Christians and the Roman Army a.D. 173-337 (John Helgeland)

American Society of Church History

Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337Author(s): John HelgelandSource: Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 149-200Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of ChurchHistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3163949Accessed: 01/06/2009 03:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Society of Church History and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Church History.

http://www.jstor.org

Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337 JOHN HELGELAND

The question of the church's stand during the first three and a half cen- turies on Christians enlisting in the Roman army has received much attention since 1900. With slight overlapping, modern historians of the encounter of Chris- tians with the Roman military fall into three basic groups: Roman Catholic, Protestant pacifist and "establishment" Protestant, primarily Lutheran.

Roman Catholic historians wanted to show that the conflict between Chris- tians and the military revolved around the problem of the idolatrous army re-

ligion.1 They avoided data which tended to picture Christians as either disloyal subjects of the Roman empire or people who wanted nothing at all to do with the political side of life. Bearing scars from the Kulturkampf, Andreas Bigelmair argued that Christians were willing to fight but were not willing to subject their spiritual life to the dangers of military religious observances. Like the other Roman Catholic historians, he created the impression that, aside from the problem of mil- itary religion, there was an unbroken tradition of Christian loyalty to the Roman government from the early church to that of the Middle Ages. In so doing, Biegel- mair, and also Leclercq, claimed the support of Tertullian and Origen.

Just as the Medieval era seems to be normative for the Catholic scholars, so the New Testament, primarily the Sermon on the Mount, is normative for the Protestant pacifists.2 Although it is impossible for these historians to ignore the references to idolatry, they nevertheless cite the Gospel narratives and their echoes in the church Fathers as the determining factor in the conflict between Chris- tians and the military. C. J. Cadoux depended on the "decline theory" and assumed that, after the close of the great persecution in 311, the subsequent Christian cen- turies have not been able to match the spiritual and moral integrity of the first three. He believed that his study had a particular relevance for his day which was still smoldering from the carnage of the First World War.3

The European Lutherans have more diverse concerns.4 Adolf Harnack argued that the military analogies of the New Testament epistles (see Eph. 6:10-17) fos- tered the progression from the early church's metaphorical spiritual armies to the Middle Ages' crusades. Hans von Campenhausen thought that the early church was pacifist but that, after Constantine, the church had a responsibility to defend the empire, a responsibility the church did not avoid. James Moffatt, a Scottish Presbyterian, took issue with Harnack's hypothesis on military analogies. A mil-

itary analogy does not necessarily disclose what the user of it thinks about war. 1. Andreas Bigelmair, Die Beteiligung der Christen am offentlichen Leben in vorcon-

stantinischer Zeit (Munich, 1902). Henri Leclercq, " Militarisme," Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie 11: 1108-1182 (hereafter cited as DACL). Ed- ward Ryan, "The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians," Theological Studies 12 (1952):1-32.

2. C. J. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London, 1919). Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes to War and Peace (Nashville, 1960). Jean-Michel Hornus, Evangile et Labarum (Geneva, 1960).

3. Cadoux, pp. 1-3. 4. Adolf Harnack, Militia Christi (Tiibingen, 1905). Heinrich Karpp, "Die Stellung der

Alten Kirche zu Kriegsdienst und Krieg," Evangelische Theologie 23 (1957):496-515. Einar Molland, "De Kristne og Militaertjenesten i den Gamle Kirche," Norsk Theologisle Tidslcrift 51 (1959):87-104. Hans von Campenhausen, "Christians and Military Service in the Early Church," Tradition and Life in the Church, trans. A. V. Littledale (Phila- delphia, 1968).

Mr. Helgeland is Luther College exchange professor in St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota.

149

CHUHCH HISTORY

However, Moffatt thought that pacifists in his own time were Marcionites and he stopped just short of calling them traitors."

Generally, the contemporary discussion of the early Christians' relationship to the Roman army has been bound to one confessional viewpoint or another. To a large extent all the authors display a position predictable once their background is known, and all have a tendency to find their doctrinal point of view reflected in the documents of the early church. Dependent on a theological approach is the assumption that the question can be answered adequately on the basis of a study of only the theological writings of the first three centuries. Hence, the rela- tive neglect of military martyr acts and Christian soldiers' tombstones becomes apparent as well as the almost total unfamiliarity with the Roman army itself. Before turning to these subjects, however, it is necessary to assess the evidence from the church Fathers.

THE CHURCH FATHERS The first striking fact about the Fathers' writing on Christians participating

in the Roman army is how infrequently the subject appears. Obviously there was no controversy calling forth angry exchanges of letters on the problem; in most cases only random comments appear regarding war in general. Only Tertullian, Origen and Hippolytus mention the problem explicitly, and Hippolytus devotes one sentence to it. Pacifist historians have tried to argue that, since the early church said so little about enlisting, it was a tacit understanding among the Chris- tians that one did not even consider such an occupation. However, the lack of references to enlistment proves that there is a lack of references to enlistment-

nothing more. Tertullian. During his career Tertullian displayed a progressive hostility to-

ward the Roman government. It is difficult to believe that the man who wrote the Apoloqy is the same man who wrote the De corona militis (Concerning the Military Crown) about fourteen years later, though the later document is a pro- duct of his Montanist point of ciew. Early in his career he recognized the necessity of war and claimed that Christians prayed for brave armies, a faithful senate, the peace of the world and the security of the empire.6 The success of Rome in ex- panding its borders and defending them was the gift of God.7 Like any Roman citizen Tertullian feared what might happen were the barbarians able to conquer the empire.8

Yet Tertullian said that Christians were peaceful. But in this case the con- text has changed; he is no longer speaking about defending the borders. One of the tupermost concerns in the mind of any emperor was that some group within the empire would revolt and destroy the empire. Slave owners took care not to have many slaves from one national group, and used the language barrier to pre- vent slaves from uniting. Accordingly, the emperor Trajan told Pliny the Young- er to prohibit fire brigades from forming because they could become centers of un- derground political activity. Trajan feared that instead of fighting fires they might start some of their own.9 One theory about the persecution of the Christians

argues that the Roman government viewed the church as a clandestine political 5. James Moffatt, "The War and the Religious Life in Great Britain," American Journal

of Theology 20 (1916): 489. See his study of the problem, "War," Dictionary of the Apostolic Church 2:646-673.

6. Apology 30. 4. 7. Apology 26. 2. De anima 30. 8. Apology 32. 1, and On the Besurrection of the Flesh 24. 18. 9. Pliny, Epistles 10:39.

150

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

organization. Addressing himself to this fear on the part of the government, Tertullian said that Christians were everywhere and that, if they were of a mind to do so, they could burn down the empire in a night.10 But since Christians sub- mit to persecution the possibility of a guerilla war on their part is not a real one; they would rather be killed than kill.1 Christians are loyal to the empire, argued Tertullian.

