Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays inHonor of George T. Dennis SJ. Washington, DC: Catholic Universityof America Press: 33–40.

Wischmeyer, Wolfgang1992 Von Golgatha zum Ponte Molle: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte

der Kirche im dritten Jahrhundert. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.

Yoder, J. H.1996 “War as a Moral Problem in the Early Church: The Historian’s

Hermeneutical Assumptions.” In H. L. Dyck, ed., The PacifistImpulse in Historical Perspective. Toronto: University of TorontoPress: 90–110.

BL063/JORE jore˙003 July 17, 2003 16:31


Young, Frances1989 “The Early Church: Military Service, War and Peace.” Theology

92:491–503.Zeiller, Jacques.

1946–7 “Christian Life in the Third Century,” in Jules Lebreton andJacques Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church, II. New York:Macmillan.