SOURCE: "Miles Gloriosus: The Christian and Military Service according to Tertullian," Church History, Vol. 39, No. 3, September, 1970, pp. 285-98.

[In the following essay, Gero investigates significant changes in Tertullian's attitude toward Christian military service, arguing that "Tertullian at first condoned Christian service in the army, but later, when he recognized its dangers … firmly and totally came to oppose it."]

The aim of this paper is to throw some light on Tertullian's attitude to military service. His statements on this subject are highly useful for a more accurate understanding of his own changing views on the empire and the duties of citizenship. They are also important evidence for marking a crucial stage in the pre-Constantinian evolution of the relations of church and state. It will be seen that the whole question of Christians serving in the Roman army becanie relevant only in the late second century; Tertullian is one of the earliest literary witnesses for this momentous development. Therefore, on both counts, the texts deserve close scrutiny.

A detailed exposition of this history of the early Christian attitude to war cannot be given here; the reader is directed to the ample scholarly literature dealing with the subject.¹ However, a brief account of some very relevant aspects of the outlook of the apostolic and sub-apostolic church will be sketched out to help situate Tertullian in the spectrum of early Christian thought. When, in the course of this summary, questions will arise that more properly belong to the field of New Testament exegesis, bibliographic leads will be provided, without the extended discussion they would merit in a more comprehensive treatment.

It should be noted that for the specific purposes of this paper we need not be delayed by the question of war and violence, righteous or otherwise, in the Old Testament. Tertullian clearly states that the old law has been superseded by the nova lex of evangelical peace. For him the bellicosity of the old dispensation is no longer normative.²

It is well-known that Jesus in the canonical gospels, in spite of the radical tone and implications of his precepts, is not anywhere represented as explicitly dealing with the morality of the military profession. Here is not the place to speculate on those reasons for this silence that are bound up with the theological programme of the gospels. At any rate, it is generally admitted that the gospel records manifest a certain quietistic indifference to the concrete social questions of the day, though of course they specify a most demanding set of ethical imperatives for the individual. The extent of the influence of eschatology on dominical sayings, the vexed questions of "Interimsethik" and the Messianic consciousness all enter into the problem; but anyone familiar with the state of New Testament scholarship will realize that we could not hope to make even a beginning within the limits of this paper.³

Nevertheless, it is true that, in Luke 3:14, John the Baptist does not command the soldiers who come to him to lay down their arms, but only to observe righteousness; in the incidents of the faithful centurion, the conversion of Comelius, and the jailkeeper of Philippi⁴ there is no trace of condemnation of the profession of these individuals. Pressing the point a little, these instances could amount to an implicit legitimation of the military calling. In Luke-Acts especially, the pro-Roman apologetic thrust of which is well known, one naturally expects no denigration of the military forces of the empire; the writer's presentation of the pax romana as conducive to the spread of the gospel entails, if not the justification, at least the acceptance of that coercive power whereby tranquillity was maintained.⁵

The fact that there are two different strains of thought vis-à-vis the state in the New Testament, epitomized in Romans 13 and Revelation 13 respectively, is also a commonplace of New Testament scholarship.⁶ To a certain extent these are not mutually exclusive, for an apocalyptic timetable does not necessarily involve disloyalty to the powers that be.⁷ Yet it is undeniable that there is a tension between the attitude of Romans, I Peter, and the pastoral epistles which sanctifies the secular authorities as instruments of a just and benevolent deity, and that apocalyptic vision⁸ which sees the empire as the embodiment of demonic evil.⁹ We must leave aside some of the exegetical ramifications of the subject.¹⁰ We only have to recognize the persistence of the two schools of political thinking, so to speak, and that the unresolved tension¹¹ does appear in Tertullian.

A more immediately important observation is that the "Pauline-Petrine" tradition of loyalty does not involve active participation in the life of the polis. Paul reproves those who go before pagan judges;¹² hence it is quite unlikely that he would have sanctioned for the faithful any form of military service, which would have broken down the valued cultural autonomy of the Christian community even more than mere litigation in law courts. The obligations of loyalty are exhausted in obedience to the magistrates and inoffensive moral behavior.¹³

As was already pointed out, the apocalyptic strain in early Christianity was not necessarily more subversive than Pauline loyalism. The tendency to separatism, to be sure, would have been stronger, with an especially vivid abhorrence of the army, the evil instrument par excellence of the diabolic power of the empire.

The profession of loyalty, beginning with Clement of Rome, and throughout the second-century apologies, is a constant theme, reiterating the Pauline iure divino declarations. The apocalyptic tradition is of course also perpetuated in the writings of Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Commodian. But, as we have said, the whole history cannot be traced here.¹⁴ These Fathers usually accompanied their statements with vigorous assertions of the absolute peacefulness of the faithful: armies are not needed on account of the Christians. The attitude of the early Fathers shows that almost joyous irresponsibility and that pervasive idealism which characterize groups far removed from contact with the experience of actual political power and decision-making.¹⁵

The indirect evidence of "military" language can be exaggerated beyond due bounds. The use of a certain set of verbal images does not imply necessary approbation. It is quite possible to take over symbols not only in a favorable or neutral sense but also with a "combative" intent. Perhaps an example from a different field will be helpful. Christian art appropriated the pagan symbols of the good shepherd (Philanthropia) and the lighthouse (hope), amplifying but not annulling their pristine meaning. However, it seems that the adoption of Dionysiac floral symbolism (the true vine) implied a conscious devaluation of the original orgiastic associations.¹⁶