In addition to the loyalty Christians held toward the empire, Tertullian said they were congenial participants in it despite the accusation that they were weird people. Not like Brahmins or Gymnosophists leading an ascetic existence, Chris- tians go to the baths, butcher shops and inns like ordinary Romans. Moreover, Christians sail and fight along side the Romans; they enjoy the benefits of the empire and shoulder its responsibilities including military service.l2 Therefore, with the exception of the Roman temples, Christians were everywhere in the empire, in its fortresses and military camps. Fourteen years later under the in- fluence of Montanism, Tertullian regretted, but did not deny, the presence of Christians in the army. In this case too they were normal Romans in becoming soldiers and spies, though Tertullian thought it unfortunate that they were in- volved with hucksters, pickpockets, bath-thieves, gamblers and pimps.13

The arguments Tertullian put forward against Christians serving in the army revolve around its religious observances. Not only is this the central theme of the De corona but it appears in the Apology and the treatise On Idolatry as well. Apparently, Tertullian knew the basic details of army religious rubrics. His crit- icisms relate specifically to the military oath and the standards, as well as to Mithraism, an unofficial religion popular with many soldiers. The military oath (sacramentum) bound the army unconditionally to the emperor its supreme com- mander. Although no text of the oath survives, its basic content was that the soldiers promised never to desert, to follow all orders from superiors, and to die for the empire.14 The oath was recited on three occasions: enlistment, New Year's Day and the anniversary of the emperor's accession to power. An abbreviated form of the oath even appears in the morning reports of the Cohors XX Pal- myrenorum where the soldiers promise to stand watch at the standards.15 Ter- tullian is adamant that the Christian should not take one oath to the emperor as the supreme commander of the army and another one to Christ.16 The standards were considered sacred and as such were housed in a sanctuary (aediculum) in the permanent camp. All standards partook in numen, the power communicated from the gods to the emperor and to the armies.7 According to Tertullian, the 10. Apology 37. 3. 11. Apology 37. 5. 12. Apology 42. 3. 13. De fuga 13. 3. 14. Klingmuller, "Sacramentum," Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswis-

senschaft, Zweite Reihe IA2, pp. 1667-1674 (hereafter cited as RE). 15. Robert 0. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (Cleveland: The American Philolog-

ical Association, 1971), pp. 179-180. See also "excubare," p. 541 and Stephen Gero, "Miles Gloriosus: The Christians and the Military Service," Church History 29 (1970): 285-298. Gero's assertion (p. 295) that "... in this period the Christian in the army was not really exposed to a greater danger of idolatry than in civilian life" is simply not true. The recitation of the oath, not to mention other prescribed religious observances, was a regular and unavoidable feature of military life. For the Roman army's religious calendar, see Fink, pp. 422-429, and his lengthy study of the Dura Calendar, "The Feriale Dur- anum," Yale Classical Studies 7 (1940):1-222.

16. De idolatria 19. 2. 17. Alfred von Domaszewski, "Die Religion des Romischen Heeres," Westdeutschen Zeit-

schrift fur Geschichte und Kunst 14 (1895):40-45.

151

CHURCH HISTORY

standards belonged to the devil.18 Alluding to the subterranean sanctuaries of the Mithraic cult, Tertullian compared the church to this cult: the church is the

camp of light, the religion of Mithra is the camp of darkness. In all of early Christian literature the only work devoted exclusively to the

subject of the military is Tertullian's De corona militis. The inspiration for this treatise came from the martyrdom of a Christian soldier who refused to wear his

military crown at a celebration. Since he suffered martyrdom he was unlike his "laurel crowned" Christian comrades.l1 The account of this soldier's martyrdom occupies only the first paragraph of the treatise; in the remainder Tertullian con- cerned himself with a detailed argument intended to prove how the military crown was an idolatrous object. Following Fontaine's outline of the treatise,20 we see that the first section (1.6-7.2) argues that the crown is idolatrous because it is not traditional in the church and it is unnatural (you cannot smell flowers on the top of your head). The second section (7.3-11) shows how the crown had al- ways been connected with pagan cults. There is no sense in discussing the

military life in detail since everything connected with it is idolatrous and, there- fore, condemned (11.1). Therefore, a Christian ought not enlist since it would involve deserting the camp of light for the camp of darkness (11.4). The last section (12-15) returns to the crown itself and the religion of Mithraism. No- where does Tertullian prohibit Christians from enlisting on the ground that they will be forced to take part in combat. He mentioned killing only in Chapter 11 where he argued that the army was idolatrous because it demanded the oath, the sword, inflicting torture and guarding pagan sanctuaries.21 Tertullian's problem with Christian military service was idolatry, not bloodshed.

Origen. Origen's position on Christian enlistment is determined not by any considerations of bloodshed but by his conception of the nature of the Christian life in the world. His refusal to allow Christians to serve in the army is in the last seven chapters of his reply to Celsus. Like the early Tertullian, Origen is con- cerned with refuting the accusation that Christians were disloyal to the empire.22 Celsus felt that the Christians were disloyal since they declined to serve in the army, though he did not specify the grounds on which they refused. He demanded that Christians be fellow generals with the emperor.23

Origen's answer to Celsus is based on his conception of the Christians' spir- itual warfare, a conception derived from his allegorical Biblical exegesis. On the one hand, the Hebrews represent an army which fights real battles and does real killing; on the other, Christians are called to fight battles of the spirit; Israel represents a visible army, Christians an invisible one struggling against demons.24 He combined 2 Tim. 2:4 ("No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pur- suits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.") with Num. 31:33 18. De idolatria 19. 2. 19. De corona 1. 6. The crown was an award given to soldiers by virtue of meritorious

combat, usually given to centurions. See G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (Ithaca, 1969), pp. 114-117.

20. J. Fontaine, Tertullian: De corona (Paris, 1966). 21. Tertullian considered idolatry the chief sin against God, even more objectionable than

murder. De spectaculis 2. 8. Gero, p. 294, only begs the question when he says that "much of the De corona is of no interest to us here, taken up as it is with a rather artificial antiquarian discussion on the use of wreaths and crowns."

22. The opening paragraphs of Contra Celsum are devoted to the theme of the Christian's loyalty to the empire, the same theme which closes the treatise.

23. Contra Celsum 8. 73. 24. De principiis 4: 1. 24. Homily on Numbers 7. 6; 13. 2; 19. 4; and 25. 4. Commentary

on John 6:3.

152

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

where the soldiers were required to destroy all booty because it was impure. On the basis of this combination Origen taught that the world was impure and, there- fore, the Christian ought to concern himself with spiritual values.25 It would seem that Origen's order of priorities placed the allegorical method higher than his feelings about violence since even the command to turn the other cheek does not escape allegorization.26

The context in which Origen denies that Christians will serve in the army is important. Christians refused to swear by the emperor's genius, but Origen said that Christians respect him because Rom. 13:1-2 demands that they do so.27 Because everything good comes to the world through God and the Logos, not through the emperor, Origen could not swear by the emperor's genius.28 As Celsus saw it, this refusal had disastrous implications; the emperor would be left alone to stand against the barbarians who in the end would capture every- thing.29 Since the Jews and Christians no longer had a land to call their own, misguided religious devotion would do the same for the empire ". . . if every one were to do the same as you."30 Origen was convinced that the prayers of fifty men (Gen. 18:24-26), and a God who concerned himself with even the life of a sparrow (Matt. 10:29-30) would certainly watch over the empire.31 More- over, the Logos creating one harmonious soul in the world would change the at- titudes of these people; all nations would unite to seek and follow God's will.32 Like the Tertullian of the Apology, Origen claimed that Christians helped the emperor by their prayers.33 Origen felt that Christians were trained for spiritual combat against the demons who stir up envy and encourage men to break the peace.34 Accordingly, Christians should be exempt from battle like the Roman priests who keep their right hands pure from killing for the sake of sacrificial purity.35

As with Tertullian Origen's arguments against enlistment were religious rather than ethical or moral. If Origen had had bloodshed in mind when he prohibited enlistment, he would not have said that Christians should pray for the emperor's success in just wars; he was too consistent a thinker to let such a contradiction escape him.86

Hippolytus. In early third-century Rome Hippolytus wrote the Apostolic Tradition dealing with the requirements of church membership. In it appear two brief statements concerning the military, and since they are very brief it is not easy to understand what they actually prohibit or on what basis. First, a soldier who has the authority must not execute people and, if he is commanded to do so, must disobey the order.37 It is not clear whether Hippolytus had in mind the persecution of Christians and/or the command to kill prisoners taken in war. Sec- 25. Contra Celsum 7. 22. 26. De principiis 4. 18. Origen said that the command that the right cheek should be smit-

ten was incredible since everyone who strikes hits the left cheek with the right hand, therefore this command cannot be taken literally.

27. Contra Celsum 8. 65. 28. Ibid., 8. 67. 29. Ibid., 8. 68. 30. Ibid., 8. 69. 31. Ibid., 8. 70. 32. Ibid., 8. 72. 33. Ibid., 8. 73. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Karpp, p. 500. 37. Apostolic Tradition 16. 17.

153

CHURCH HISTORY

ond, no catechumen or baptized Christian can enter the service without despising God, and therefore must be thrown out of the church.38 Nor is it certain whether he objected to enlistment on the basis of combat, idolatry or some other un- specified reason: it is possible to imagine various ways of "despising God." Like Origen, he thought it unlawful for a Christian to be a military governor or a magistrate (archon, wearing a toga) of a city.39

Probably the way to understand Hippolytus' objections is to examine the context in which they occurred; the Apostolic Tradition answered the questions of various people seeking church membership as to whether they would be able to maintain their occupations.40 These were pimping, sculpting of idols, acting, teaching worldly knowledge, taking part in the games, being a gladiator, a priest of idols, a soldier, a prostitute, a magician and an astrologer.41 Since he men- tioned the military oath probably it was his key objection.42 All the occupations listed have some evil which could be interpreted as involving either immorality or idolatry-the army had both.

Clement of Alexandria. Discussing the comments of the three above theo- logians exhausts all the explicit prohibitions of enlisting that fall within our period of study. Clement viewed the military as merely another occupation like animal husbandry or seamanship.43 In this passage he tells the reader that, in whatever calling a man finds himself, he must be related to God.44 He had ample opportunity to discuss the ethics of military life in the Paedagogus where he dis- cussed all sorts of ethical questions, but in it he never raised the subject.

Cyprian. None of the Fathers depended on military analogies as frequently as did Cyprian; reflecting his theology of the church, he employed them most when he discussed the church's nature and structure. For example, the church is the camp, martyrs are the soldiers of God, and Christ is the commander of this

army.45 It would be unfair to consider him a militarist on these grounds, how- ever. Cyprian simply was fond of using metaphors drawn from various situations in life; in one passage, for instance, he used in succession examples from agri- culture, weather, military and navigation.46 In fact, Cyprian said that God willed that iron be used for plowing not killing.47

Cyprian made one remark, easily interpreted to support the argument of

pacifist historians, that the hand which has received the eucharist is not after- ward to be defiled with the sword or blood.48 Rather than a prohibition against military service on the ground of possible bloodshed, this comment is an Old Testa- ment ritual taboo carried into the liturgy of the early church. Num. 19:11-22 decrees that a person contaminated by a corpse is unclean for seven days; the

purification rites especially apply to one touching a corpse slain with a sword (vs. 16). At any rate, the sword in Cyprian's statement is not specifically a military sword; he may in fact be referring to a murderer as well as a soldier. 38. Ibid., 16. 17. 39. Ibid., 16. 18. 40. Ibid., 16. 19. 41. Ibid., 16. 10-22. 42. Ibid., 16. 17. 43. Protrepticus 10. 100. 44. Another example of his neutral feelings about the military is his discussion of shoes;

it was permissible for a man to go barefoot "except when he is on military service." Paedagogus 2. 118, 2.

45. Epistles 8; 24. 2; 36. 2; 53. 1, 4-5; 55. 3; 72. 22. 46. On the Mortality 8 and 12. 47. On the Dress of Virgins 11. 48. On the Advantage of Patience 14.

154

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

Minucius Felix and Arnobius. Both these writers, though they do not men- tion the problem of enlistment, are highly critical of the Roman military religion and the Roman state gods in general. Minucius objected to the standards of the army since they resembled the cross and, therefore, were idolatrous.49 Arnobius placed many statements against war and its destruction in contexts which at- tack the Roman gods; it was they who could not prevent war or hold control over it. In this connection Arnobius had Mars particularly in mind.50 Other gods preside over the debauchery in the camps as does Venus Militarius.51

Lactantius. Lactantius' most vivid condemnations of homicide appear in con- nection with the discussion of the Roman games and gladiators.52 Nevertheless, he recognized the necessity for some killing since a man may be compelled against his will to go to war.53 The principle of God's revenge as an hermeneutic of history, briefly suggested in the Epitome (44), later became a major theme when the Christians in the empire struggled to ascend to its government. In On the Deaths of the Persecutors we find complete support of Constantine's battles; Constantine's armies were engaged in a sacred crusade.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Reflecting the precarious peace the church had just gained, Eusebius attempted to convince the empire, Christian and conservative Roman alike, that the reign of Constantine was the new Jerusalem entering his- tory. As did the early Tertullian and Origen, Eusebius wanted to show that Chris- tians could be counted on to remain loyal to the empire. In addition he conceived the new argument that "good" emperors never persecuted the church. The good emperors were the ones the Romans themselves thought good and the bad were those who suffered damnatio memoriae on the decree of the senate. As Eusebius had it, one of the better of the good emperors, Marcus Aurelius, received help from the Christian soldiers in his army including the Thundering Legion.54 With pride Eusebius retold the account of how the prayers of these soldiers decisively turned the tide in the favor of the Romans. Yet he had to explain awav the disastrous persecution of Lyons-Vienne in 177, also during Marcus' reign. This he did by referring to Antoninus, the name of both Marcus and Marcus' brother Lucius Verus who died in 169, as the emperor under whom the persecution took place.55

Constantine too was a good emperor and Eusebius described his military and political career in superlatives, calling him "triumphant conquerer."56 Nowhere in the Church History or the Life of Constantine does Eusebius hint that he was opposed to Constantine's military activities; neither did bloodshed threaten Euse- bius, especially if it was the armies of Maxentius and Licinius that bled. In fact, all of Constantine's victories were the result of the protection of the Christians' god.