At any rate, it seems to me that military language in the New Testament and the early Fathers¹⁷ was probably more prompted by an apocalyptic-spiritual allegorization of the Old Testament than by concrete admiration of the military institutions of the empire. Psychological interpretations of the early Christians as warriors manqués of course cannot be ruled out, but I do not regard myself competent to pursue such a line of research. What is certain, however, is that the influence of the army was amazingly pervasive by the end of the second century, not the least in the matter of language.¹⁸ "Military" terminology was not confined to Christians, but was current in the cults of Bacchus, Venus, Isis, and of course, par excellence, in Mithraism. As Ramsay MacMullen points out, "The prestige and convenience of military organization … put its stamp on other groups quite unconnected with the army."¹⁹ In the civil bureaucracy "the lowliest scribbler wore a military belt, was called a miles, and after the completion of his militia, veteranus."²⁰ It is thus likely that military terminology as it became current also became trite. Perhaps militia Christi did not have quite the emotive value we might think it possessed.²¹

To cut short the discussion of the general issues of this early period, I can do no better than quote von Campenhausen's statement: "For little enclaves of a fairly humble status in the peaceful interior of a well-ordered empire, where there was practically no conscription,²² it was easy to avoid anything to do with the army.… Christians were still outside the field of political responsibility.… Till about A.D. 175 there were, as far as one can tell, no Christian soldiers,²³ and therefore no actual questions about military service arose."²⁴ I agree with von Campenhausen, as against Cadoux,²⁵ that these early sources, especially the New Testament, do not address themselves to the specific problem, and hence can be expected to yield no answer. The apostolic church did not legislate on behalf of those outside her pale. For her own members the problem was irrelevant.

The New Testament speaks with no certain voice on the question of military service. Both Tertullian and his later opponents could draw ammunition from it. It should be recognized that Tertullian's Christian legalism is not a necessary outcome of the position of the apostolic church and the New Testament, in this particular matter of military service at least.

Until the decade of 170-180 there is no literary or epigraphic evidence for Christian soldiers in the army. If there were any, they were so few as to attract no notice whatsoever. They would certainly have been soldier-converts, not baptized Christians who volunteered. The enlistment period was twenty-five years²⁶ or more and the penalties for desertion severe. It seems unlikely that Christian civilians—many of whom in any case were ineligible Jews, slaves and women—would have enlisted in this early period. However, it seems that the situation changed drastically in Tertullian's time. To understand the reasons for this, we have to review the pertinent social developments of the era of the early Severan rulers.²⁷

A period of civil anarchy followed the murder of Commodus.²⁸ The Senate temporarily exercised the power of government, but its impotence in face of the military gangsterism of the Praetorians became soon manifest. Septimius Severus, successor of the ineffectual Pertinax and the buffoon Didius Julianus, though paying occasional politic deference to the Senate and the people of Rome,²⁹ early recognized that retention of his rule depended on the good will of the army. Dio Cassius' version of Severus' death-bed advice to his sons Geta and Caracalla, "Agree, enrich the soldiers and you can despise everybody else,"³⁰ is perhaps apocryphal, but expresses well the spirit of both Severus' own policy and that of Caracalla.

Septimius Severus decided to found the power of the state on quasi-military rural communities, resulting in an amalgamation between peasant settlements and garrisons. Soldiers were allowed to form collegia; marriages of soldiers were regularized, and their families allowed to live within the camp precincts. Frontier troops were given land of their own to cultivate;³¹ purely local service became more common.³²

Though he did not follow the first part of his father's advice,³³ Caracalla showed even more favoritism than Severus to the military. The regular pay of soldiers, already increased by Severus, he raised by a further fifty per cent, in addition to frequent donativa. Dio quotes his extravagant expressions of praise for soldiers. His whole reign was devoted to military campaigns. Dio records that Caracalla declared, "No one but I ought to have money so that I can give it to the soldiers."³⁴ Though his troops could not protect him from assasination, their loyalty honored him in death by extorting his deification from the murderers.³⁵

The policy of Severus and Caracalla certainly issued in increased respectability for the military profession and its closer approximation to civilian life. There were, as we saw, many new inducements for embracing a soldier's life. The empire became militarized to a great degree. As MacMullen points out, "The emperor … drew closer to his troops, and the balance of power and prestige inclined under Septimius Severus toward army officers."³⁶ When one notes that the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (193-217) roughly coincide with the period of Tertullian's literary activity, it seems plausible that Tertullian's own attitude to the military profession, and the outlook of the whole Christian community, would have been profoundly affected by these important social developments. There seems to be evidence for this in Tertullian's writings.

In the Apologeticum of 197, Tertullian, as we shall see below, recognizes the presence of Christian soldiers in the army, and uses it as an argument in favor of his coreligionists. Fifteen years later, when he wrote de Corona and de Idololatria, the pro-military policy of the Severi already had such great success that even baptized Christians were joining the army. The whole development provoked his strongest opposition, and prompted him to produce detailed moral arguments against the permissibility of military service for Christians. It seems that rather than charging his very definite change of attitude to Montanism, one should recognize the sudden influx of Christians into the military profession, with its new opportunities for advancement and greater respectability, as a contributing, if indeed not the main, factor. In view of the earlier remarks on "military" terminology in Christian writings, I think we can safely dismiss the frequent martial metaphors of Tertullian as peripheral to this intensely practical problem of whether or not Christians should serve in the Roman army. Three passages in Tertullian's writings epitomize his attitude to military service. These will now be taken up in some detail.³⁷

I. Apol. 42, 3 (157, 10-13)

Nauigamus et nos uobiscum et uobiscum militamus et rustricamur et mercamur; proinde miscemus artes, operas nostras publicamus usui uestro.