The Apocryphal Gospels. Since the early church did not contain only theo- logians, it is necessary to examine a genre of literature representing a different spectrum of writers and readers. These gospels display attitudes concerning vi- olence which were quite foreign to the Fathers; generally speaking, the Fathers 49. Octavius 29; see also 6, 25 and 26. 50. Against the Pagans 3. 26. 51. Ibid., 4. 7. 52. Divine Institutes 6. 20. Epitome 63. 53. Divine Institutes 5. 18. 54. Ecclesiastical History 5, 5, 1-7 (hereafter cited as HE). 55. I owe this observation to Robert M. Grant. 56. Life of Constantine 1. 1.

155

CHURCH HISTORY

abhorred violence, but the apocryphal literature did not. The contrast with the Jesus of the New Testament is striking. Not a forgiving person, the youth Jesus carried grudges and left in his wake death and destruction. Parents of children in Nazareth came to Mary and Joseph complaining that Jesus was killing their children, referring to an incident when Jesus caused a boy who had run into him to fall down dead.57 On another occasion, Jesus made a small pond with a mud dike and rainwater; in it was a fish. A young son of a scribe maliciously broke the dike, drained the water, and the fish died. At this, Jesus caused the boy to

dry up and die as the fish had done.58 Once in school Jesus' teacher hit him on the head; Jesus cursed him and he too died. When Joseph heard of this he told Mary never to let Jesus outside again "because those who anger him die."59

Apparently widely circulated, this literature is representative of people who preferred hearing stories of a super-Jesus to contemplating theories of the eternal generation of the Logos. Certainly no evidence exists to show that these stories influenced the ethics of the early church, but they do call into question the in- fluence of the church Fathers upon them. In addition, though it cannot be proven, it would appear that the Christian who was most likely to enlist read apocryphal literature more than he read the church Fathers, if he read at all.

Summary. The evidence gathered from the church Fathers of the first three centuries proves that there was no such thing as an early church pacifism. What- ever objections to enlistment there were, and there were not many, were based on the nature of the observances of the official and unofficial religions in and

surrounding the legions. Origen, though not objecting to army religion as such, did claim that Christians were exempt on the basis of their religious duty to

pray and not to involve themselves actively in the daily affairs of the empire. These

objections never claimed as their basis the likelihood that Christians would be forced to kill other people in combat. Hippolytus' only objection was that Chris- tians should not execute people; probably this referred to taking part in persecu- tions but it is not possible to tell much on the basis of so brief a quotation. The fact that Christians vigorously protested their loyalty to the empire suggests that, like any Roman, they assumed the necessity of armies to secure its borders. The church Fathers, to be sure, abhor war and murder; references supporting that stance are found frequently throughout their writings. An aversion to war on their

part proves nothing since none has ever accused them of war mongering; it is

possible to hate war and yet admit that it is a necessary step to the solution of a conflict. Their references to murder are never in military contexts. This sug- gests that murder was more of a problem in the early church than has been

recognized previously. Both canon 2 of the Council of Elvira (A.D. 305) and the Acts of the Council of Cirta (A.D. 305) refer to Christians who have murdered.

CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMAN ARMY

While little or no evidence for early church pacifism exists, considerably more

points to Christians enlisting in all parts of the empire from at least the middle of the second century. Some a priori arguments against Christians enlisting have been developed, but not successfully. These assume, since only native born Ro- man citizens were eligible to enlist in the legions, that Christians would not be able because they were largely of Jewish background. Despite the objection that

57. Gospel of Thomas 4. 58. Ibid., 3. 59. Ibid., 11.

156

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

many Christians were not Jewish in origin, the argument collapses when one re- members that beside the legions the Roman army had auxiliary forces which took virtually anyone. In addition, there were strong incentives for enlistment in these forces since the soldiers were given citizenship, a stipend and sometimes a plot of land upon discharge.60 The other a priori argument is based on the alleged pacifist nature of the early Christian communities. Reading on and between the lines in Fathers like Tertullian, we can see that Christians made a practice of en- listing, otherwise it would be pointless to prohibit others from joining.

The Thundering Legion. From the Centurions mentioned in the New Testa- ment until the year 173 we have no explicit reference to Christians in the army. In that year occurred the incident of the Thundering Legion (Legio XII Ful- minata). As Eusebius told it,61 the emperor Marcus Aurelius was leading his legion against the Germans and Sarmatians near the Danube when the legion be- came surrounded. The soldiers depleted their water supply and were dangerously weakened by thirst. At this point Christian soldiers in the legion fell to their knees and prayed for deliverance. In answer to their prayers a thunderstorm re- freshed the legion and lightning bolts put the enemy to flight. This story might easily be called fable were it not that accounts of it come from non-Christian sources namely Dio Cassius and the column of Marcus Aurelius, still standing.62 Dio has essentially the same account in more detail adding that it was by the power of an Egyptian magician Amuphis that the victory was gained. The column of Marcus attributes the victory to Jupiter Pluvius.

The Legio XII Fulminata had been stationed in Melitene, Cappadocia (mod- ern eastern Turkey), ever since it had lost its eagle in the Jewish revolt A.D. 66. When Marcus began his Danube campaign little over a century later he called into that battle cohorts from legions all over the empire including cohorts from the Thundering Legion.63 Whether or not Apollinaris knew that cohorts of that legion were involved in Marcus' campaign, he felt certain that Christians were closely enough connected with it to claim the victory. Legions recruited locally and the neighborhood of Melitene was a relatively populous Christian area at that time. At any rate, it is clear that he proudly wrote that Christians were involved in the event; there is no shame coloring his, Eusebius' or Tertullian's64 accounts of Christians in Marcus' army. But Apollinaris either tried to make his readers believe that the appellation "Thundering" was Marcus' reward to the Christians, or he did not know that the name went all the way back to the time of Octavian.65 Fulminata, a perfect passive participle, literally means thunderstruck, not thunder- ing. Since places struck by lightning were regarded with awe, the castra of the legion may have been electrified in that way, giving it the name Fulminata.66 60. Watson, pp. 136, 147-154. 61. HE 5, 5. 1-7. Eusebius got this story from Apollinaris of Hierapolis, a contemporary of

the event. Hierapolis is approximately 400 miles west of Melitene, the camp of the legion. The literature and problems connected with this incident are too complex to present here. See my "Christians and Military Service, A.D. 173-337" (Ph. D. diss., Uni- versity of Chicago, 1973). pp. 88-97.