(We sail together with you, we go to war, we till the ground, we conduct business together with you. We blend our skills with yours; our efforts are at your service.)

The Apologeticum belongs to the earlier phase of Tertullian's literary activity. The work is frankly apologetic, is directed to the pagan magistrates, and uses all the devices of the art of suasion. In this chapter Tertullian is bent on refuting the charge of social uselessness "Neque enim Brochmanae aut Indorum gymno-sophistae sumus, siluicolae et exules uitae."2 (Apol. 42, 1) In demolishing the accusation, Tertullian gives a list of the various activities in which Christians willingly participate—"vobiscum militamus" is part of a series. His earlier statement in ch. 37 ("impleuimus … castella … castra ipsa")³⁸ has a similar flavor. Tertullian enumerates all the places where Christians can be found; since he only excludes the pagan temples, forts and camps are quite naturally part of his list. Of course the assertion as such need not be taken literally; in the same breath he claims that nearly all the inhabitants of the cities of the empire are Christians.³⁹

The ambiguity in the exact significance of militanus should be noted. The two meanings of militare are (1) literally, militiam exercere (2) figuratively, servire, obsequi, operam dare.⁴⁰ It is not at all certain which alternative is appropriate in this passage. If one notes that the parallel members of the construction: nauigamus, rusticamur, and mercamur all refer to everyday activities, carried on both in peacetime and in time of war, the translation "we do service together with you" gains some support. In favor of the literal meaning is the already quoted passage in ch. 37, that Christians are in "castella [and] castra ipsa." Castellum and castra are technical military terms. More decisive is Tertullian's reference to Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius during the Quadi campaign.⁴¹

Thus there is some reason for both interpretations, with the evidence inclining perhaps more toward the literal meaning. However, the statement has to be interpreted in light of the declaration of ch. 37 "' … apud istam disciplinam magis occidi licet quam occidere'."⁴² Perhaps Tertullian used militare with studied ambiguity.

It should of course be noted that the term does not necessarily imply the reprehensible concomitant of violence which he elsewhere rejects. As MacMullen puts it, "Many a recruit need never have struck a blow in anger, outside a tavern."⁴³ Soldiers carried out many functions which today would be more proper to policemen or contractors.⁴⁴ That a person joined the army did not ex post facto imply that he was but a hired killer.

All the arguments Tertullian uses are within the apologetic tradition; he is familiar with the work of his predecessors.⁴⁵ In particular, the statement that Christians do accept their fair share of the civic burdens appears also in Justin Martyr,⁴⁶ and perhaps goes back to the commonplaces of Hellenistic Jewish apologetic.⁴⁷ What is significant here is that Tertullian, in utilizing the standard apologetic approach, alludes, but only in passing and not systematically,⁴⁸ to the occasional presence of Christians in the army. In 197 military service had not yet become a crucial moral issue for him.

To illustrate the great influence that literary form and putative destination had upon the ideology of his works, it will be instructive to compare the tract de Pallio with Tertullian's apologetic treatises. If one accepts Quasten's conjecture that de Pallio was written in 193, the work belongs in his early Catholic period.⁴⁹ This short tract was written very much along the lines of a Cynic distribe⁵⁰ and sets forth the author's radical rejection of society à la Diogenes. It is in sharp contrast to the tone of the Apologeticum,⁵¹ where indeed it would have been self-defeating for Tertullian to strike a Cynic pose. However if, as it is more likely, the "triple rule" refers to 209-211, the joint imperium of Severus and his sons, de Pallio belongs to the period of de Corona and Ad Scapulam. If this dating is correct, the difference in tone between de Pallio and the apologetic Ad Scapulam (212) is all the more striking. In this latter plea to the African perfect Tertullian sets forth an impeccably orthodox exposition of Romans 13, and betrays no trace of the brusque anti-social sentiments of de Pallio. To be sure, he threatens the migistrates with divine vengeance, but as far as his attitude to the state is concerned, he speaks much more sotto voce.

II. The next crucial text is chapter 11 of de Corona.⁵² This treatise was written to glorify a flagrant act of military disobedience on the part of a Christian soldier (ch. 1). Most of the work is of no interest to us here, taken up as it is with a rather artificial antiquarian discussion on the use of wreath and crowns. But in ch. 11 Tertullian succinctly summarizes his changed outlook to military service. As we said before, there seems to be some evidence that his volte-face, if it be called that, was motivated by the sudden influx of Christians into the army, made a very attractive career through the Severan reforms. At any rate, here Tertullian speaks with no uncertain voice, and both the relative disinterest in the subject of military service and the ambiguity of intention, that we found in the Apologeticum disappear.

Recognizing that the question of triumphal crowns is only incidental to the wider problem, Tertullian adduces several arguments for denying the very legitimacy of military service. It should be noted that the ethical question is posed only for Christians. The pre-Constantinian church, both by choice and by necessity, did not concern herself with the private morality of pagans, except to the extent that this affected the well-being of the Christian community.

Tertullian takes his stand on denying the possibility of divided loyalties, expanding the dominical dictum about serving two masters.⁵³ "Credimusne humanum sacramentum diuino superduci licere, et in alium dominum respondere post Christum … ?"⁵⁴ Then he invokes the Christian obligation not to shed blood, "Licebit in gladio conuersari, Domino pronuntiante gladio periturum qui gladio fuerit usus?"⁵⁵ Next he points out the radical implications of the cultural separatism incumbent on the believer. The Christian should not go to law courts, and should not avenge even his own private wrongs; hence a fortiori he must not be a soldier, a man of violence.

His final argument hinges on the illicit acts of idolatry which the soldier is forced to do in the course of his service, such as guard duty at pagan temples, and eating forbidden meat ("Et cenabit illic, ubi apostolo non placet?"⁵⁶) It is most interesting that Tertullian does not give a very prominent place in his argument to these acts of idolatry; in particular he makes no reference to emperor-worship. Some have argued⁵⁷ that the real motivation for the early Christian opposition to military service was the danger of the compulsory idolatry which was greater than in civilian life, rather than mere abhorrence of bloodshed. In this passage at least, Tertullian does not give much support to this position. Von Campenhausen, after quoting one of Tertullian's many arguments, from de Idololatria,⁵⁸ states: "Here he is not thinking primarily of killing and bloodshed by soldiers. What Tertullian feared was the denial of Christ and the taint of pagan worship, which seemed inevitable in view of the strictness of military discipline and the role played by pagan religion in the whole ceremonial and life of the army."⁵⁹ Admittedly in de Idololatria 19 the question of idol-worship is emphasized more than in de Corona 11; but it should be remembered that the treatise brings under the ban of idolatry, very broadly conceived, practically every human activity. The military profession is condemned along with the pursuit of art, literature, astrology, civil magistracy, etc. Tertullian condemns even the signing of contracts, which were under the aegis of pagan deities, as idolatry. Therefore his opposition to military service on account of its idolatrous associations is here in no way exceptional, but is rather demanded by the structure and logic of the treatise.

More generally, the quite liberal religious policy of the Roman army has been demonstrated. Though, to be sure, higher officers had to conduct the statutory ceremonies in the Feriale, there was no discouragement of the private pursuit of other worship.⁶⁰ In this period the Christian in the army was not really exposed to a greater danger of idolatry than in civilian life. The question of idolatry in the army did become more acute in the latter part of the third century;⁶¹ but I think this has to be viewed in the context of the post-Aurelian renovatio and its demands for stringent and visible loyalty.

But let us return to de Corona. Tertullian gives the very earliest literary evidence for the phenomenon of already-baptized Christians volunteering for the army—indeed a most significant development. ("Ipsum de castris lucis in castra tenebrarum nomen deferre transgressionis est.")⁶² Tertullian inflexibly opposes such apostasy; he is slightly more sympathetic to the predicament of soldier converts, recognizing the examples of the soldiers baptized by John, and of the centurion Cornelius. Yet, theoretically, when a soldier becomes a Christian, he should immediately abandon his calling" … suscepta fide atque signata,⁶³ aut deserendum statim sit, ut a multis actum, aut omnibus modis cauillandum, ne quid aduersus deum committatur quae nec extra militiam permittuntur, aut nouissime perpetiendum pro deo, quod aeque fides pagana condixit."⁶⁴

Tertullian seems to say that if the soldier does not immediately abandon his profession, he would have to resort to such acts of subterfuge which are not permitted even to lay believers (extra militiam), and that he must be willing to suffer for the faith just as Christian civilians (fides pagana). Many, of course, as Tertullian says, did follow the radical solution, as the acts of military martyrs attest (though none of these Acta date back to this early period⁶⁵). But his polemic shows the prevalence of a less courageous stand also. Tertullian rejects any accommodation or plea of necessity. "Non admittit status fidei allegationem necessitatis. Nulla est necessitas delinquendi, quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi."⁶⁶ To continue the polemic against crowns, he postulates the "contrary-to-fact" condition of lawful military service, and proceeds to bludgeon further his opponents. But his opinion is summed up in "omni ope expulero militiam."⁶⁷

In the next chapter Tertullian rises to real heights of eloquence in describing the horrors of war. "Triumphi laurea foliis struitur, an cadaueribus? lemniscis ornatur, an bustis? unguentis delibuitur an lacrimis coniugum et matrum?"⁶⁸ Then he continues with a truly important theme, later taken up by Jerome and Augustine, "fortasse quorumdam et Christianorum; et apud barbaros enim Christus."⁶⁹ Loyalty to Christ unites Roman and barbarian.