62. Dio 72. 8. 1-10. 5. Giovanni Becatti, Colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan, 1957), plates 9, 10, 11, and 12.

63. Most likely this is the reason that Roman sources do not tell us what legions were im- volved, though Christian ones do. For a history of the legion see Ritterling, "Legio," BE 12: 1705-1710. A vexillation of legio III Augusta, normally stationed in North Africa, was in the campaign. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 8, 619 (hereafter cited as CIL).

64. Apology 5. 65. Ritterling, p. 1706. CIL 3: 504, 507, 509, 6097. 66. E. Renan, Marc-Aurele et la Fin du Monde Antique (6th ed., Paris, 1891), p. 275.

157

CHURCH HISTORY

Military Martyrs Prior to the Great Persecution.7 Marinus is the first martyred Christian soldier of whom we know anything in detail.68 He died about the year 260 in Caesarea in Palestine. He was about to receive his promotion to the rank of centurion when another soldier objected on the ground that Marinus was a Christian. As such Marinus would not be able to sacrifice to the gods and, since the centurion was under obligation to perform these rites in the absence of a superior officer, the objection was brought to the attention of a judge. Mar- inus' position in the service indicates that he must have been a good soldier since he had worked himself up to the position of optio ad spem, the rank just before promotion to centurion. From the account it seems that Marinus was not clear about whether or not he would renounce his faith until the bishop, Theotecnus, persuaded him to stand fast.

The only known Christian draftee, Maximilian, died March 12, 295 in The- vaste in Mauretania Caesariensis.69 His father, a temonarius, by virtue of that office was required to find recruits for the army and, if not, to bring his own sons. Maximilian refused to serve because he was a Christian and objected par- ticularly to wearing the lead seal (signaculum) of the soldier. Since Diocletian and the other members of the tetrarchy had claimed to be earthly representatives of Hercules and Jupiter and since their likenesses were struck on the seal, Maxi- milian thereby regarded it as an idolatrous object. Cassius Dio, a proconsul be- fore whom the trial was held, attempted to persuade him to reconsider on the ground that there were Christians who served in the mobile forces under the em- peror's personal command (in sacro comitatu).70 In its implications, Dio's state- ment is significant because it shows that there were a number of Christians in the emperor's army, that they were known as such, and that (at that time) they did not suffer on that account. Maximilian was not impressed; he died because he, with an impious mind (indevoto animo), had committed the crime of contumacia.

Three years later Marcellus, a centurion, died in Mauretania Tingitana.7l On

July 21, 298, at a festival dedicated to the anniversary of Diocletian's and Maxi- mian's assumption of divinity,72 Marcellus declared that he would no longer serve in the army. Although a civil celebration, the anniversary was a required festival in the army with the signa (eagles and vexilla) on display and the soldiers in full uniform. When Marcellus rejected the service, he did so by throwing off his military girdle, sword belt and vine switch while standing in front of the signa. 67. As we have said above, the acta of the Christian military martyrs are problematic. For

a brief introduction to the history of its criticism see Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), pp. i-ivii. Our method of study agrees with Mu- surillo's suggestion that each account be studied independently and be evaluated on the basis of historical data found in each of them. In general, the longer acts have ap- peared to be less reliable and have fewer identifiable details relating to the military than do the shorter ones. From time to time, however, the longer acts have been built around a short protocol (perhaps bribed or stolen from the court recorder) which appears to be authentic, as in the case of Tipasius. Of the twenty-four acta dealing with military martyrs, we have included the ones which appear to be beyond question, that is, where the protocol form is identifiable within the text.

68. HE 7. 15. Musurillo, pp. 240-243. 69. Musurillo, pp. 244-249. 70. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Norman, Ok., 1964), p. 52. 71. Musurillo, pp. 250-259. 72. This is not the joint birthday of these emperors as in Musurillo (p. 251 n. 2), see E.

Galletier, Panegyriques latines (Paris, 1949), 1: 9-11. Nor is Anastasius Fortunatus the praefectus of legio II Trajana, but the praeses of Gallaecia. Harnack, p. 85, also makes the mistake of saying that Marcellus was from the legion II Trajana usually stationed in Egypt; his evidence is only one of the fifteen surviving manuscripts of the Acts of Marcellus, outside of which there is no other evidence for the presence of that legion in Spain.

158

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

He referred to the standards (signa) of the legion as wooden and stone gods. In his trial he declared that since he had taken his oath to Christ he could no longer tolerate the presence of the standards. At this time Marcellus was bound over to a higher court in Tingis in the province of Mauretania.73 At his second trial he maintained his position and was beheaded for defiling the sacramentum, his

military oath. Like Marinus, Marcellus' rank (centurio ordinarius) implies that he too got where he was by being a good soldier.

Up to this point in time it is relatively clear that the Roman military of- ficials were not conducting any search for Christians in the ranks. Moreover, these acta and subsequent ones indicate that as long as Christian soldiers obeyed all regulations their religious affiliation was no problem for the military. These three Christian soldiers died because they took the initiative of displaying offense at army religious practices.

DIOCLETIAN'S ARMY PURGE A so-called barracks emperor, Diocletian took a conservative approach to

setting the empire back on its feet following the military anarchy of the third century. Accordingly, this meant returning the empire to pact with the gods op- erative in the time of Augustus. As a prelude to the empire-wide great persecu- tion (which hit Manicheans as well as Christians), the first indication that any imperial attention was given to Christians in the ranks is in the account Lactantius gives of the "liver reading incident" probably in the year 301.74 A believer in the science of divining the future by reading livers, Diocletian was offended when Christians present at one of these rites made the sign of the cross on their fore- heads. As the augurs claimed, the effect of the Christians' presence was that the spirits were frightened away and, after several repetitions of the rite, no sign was forthcoming in the livers. Diocletian responded by commanding everyone in the place to sacrifice, those refusing to be scourged. Simultaneously he sent letters to all legion commanders that any soldier who did not sacrifice was to be dis- missed from the military. Such measures were stern but not fatal. A soldier dis- honorably dismissed would lose his pension, his savings in the regimental bank and the social status of having completed a military career.75 Eusebius probably referred to the same incident adding that officers would lose rank but not be dis- missed from service as those beneath the rank of centurion. Since Eusebius credited a "camp commander" with beginning the persecution, his grasp of the de- tails involving the army is suspect.76 At any rate, the policy of Diocletian evidently had the intended effect because many Christians left the army rather than be in- volved in this religious conflict, but we cannot be sure what Eusebius meant by "many." 73. Though it appears strange, Marcellus was first tried in the province of Gallaecia (north-

west Spain), then sent across the Strait of Gibraltar to Tingis, the capital of the diocese of Hispania containing five other provinces, all on the Iberian peninsula. Part of the problem in determining exactly what happened is that there are two manuscript recensions " M" and "N"; the "M" group has both trials happen in Spain while the "N" group correctly has him bound over to a higher court outside Spain. It makes no sense to have two trials in the same province; the "M" group may be the result of a local martyr cult trying to doctor the evidence to make it appear as though Marcellus died at home.