III. De Corona 11 is Tertullian's mature and logical position, consistent with his ethical rigorism. Chapter 19 of de Idololatria reinforces his stand, but in no way modifies it. We already had some occasion to comment on the spirit of this treatise.⁷⁰ The argument in ch. 19 is more concise and more theoretical than de Corona 11, and seems in some ways to presuppose the fuller treatment in de Corona. This would be a factor in favor of dating this treatise after de Corona. But the dating is not really essential. In expression, subject matter and tone it certainly seems to belong in the same group as de Corona, which was written after 211.⁷¹ The passage gives extremely interesting points about the arguments used by the laxer party. Apparently some felt that the position of ordinary soldiers was not reprehensible since, unlike officers, they did not have to conduct sacrifices or order capital punishment ("caligata⁷² uel inferior quaeque, cui non sit necessitas immolationum uel capitalium iudociorum."⁷³). With remorseless logic Tertullian demolishes this pitiful argument, by using the grand theme of the whole treatise, the non licet of divided loyalties "Non conuenit sacramento diuino et humano, signo Christi et signo diaboli,⁷⁴ castris lucis et castris tenebrarum;⁷⁵ non potest una anima duobus deberi, deo et Caesari⁷⁶."⁷⁷ He pours deserved scorn on the fantastic appeals to the virga (rod) of Moses, the fibulum (buckle) of Aaron, and the lorum (belt) of John the Baptist. Since these items were part of the Roman soldier's equipment, Tertullian's adversaries invoked these biblical figures to legitimate their military profession. Tertullian also lightly dismisses the more relevant examples of Joshua and his host. He can justifiably do so in context of his argument; for, according to Tertullian, even the instance of the soldiers who came to John the Baptist and "forman obseruationis acceperant"⁷⁸ is not normative: the Lord, in disarming Peter, unbelted⁷⁹ every soldier ("omnem postea militem dominus in Petro exarmando discinxit")⁸⁰

Finally, the conclusions of this paper will be briefly recapitulated. The apostolic and sub-apostolic period was not faced with the problem of actual military service, and hence did not provide guidelines for the changed situation of the late second century. The social and military reforms of the Severan dynasty made the military professions much more appealing than before; this resulted in baptized Christians joining the army, perhaps in considerable numbers. Tertullian's earlier statements in the Apologeticum are brief and ambiguous; they do not amount to more than a mere acknowledgment of the presence of Christian soldiers in the ranks. Tertullian uses this fact as an apologetic argument, but, in line with the earlier literature, does not yet view military service as a crucial moral problem. The sudden influx of Christians into the army awakened him to the potential dangers of a permissive attitude. His mature position of inflexible opposition to military service is embodied in de Corona and de Idololatria, written about fifteen years after the Apologeticum. His negative attitude fits well into the framework of his rigoristic moral theology, and bears the familiar trademarks of pitiless logic and utter disdain for the hesitation and compromises of infirma caro.⁸¹

If the interpretation of this paper is correct, Tertullian at first condoned Christian service in the army, but later, when he recognized its dangers and its fundamental incompatibility, in his mind, with loyalty to Christ, firmly and totally came to oppose it. He set himself completely against Christian participation in that integration of the military and civil institutions wherein the Severan rulers saw the means both for maintaining their rule and for renewing the military strength of the empire. His condemnation was in the end ineffective, contending against an important trend in the evolution of Roman society. The church in North Africa could not sell her soul, so to speak, to Constantine; she had already sold it much earlier, to Septimius Severus and to Caracalla.

Notes

¹ See the review article of J. Fontaine, "Christians and Military Service in the Early Church," in Concilium, 7 (1965), 107-119. Few of the treatments of the subject attain the objectivity of R. H. Bainton's "The Early Church and War," Harvard Theological Review, 39 (1946), 189-211. A. Harnack's Militia Christi (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905) is especially valuable for giving a collection of original texts from the Fathers and the Acts of Martyrs (pp. 93-122). I feel uncomfortable with some of Harnack's generalizations, (e.g. p. 3, "In jenen Religionen, in denen die religiösen und die politischen Ziele so gut wie ganz zusammenfallen, sind alle 'religiosi' auch 'milites' und der Kreig ist die ultima ratio der Religion; er ist immer 'heiliger' Kreig.") Harnack's thoughts on the subject are summarized in Mission und Ausbreitung.…, (Leipzig, 1924), 4. Auflage, Band 2, pp. 571-84. Important, though rather disconcertingly "anti-pacifist," is E. A. Ryan's "The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians," Theological Studies, 13 (1952), 1-29. The monograph of C. J. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley, 1919), assembles much scholarly information; his conclusions are occasionally vitiated by a doctrinaire pacifism and an anti-Catholic bias (see e.g. p. 150). J. Hornus' exhaustive study, Evangile et Labarum (Geneva, 1960), while a storehouse of rich documentation, is too tractarian in tone, and is in places methodologically unsound (as in uncritical use of Acta). Sometimes his learning is marshalled to support bizarre theories. (See e.g., his outré exegesis of the third canon of the Council of Arles, pp. 128-29). H. Leclerq's older article "Militarisme" in Dict. d'Archéologie Chrétienne, tome XI, cols. 1108-1181 is most useful for the epigraphic material. We shall also have occasion to refer to H. von Campenhausen's Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), esp. ch. 7, "Military Service in the Early Church," pp. 160-170.

² Aduersus Iudaeos III, ch. 10 (1346, 72-76), "The old law vindicated itself by the vengeance of the sword … the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity." It should be noted that the latter part of the treatise (ch. 9-14) is perhaps spurious. J. Quasten, Initiation.… (Paris: Cerf, 1958), vol. 2, pp. 316-317.

³ See e.g. N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1967); W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment (Naperville, 1957); A. N. Wilder Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, 3rd edition (N.Y., 1954).

⁴ Police duties were not distinguished from strictly military ones. Cadoux, op. cit., p. 20.

⁵ See Feine-Behm-Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th edition (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 101-102, 114-117.

⁶ F. X. Murphy, Politics and the Early Christian (New York, 1967), pp. 50-56; F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy (Washington, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 50-56. Both these works give encyclopedic but far from authoritative treatments of the subject. Also, see O. Cullmann, The Early Church (London: S.C.M., 1956), p. 122; O. Cullmann, Dieu et César (Paris-Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1956), chaps. 2, 3; H. von Campenhausen, op. cit., pp. 148-54.

⁷ Harnack, Militia Christi, p. 50, "Die Eschatologie wurde … zu einem quietistischen und konservierenden Prinzip."

⁸ We pass over the question of the authorship of II Thessalonians. The eschatological element has been used to deny Pauline authorship; but of course this involves some circular reasoning. See Feine-Behm-Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 185-190.

⁹ Cullmann's resolution of the contradiction in terms of his theory of time and a "half-realized" Regnum Christi is quite attractive. The end is already accomplished since the coming of Christ, though the framework of the world still remains. Therefore the Christian neither completely rejects nor completely accepts the world. (Cullmann, Dieu et César, pp. 6-7).

¹⁰ As for instance the sharp controversy about the meaning of "exousiai" in Romans 13, on whether the word denotes angelic or human powers. Cullmann, The Early Church, p. 121; von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 146; R. Kittel, Theo. Dict. of the N.T. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), Vol. 1, articles basileus-basileia, pp. 564-593.

C. F. Sleeper in "Political Responsibility according to I Peter," Novum Testamentum, 10 (1969), 270ff. sustains the thesis that the ethics of I Peter are eschatologically motivated. Bo Reicke in the Anchor commentary on the epistle develops the more standard viewpoint that the ethics merely manifest the social conservatism of the Christian community.

¹¹ As H. Rahner says in Kirche und Staat im frühen Christentum (München: Käsel-Verlag, 1961), p. 22, the early Christians were in a "schwingenden Mitte zwischen Ja und Nein der Kirche zum Staat."

¹²I Cor. 6:1. It is interesting that Paul gives an "eschatological" reason (6:3, "Do you not know that we shall judge angels").

¹³ I. Pet. 2:16-17.

¹⁴ Murphy, op. cit., provides a recent and fairly reliable survey.

¹⁵ This is of course only a suggestion, which cannot be explored here in detail. See Justin, I Apol. 1:14, 27:1-3.

¹⁶ For a discussion of these interesting but highly uncertain matters see e.g., C. R. Morey, Early Christian Art (Princeton, 1953); P. Du Bourget, Early Christian Painting (N.Y., 1965); W. Weidlé, The Baptism of Art (London, 1946); A. Grabar, Christian Iconography (Princeton, 1968).

¹⁷ See the florilegium in Harnack, Militia Christi, pp. 93-114.

¹⁸ R. MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1963), pp. 165-69. This is an important and highly original study.

¹⁹ MacMullen, op. cit., pp. 163-64.

²⁰ MacMullen, op. cit., p. 164.

²¹ For all these reasons I think that R. Klein in Tertullian und das Römische Reich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968), pp. 121-122, overestimates the significance of Tertullian's military language. We shall have occasion to refer to this work of Klein further.

²² See Harnack, Militia Christi, p. 48, footnote 1, for documentation. The conscript situation of the Acta Maximiliani could only arise in the late third century (See Harnack, op. cit., pp. 114-117 for text).

²³ The date 175 is uncertain. Ryan (op. cit., p. 8) proposes 170; Bainton (op. cit., p. 192), has 173. The problem depends on the dating of Celsus' testimony and of the episode of the Legio Fulminata. At any rate there is no evidence before the decade of 170-180.

²⁴ von Campenhausen, op. cit., pp. 161-162.

²⁵ Cadoux, p. 20. It should be noted that Cadoux carefully qualifies his opinion.

²⁶ Ryan, op. cit., p. 19.

²⁷Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. XII (Cambridge, 1939); J. Gagé, Les Classes Sociales dans l'Empire Romain (Paris, 1964). The chief primary sources for this period are Dio Cassius, Herodian and the Historia Augusta.

²⁸ Commodus distributed his favors indescriminately to soldiers and gladiators. Herodian, I:6-17 passim (Loeb ed., 1969, pp. 28-123).

²⁹ C.A.H. Vol. XII, pp. 1-6. Dio, LXXV: 2, 3.

³⁰ Dio LXXVII:15, 2 "homoneite, tous strati ōtas ploutizete, tōn all ōn pantōn kataphroneite." (Loeb ed., Vol. IX, pp. 270-272.)

³¹ Foreshadowing the system of limitanei under the tetrarchy, and the soldier holdings in the Byzantine Empire during the Macedonian dynasty.

³² See Herodian III:8, 3-5. (Loeb ed., p. 309) for the whole policy of Severus.

³³ He had his brother brutally murdered. Dio. LXXVIII, 2 (Loed ed., pp. 280-282).

³⁴ Dio. LXVIII:10, 4. (Loeb ed., p. 298) "oudena anthrōpōn plēn emou argurion echein dein, hina auto tois stratiōtais charizōmai."

³⁵ Dio, LXXIX:9, 3. (Loeb, p. 372).

³⁶ MacMullen. op. cit., p. 176. MacMullen suggests the fascinating theory that the development of rigid hierarchical structure in the late Roman Empire was due not so much to eastern influences as to the all-pervasive presence of the army.

MacMullen's book, authoritative and original though it is, understandably tends to de-emphasize the distinctions between soldier and civilian, since the author is in fact writing to dispel notions of strict separation.

It should be noted that the policy of Severus and Caracalla greatly strengthened but did not in itself create the trend.