74. On the Deaths of Persecutors 10. 75. Watson, pp. 122-123. 76. HE 8, 4, 2-3. The word Eusebius used was "stratopedarches", meaning the camp com-

mandant; but it is unlikely that such a person would have been able to conduct a per- secution on as large a scale as Eusebius said he did.

159

CHURCH HISTORY

CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS DURING THE GREAT PERSECUTION

Since Diocletian made Christians the scapegoats for imperial problems, those in the army naturally suffered. Trajan's advice given two centuries earlier that Christians were not to be sought out was completely abandoned. Those military martyr acts which can be precisely dated after the beginning of this persecution (the festival of Terminalia February 23, 303) reflect this change in policy.

The acts of Dasius have been embellished in an attempt to smear the Saturn festival; the first part of this account is not likely to be historical.77 He died on on November 20, 303 in Durostorum in the province of Moesia Inferior. After twice refusing to pray to the sacred images of the emperors he was beheaded.

Likewise the acts of Tipasius the Veteran have been augmented.78 In this case the author tried to convey the impression that the favor of the Christian's God was the decisive factor in the victory of Maximian over the Quinquegentani (a tribe in the province of Mauretania Sitifensis) in 297-298. The second part of the account, however, seems to be authentic. It refers to the year 303 when Diocletian recalled veterans to aid in the enforcement of the edicts of the Great Persecution. Tipasius refused to return, was arrested, and tried before a dux, a military commander of that province. As the story unfolds we learn that Tipasius had obtained an honorable discharge (honesta missio) and that he was to be placed in a detachment of veterans; he had been a good soldier. However, Tipasius no longer appeared to be such a good soldier; the charge brought against him was that he refused both to do military service and to sacrifice to the gods (deis im- molet), actually to burn incense to them. At last he was beheaded for these two offenses, probably in early 304.

Another veteran met the same fate. Julius the Veteran was brought before Maximus the praeses in 303.79 As the trial developed Maximus appeared not to care what Julius believed so long as he obeyed the emperor's command to sacrifice (praecepta regum, in the case of Tipasius it is sicut praeceptum est). In fact, Maximus promised to make it look as though he compelled Julius to sacrifice so he would not lose face before his fellow churchmen. Attempts to bribe him by being able to spend the emperor's donative in peace also failed. Probably it was the donative which occasioned his arrest. Julius did not want to receive the de- cennalia pecunia (a donative presented to the soldiers in connection with an an- niversary of an emperor's ten years in office) because we learn from the Dura

Papyria that part of the reception of a donative was to burn an incense offering (turificatio) to the emperor. Since he could not be persuaded to do this he was arrested and then commanded to sacrifice anyway. Julius' only defense in court was the fact that he had served for twenty-seven years with a clean record and had been in battle seven times, never hiding behind anyone. Because of his military record he felt he never should have to sacrifice. 77. Musurillo, pp. 272-279. Bassus is not the legatus of legio XI Claudia as Musurillo states

(p. 273 n. 1) since there had not been any legatus in charge of a legion since the em- peror Gallienus over a generation earlier; see H. M. D. Parker, A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138-387 (London, 1958), p. 179. This is the only recorded instance of the Saturn festival lasting thirty days. See Musurillo. ibid.

78. Carolus Smedt, ed., "Passiones tres Martyrum Africanorum, SS. Maximae, Donatillae et Secundae, S. Typasii Veterani, et S. Fabii Vexilliferi," Analecta Bollandiana 9 (1890): 107-134 (hereafter cited as AB).

79. Musurillo, pp. 260-265. This martyrdom did not occur in Durostorum as in the Roman Martyrology (27 May). Since Bassus was not legatus legionis (n. 77 above) he must have been one of the last legates of the imperial province of Moesia Inferior. But we see that Julius was tried the same year under a praeses. Since no province was governed by both a legatus and a praeses, the martyrdom was not in that province.

160

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY 161

The martyr literature is too extensive to include more than the most reliable acts here.80 Whether reliable or fabricated this literature is unanimous regard- ing the reason for the execution of the soldiers. In no case is there recorded any soldier's refusing to kill; all were offended at the Roman religious demands. Most of these acts point to a time during the great persecution when soldiers were sought out and required to choose one way or another. Martyr acts point to those soldiers who took a stand for the Christian religion; inscriptions point to some who took ambiguous stands and remained in the army.81

Tombstones of Christian Soldiers. Most of the Christian soldiers' tomb- stones yield little more information than the soldier's highest rank and sometimes the legion in which he served. Usually they have no hard evidence by which the soldier's career might be dated though seven are definitely prior to the reign of Constantine. More are undoubtedly from this time but it is not possible to say which ones are. Nevertheless, epigraphical evidence is important because it is un- likely to be doctored to prove a point; it is inconceivable that a family would put on a person's tomb that he was both a Christian and a soldier if either or both were not true.82

Particularly interesting is the epigraphical data pointing to Christians in the Roman army in Britain.83 With the possible exception of one inscription, none of the evidence can be dated with certainty before the time of Constantine. How- ever, the bishops from Britain at the Synod of Arles in 314 all came from towns where the army had camps. Since Christian settlement in the west at that time was practically nothing, the existence of these bishops points to the army as one means for the dissemination of Christianity just as it was for Mithraism.

The Question of Christian Police. In an attempt to explain those soldiers listed in inscriptions several historians have developed the theory of Christian

80. Others include The Theban Legion, Passio Acaunensium Martyrum in Denis Van Berchem, Le Martyre de la legion Thebaine (Basel, 1956), pp. 55-59. See also Louis Dupraz, Le passions de S. Maurice d'Agaune (Fribourge, 1961). Andrew the Tribune, Acta Sanctorum 38 (August 3): 720-726 (hereafter cited as ASS). Callistratus and His Forty-Nine Companions, F. C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts of Apollonius and Other Monuments of Early Christianity (New York, 1894), pp. 389-436. Fabius, Carolus Smedt, ed., "Passio S. Fabii Vexilliferi," AB 9 (1890): 123-134. Longius the Cen- turion, ASS 7 (March 2): 380-384. Longinus the Soldier, ASS 7 (March 2):379-380. Luxorius, ASS 38 (August 4):416-417. Nereus and Achilleus, Hans Achelis, "Acta SS. Nerei et Achillei," Texte und Untersuchungen 11 (1893): 1-23. Polyeuctes, Conybeare, pp. 123-146. Procopius, H. Delehaye, Les legendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris, 1909), pp. 214-233. Proculus, ASS 11 (June 1):48-50. The Quattour Coronati, ASS 56 (November 3):748-784. Sebastian, ASS 2 (January 2):629-642. Sergius and Bacchus, AB 14 (1895):375-395. Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus, ASS 52 (October 5) :566-584. Theodore the Recruit, Delehaye, pp. 127-150. See also Migne, Patrologia Graeca 46: 736-748. Theodore the Commander, Delehaye, pp. 151-201.