³⁷ All the works cited in footnote 1 that deal with the early Christian attitude to war discuss Tertullian's contribution, although very briefly in some cases. E. g., Bainton, op. cit., p. 202; Ryan, op. cit., pp. 17-19; Harnack, Militia Christi, pp. 32-40, 58-69; Cadoux, op cit., esp. pp. 113-119. There is also relevant material in monographs on Tertullian. Quotations from Tertullian will be made according to Corpus Christianorum (Turnholt: Brepols, 1954), vol. II, page and line numbers in parentheses. C. Guignebert in his massive work, Tertullien, Etude sur ses sentiments a l'égard de l'Empire et de la société civile (Paris, 1901), is in general so critical of his subject that he lacks the modicum of empathy needed for a deeper understanding. His treatment of Tertullian's attitude to military service (pp. 189-200) is superficial and disorganized. The following is a characteristically flippant statement of Guignebert: "The Christian, as Tertullian conceives him, owes the Emperor a more or less Platonic affection, but he owes the empire neither his love or his blood." (p. 200). A. d'Alès, La Théologie de Tertullien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1905), pp. 414-422, is not especially useful. The recent book of R. Klein, Tertullian und das römische Reich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968), devotes a substantial appendix (pp. 102-124) to "Tertullians Stellung zum Kriegsdienst." We shall frequently refer to Klein's work. I have not been able to find any articles in the periodical literature exclusively devoted to the subject of Tertullian and military service.

³⁸ Apol. 37, 4 (148, 21-22). Cf. Clement, Protrepticus 10:100 on the ubiquity of Christians.

³⁹ Apol. 37, 8. (143, 36-38).

⁴⁰Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Vol. VIII, Pars 2, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1966), cols. 965-971. This monumental work takes account of both classical and non-classical usage (including Christian Latin).

⁴¹ Apol. 5, 6 (96, 26-27). ".… illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur."

⁴² Apol. 37, 5 (148, 26-27).

⁴³ MacMullen, op. cit., p. 1.

⁴⁴ I quote an extract from the records of a legion stationed in Egypt as an interesting example: "Titus Flavius Valens …

Assigned to papyrus manufacture, year … January 15. Returned, same year … Assigned to mint, year … Returned same year, January 17. Assigned to … year … of the Emperor Domitian, A(pril) 13 … Assigned to granary at Mercurium … Returned same year, July 14…" (N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization [N.Y., 1955], Vol. II, p. 510).

⁴⁵ As Klein points out (op. cit., p. 26) "…findet sich bei ihm nahezu alle Gedanken der griechischen Apologeten wieder, jedoch viel klarer, gestraffter, und wesentlich aggressiver." See J. Lortz, Tertullian als Apologet, 2. Band (Münster [Westf]: Aschendroff, 1927), Kap. 13.

⁴⁶ I Apol., chs. 12, 17.

⁴⁷ E.g. Philo, Leg. 356.

⁴⁸ As Klein remarks (op. cit., p. 106), "Die wenigen Andeutungen [of the Apologeticum] geben kein vollstandiges Bild."

⁴⁹ If "praesentis imperii triplex uirtus" (Pal. 2, 7, [737, 79-80]) refers to the simultaneous rule of Didius Julianus, Niger, and Severus. Quasten, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 374 G. Säflund's arguments for a late date (after 220) are unconvincing. (De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians [Lund: Gleerup, 1955]).

⁵⁰ In Pal. 5, 4 (748, 38-43) "non milito" is part of a listing of those civic functions which he, in the guise of the Cynic, rejects. I think this is a purely formal phrase; it is certainly not couched in terms of an imperative for the whole Christian community.

⁵¹ I consider Klein's attempt (op. cit., pp. 87-101) to see in de Pallio the expression of pure patriotism, true romanitas, and to assimilate the treatise to the more irenic Apologeticum, completely unconvincing. Incidentally, I find Klein's expression "das neue Reichsvolk" rather ominous. D. van Berchem ("Le de pallio de Tertullien et le conflict de christianisme et de l'Empire," Museum Helveticum, t. 1 [1944], 100-144) views the work as a défi to the Empire, "pas d'ature chose qu'un manifeste contre Rome" p. 109). In the main I think van Berchem is correct, though he underestimates the Cynic element in the work. See P. Wendland, Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Berlin, 1895); A. Oltrarame, Les origines de la diatribe romaine (Lausanne, 1926); J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (Heidelberg, 1909). Klein's arguments should always be seen in the context of his central thesis, namely that Tertullian strove for a reconciliation of the church and the state, and that he had a "grosse Zukunftsvision eines verchristlichen Römerreiches" (op. cit., p. 106). Klein is acutely aware that he is advocating very much a minority position; the reader of his book should also keep this in mind.

⁵² The text in C.C. should be supplemented by J. Fontaine's annotated edition, Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De Corona (Tertullien sur la Couronne), (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1966). The work definitely dates from after 211.

⁵³ Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13.

⁵⁴ Cor. 11, 1 (1056, 4-6).

⁵⁵ Cor. 11, 2 (1056, 9-11). It should be noted that for the purposes of the argument, Tertullian ignores the diversity of duties in the army, and assimilates them all sub gladio (Guignebert [op. cit., p. 193, footnote 4] rightly dismisses the laudatory remarks about the sword in De Resurrectione Carnis 16 as irrelevant rhetoric.)

⁵⁶ Cor. 11, 3 (1056, 16-17). The reference is to I Cor. 8:10.