81. W. M. Calder, "A Fourth Century Lycaonian Bishop," Expositor, 7th Series 6 (1908): 385-408. Eugenius was in the army of Maximin Daia during the revival of persecution in 311. Although he later became a bishop, he kept off his tombstone the fact that he was an officer.

82. H. Leclercq, "Militarisme," DACL, pp. 1155-1179. Ernest Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (Berlin, 1925-1931), no. 483-569. L'annee epigraphique (hereafter cited as AE), 1936, no. 49; 1937, no. 144; 1938, no. 138; 1939, no. 171; 1946, no. 43 and 246; 1950, no. 257. In this collection of inscriptions Leclercq and Diehl have the same ones listed for the time before Constantine, though Diehl is more extensive after- wards. Those from AE represent those inscriptions found since their work concluded. Borrowing Leclercq's numbering, no. 29 is second century, nos. 12, 21, 22, 24, 46 and 47 are third as is AE 1939, no. 171. Ranks represented are one centurion (12), three evocati (21, 22, AE 1939, no. 171), one beneficiarius (24), two veterans (29, 46), and one listed as militavit (served as a soldier-47).

83. G. R. Watson, "Christianity in the Roman Army in Britain," in M. W. Barley and R. P. C. Hanson, eds., Christianity in Britain, 300-700 Leicester, 1968), pp. 51-54.

CHURCH HISTORY

police.84 The theory is that church Fathers and ecclesiastical officials sanctioned Christians in the police but not in the army. However, there is no recorded state- ment of any Christian theologian or cleric permitting Christians to become police- men but not soldiers. Roland Bainton mentions jobs which Christians had held in the Roman military prior to Constantine; all of them have peaceful sounding titles-frumentarius, vigiles, beneficarius and protectores. Originally the frumen- tarius was a soldier assigned to making sure tariffs were correctly paid on grain imports to Rome; Tertullian mentions Christians in this job.85 But the frumen- tarii arrested Christians, beat up the bakers of Antioch and extorted money during famine; they were the detested political spies of the empire, and the "record of their activities is not entirely honorable."86 The vigiles were keepers of the peace and members of the fire brigade in Rome (police duties in other cities were usual- ly handled by army detachments), but in the year 270 they broke the siege of Autun and plundered the city.87 An administrative aid to military officers, the beneficiarius was a rank in the cursus honorum from enlisted soldier to centurion. The fact that a soldier was so titled proves only that he was a soldier in the nor- mal process of advancement.88 If the stones tell the whole story, no Christian joined the protectores before the time of Constantine. Nevertheless, this title re- ferred to groups of soldiers specially trained who were assigned the task of protect- ing (hence their name) the army from barbarization; they were like our West Pointers and good fighters.89 There is no epigraphical evidence that Christian soldiers preferred peaceful duty, even if they would have had a choice of duty.90

The "police work" interpretation of Christians' military careers is built on an assumption as problematic as the evidence which supports it. This assumption is that police duties were peaceful and that military duties were violent, or poten- tially so. The opposite may have been more true. While there is more than a grain of truth to MacMullen's quip that a soldier could have spent an entire career without ever having to strike a blow in anger-except in a tavern-life witlhin the empire could hold a candle to the violence on its borders. And it is Mac- Mullen who has shown that the movement to put down brigands resulted in some bloody fights; this was part of the police work of the first three centuries and be- yond.9' The distinction between civil and military preservation of order is largely a modern, not a Roman one. Acting in various capacities, the soldiers did most of the policing of the empire. Capturing terrorists, criminal investigation, finding missing persons, questioning suspects (torture), raiding houses in search of illegal 84. Cadoux, pp. 15-16. Bainton, pp. 79-81. 85. De fuga 13. 86. Ramsay MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, Mass.,

1967), p. 51. 87. Parker, p. 188. CIL 12: 2228. 88. CIL 3: 9908 gives the successive ranks of one soldier; miles legionis XI, tesserarius,

beneficiarius, cornicularius legati Augusti pro praetore, centurio. CIL 8: 17626 shows a soldier going from the office of beneficiarius of the legion III Augustae to centurion of the legion III Italicae. Other examples are to be found in A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des r6mischen Heeres, 2d ed., rev. by Brian Dobson (Koln, 1967), pp. 32-35.

89. Parker, p. 180. R. Grosse, Rdmische Miitairgeschicthe (Berlin, 1920), pp. 13-15. 90. In a footnote, Bainton, p. 69 n. 10, has listed all the pre-Constantinian soldiers in

Leclercq (nos. 12, 21, 22, 24, 29, 47). However when developing his police work theory he discussed only the beneficiarius (no. 24); see Bainton, p. 79 n. 83. For the other military ranks see n. 82 above.

91. Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 256- 268.

162

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

weapons, collecting tariffs and tolls and spying were the duties which concerned many Roman soldiers acting as police.92

CHURCH COUNCILS DURING CONSTANTINE'S REIGN

After the conclusion of the great persecution we hear of no more military martyrdoms. Some historians have understood that this was the time in which the church "sold its soul" to Constantine. If so, this would have been one of the quietest sales known, for there is no record of any debate on the question wheth- er the church would now permit its members to join in combat.

The Synod or Aries, (A.D. 314). There has been much debate about cannon 3 of this synod because it is ambiguous and appears without a context to limit its meaning: De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstineri eos a communione ("Concerning those, who throw down their arms in time of peace, we have de- creed that they should be kept from communion"). The phrase "in time of peace" caused the problem because one might expect to find soldiers throwing away their weapons when they see difficult combat ahead, and therefore, substitute the phrase, "in time of war", as the most easily explained reading. If the reading were to be changed to "in time of war" it then would seem pointless for the church to forbid something which Roman military law had forbidden for cen- turies. Bainton's view, then, is that in times of peace a Christian is at liberty to serve in the police forces but in time of war he may be allowed to withdraw.93 But this view collapses with the "policework" theory. Nevertheless, the reading "in time of peace" should stand.

It seems that the author of this canon has the military martyrs in mind. This canon was written only two years after Constantine was victorious in the west. Given the policy of local recruitment Constantine probably had few Christians in his forces at the time. If asked, he would have been reluctant to discard an "idolatrous" military religion to make the Christian soldiers comfortable. Nor was the religious framework changed generations later when Ambrose could still say ". . . Not eagles and birds must lead the army but thy name and religion, O Jesus." Since the military martyrdoms were the result of conflicts with army religion and since the church wanted to maintain Constantine's favor, the church pro- hibited soldiers from being offended at the religion. Perhaps the other side of the coin is that Constantine prohibited the army officials from bothering Christian soldiers who were lax in keeping with the edicts of toleration promulgated short- ly before. At any rate, military martyrdoms no longer took place, though on the basis of traditional military law they were still possible.94

Canon 12 of the Council of Nicea (325). This canon also refers to religious struggle, this time in the army of Licinius; the preceeding canon explicitly men- tions the persecution under Licinius. Some soldiers had left the army of Licinius when he began to prepare for war against Constantine, but afterward remembered that they had much to lose in terms of pay and retirement benefits. They then at- tempted to bribe their way back into the "idolatrous" army ". . . like dogs to their own vomit. .. ." Eusebius had in his possession an imperial statute with Con- stantine's signature on it permitting soldiers who confessed and lost rank to have

(Continued on page 200) 92. R. W. Davies, "Police Work in Roman Times," History Today 18 (1968) :700-707. 93. Bainton, pp. 80-81. 94. Digest 49: 16, 13, "A soldier who in time of war loses or disposes of his arms shall

suffer death; through indulgence he may be transferred to another branch of the service." Translation from C. E. Brand, Roman Military Law (Austin, Tex., 1968), pp. 174-175.

163

CHUtCH HISTORY CHUtCH HISTORY

cord regarded the breadth of their sources as an evidence of their catholic veracity, and added a "Catalogue of Testimonies" with hundreds of quotations from earlier theologians to prove that their views stood in a broad consensus. Perhaps they took this concept from Melanchthon, who once wrote to Oecolampadius: "I have never wanted to be the author or defender of any new teaching in the Church" (CR 1: 1048). Furthermore, in writing the important Augsburg Confession (1530), Melanchthon stressed the continuity of the Lutheran movement with

churchly consensus through the ages in this resonant opening statement: "Ec- clesiae magno consensu apud nos docent .. ." (Our churches do teach with the great consensus. . .), (BS 50). This magno consensu was repeated in the pre- face to the Formula of Concord (BS 750) and frequently in the following pages. They indignantly rejected the charge of their adversaries that the "pious Reforma- tion" of Luther had introduced new teachings (nova dommata) into the church (BS 830).

Where did Melanchthon get his concept of a catholic consensus? Actually it was common property, the token of genuine authority of the medieval church in both east and west. Therefore it is not necessary to say that he learned it from Erasmus. However, the centrality of the magnus consensus was prominently upheld by the Dutch scholar. One writer thinks that it was the conviction that Luther diverged from the magnus consensus which moved Erasmus to break with the Protestant reformation.49 If so, I think that Erasmus was mistaken. Mel- anchthon had deeper insights at this point. But this is the reason for our whole

investigation. Erasmus performed a vital and indispensable service for the reform- ers. Their work would be inconceivable without Erasmus' work in the New Testament. We do neither the Wittenberg reformers nor the confessors of Con- cord a discredit when we show what they owed to Erasmus. Instead we pay them tribute. For we show the pains with which they undertook to understand the

teachings of the church catholic and the Holy Scriptures. We uncover their ecu- menism in the assertion: "Ecclesiae magno consensu apud nos docent.. ."!

49. See J. C. McConika, "Erasmus and the Grammar of Consent," Scrinium Erasmianum (1969) 2:79-83, 85ff, 95-97.

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY A.D. 173-337

(Continued from page 163)

the option of resuming that rank or be granted an honorable discharge.95 Ap- parently Constantine reflected the wishes of soldiers who wanted either possibility. Like the Synod of Aries, Nicea was concerned with only the religious problems of being a soldier, not the occupation as such.

If the early church had had a consistent principle of pacifism one would ex-

pect a debate concerning its status under a favorable emperor. However, no such debate took place; both canons reflect the fact that the only problem the church ever had with the army was the nature of army religion. Moreover, as we have seen, not every Christian soldier had problems with the army religion itself.

95. Life of Constantine 2, 33. The letter runs from 2, 24 to 2, 42. For arguments for the authenticity of the letter see A. H. M. Jones and T. C. Skeat, "Notes on the Genuine- ness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Life of Constantine," Journal of Eo- olesiastica History 5 (1954) :196-200.

cord regarded the breadth of their sources as an evidence of their catholic veracity, and added a "Catalogue of Testimonies" with hundreds of quotations from earlier theologians to prove that their views stood in a broad consensus. Perhaps they took this concept from Melanchthon, who once wrote to Oecolampadius: "I have never wanted to be the author or defender of any new teaching in the Church" (CR 1: 1048). Furthermore, in writing the important Augsburg Confession (1530), Melanchthon stressed the continuity of the Lutheran movement with

churchly consensus through the ages in this resonant opening statement: "Ec- clesiae magno consensu apud nos docent .. ." (Our churches do teach with the great consensus. . .), (BS 50). This magno consensu was repeated in the pre- face to the Formula of Concord (BS 750) and frequently in the following pages. They indignantly rejected the charge of their adversaries that the "pious Reforma- tion" of Luther had introduced new teachings (nova dommata) into the church (BS 830).

Where did Melanchthon get his concept of a catholic consensus? Actually it was common property, the token of genuine authority of the medieval church in both east and west. Therefore it is not necessary to say that he learned it from Erasmus. However, the centrality of the magnus consensus was prominently upheld by the Dutch scholar. One writer thinks that it was the conviction that Luther diverged from the magnus consensus which moved Erasmus to break with the Protestant reformation.49 If so, I think that Erasmus was mistaken. Mel- anchthon had deeper insights at this point. But this is the reason for our whole

investigation. Erasmus performed a vital and indispensable service for the reform- ers. Their work would be inconceivable without Erasmus' work in the New Testament. We do neither the Wittenberg reformers nor the confessors of Con- cord a discredit when we show what they owed to Erasmus. Instead we pay them tribute. For we show the pains with which they undertook to understand the

teachings of the church catholic and the Holy Scriptures. We uncover their ecu- menism in the assertion: "Ecclesiae magno consensu apud nos docent.. ."!

49. See J. C. McConika, "Erasmus and the Grammar of Consent," Scrinium Erasmianum (1969) 2:79-83, 85ff, 95-97.

CHRISTIANS AND THE ROMAN ARMY A.D. 173-337

(Continued from page 163)

the option of resuming that rank or be granted an honorable discharge.95 Ap- parently Constantine reflected the wishes of soldiers who wanted either possibility. Like the Synod of Aries, Nicea was concerned with only the religious problems of being a soldier, not the occupation as such.

If the early church had had a consistent principle of pacifism one would ex-

pect a debate concerning its status under a favorable emperor. However, no such debate took place; both canons reflect the fact that the only problem the church ever had with the army was the nature of army religion. Moreover, as we have seen, not every Christian soldier had problems with the army religion itself.

95. Life of Constantine 2, 33. The letter runs from 2, 24 to 2, 42. For arguments for the authenticity of the letter see A. H. M. Jones and T. C. Skeat, "Notes on the Genuine- ness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Life of Constantine," Journal of Eo- olesiastica History 5 (1954) :196-200.

200 200