⁵⁷ E.g. Ryan, op. cit., pp. 10-11 and Leclerq in his article in D.A.C. This position seems to be especially popular in Catholic works, with the significant addition of H. von Campenhausen.

⁵⁸ von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 163. Both here, and in the German edition, the quotation is mistakenly footnoted as being taken from Cor. 11, whereas it is from Idol. 19. Klein (op. cit., p. 110), in citing von Campenhausen, does not correct the error.

⁵⁹ von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 163.

⁶⁰ A. D. Nock, "The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year," Harvard Theological Review, 45 (1952), 187-252. For the text of the Feriale Duranum, see Yale Classical Studies, 7 (1940), 1-222; Lewis and Reinhold, op. cit., pp. 567-568. Still authoritative for religious practices in the Roman army is A. von Domaszewski, "Die Religion des römischen Heeres," in Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst, B. 14 (1895), 1-121. Domaszewski presents essential epigraphic and monumental data. For emperor worship in general, see L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Un concurrent de christianisme, le oulte des souverains (Tournai, 1957), esp. pp. 339-409. The authors maintain that the emperor cult was not the main cause of the persecutions, but rather Christianity's other-worldly aspirations, which passed beyond the confines of the empire (p. 392).

⁶¹ Cadoux, op. cit., p. 151.

⁶² Cor. 11, 4 (1057, 26-27).

⁶³ Technical terms for the immersion and chrismation at baptism. Cf. Augustine, peccat. merit., I, 25, 36 "suscipere baptismum"; Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, ch. 22.

⁶⁴ Cor. 11, 4 (1047, 32-36). Fides pagana means "the religion of the civilians." Paganus did not take on the sense of "pagan" before the fourth century. Chr. Mohrmann, "Encore une fois paganus," Vigiliae Christianae 6 (1952), 109-121.

⁶⁵ See e.g., Acta Marcelli (298 A.D.) in Harnack, Militia Christi, pp. 117-119.

⁶⁶ Cor. 11, 6 (1057, 43-45).

⁶⁷ Cor. 12, 1 (1058, 3). The last clause in 11, 6, an admittedly difficult passage, does not seem to support Klein's interpretation of a really different "third alternative." Klein thinks (op. cit., p., 114) that Tertullian said that soldiers should try to avoid contamination with idolatry, and yet stay in the service. "Das mag für die Mehrzal der Soldaten gegolten haben und darin ist sicherlich die Verbindungslinie zum Apologeticum zu fassen." Klein is forcing all the evidence into the Procrustean bed of his theory (see footnote 51). To my mind at least, Tertullian's "I banish us from military life" is quite unequivocal.

⁶⁸ Cor. 12, 4 (1059, 27-30). Tertullian's indebtedness to Stoic thought here (B. Schöpf, Das Tötungstrecht bei den früchristlichen Schriftstellern bis zum Zeit Konstantins [Regensburg, 1953], pp. 200-202) does not invalidate the genuineness of feeling and the grandeur of expression.

⁶⁹ Cor. 12, 4 (1059, 30-31).

⁷⁰ See above, p. 14.

⁷¹ Harnack does not offer any really cogent reasons for advancing the date to 198-202/203. He admits that "sechszehn schriften in 5 Jahren erscheint etwas viel" (Chronologie … bis Eusebius [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904], II. Band, p. 273, p. 295). Hamack, quite rightly, objects to Monceaux' identification of the rigorism of de Idololatria with Montanism. The reference in ch. 13 definitely dates de Idololatria after de Spectaculis. There seems to be no way to establish the dating of the work with any certainty. The majority of scholars (including Quasten) incline toward dating it after de Corona.

⁷² The caliga was the heavy soldier's boot; hence came to denote the common soldier.

⁷³ Idol. 19, 1 (1120, 13-14).

⁷⁴Signum is a military standard. Tertullian is probably thinking of the cruciform vexillae. Cf. Apol. 16, 8.

⁷⁵ Could this expression be an echo of de Corona 15, where the Mithraist miles is initiated in castris vere tenebrarum?

⁷⁶ A bold identification of the Emperor with the mammona of Matt. 6:24.

⁷⁷ Idol. 19, 2 (1120, 14-17). In the magnificient confrontation of castra lucis and castra diabolis, Tertullian shows the influence of the apocalyptis-dualistic strain of early Christian thinking.

⁷⁸ Idol. 19, 3 (1120, 22). Guignebert (op. cit., p. 191) attributes the statement in Luke 3:14 to Jesus!

⁷⁹ In the Acta Marcelli the martyr signifies his rejection of military service by throwing off his belt (" … reiecto etiam cingulo militari coram signis legionis …"). Hamack, Militia Christi, p. 117.

⁸⁰ Idol. 19, 3 (1120, 23-24). Quite a cogent argument except for the fact that it does not take into account the case of Cornelius. I don't see any justification for Klein's assertion that Idol. 19 is not concerned with the service of Christians in the Roman army but is rather directed against the "general brutalization of military life and warfare." (op. cit., p. 110) Tertullian is not given to vague philosophizing; he is severely purposeful, and directs his arguments to specific opponents—in this case those Christian soldiers who inexcusably lingered in castra tenebrarum.

⁸¹ I don't quite see in what way Tertullian "switched the points" (" … er hat … die Weichen für die zukünftige Entwicklung gestellt," Klein, op. cit., p. 124). I find it difficult to regard Tertullian, as Klein does, as a Eusebius avant la lettre.