1. See the review article of Fontaine, J., “Christians and Military Service in the Early Church,” in Concilium, 7 (1965), 107–119Google Scholar. Few of the treatments of the subject attain the objectivity of Bainton's, R. H. “The Early Church and War,” Harvard Theological Review, 39 (1946), 189–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Harnack's, A.Militia Christi (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905)Google Scholar 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), 4Google Scholar. Auflage, Band 2, pp. 571–84. Important, though rather disconcertingly “anti-pacifist,” is Ryan's, E. A. “The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians,” Theological Studies, 13 (1952), 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The monograph of Cadoux, C. J., The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley, 1919)Google Scholar, assembles much scholarly information; his conclusions are occasionally vitiated by a doctrinaire pacifism and an anti-Catholic bias (see e.g. p. 150). Hornus', J. exhaustive study, Evangile et Labarum (Geneva, 1960)Google Scholar, 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 von Campenhausen's, H.Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), esp. ch. 7, “Military Service in the Early Church,” pp. 160–170.Google Scholar

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. Quasten, J., Initiation … (Paris: Cerf, 1958), vol. 2, pp. 316–317.Google Scholar

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

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.Google Scholar

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

7. Harnack, , Militia Christ, p. 50Google Scholar, “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” Regunm 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. (Cuhlmann, , Dieu et César, pp. 6–7).Google Scholar

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. 121Google Scholar; von Campenhausen, op. cit., p. 146; Kittel, R., Theo. Dict, of the N.T. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), Vol. 1Google Scholar, articles basileus-basileia, pp. 564–593. Sleeper, C. F. in “Political Responsibility according to I Peter,” Novum Testamentum, 10 (1969), 270ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. sustains the thesis that the ethics of I Peter are eschatologicaily 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 Rahner, H. says in Kirche und Staat im frühen Christentum (München: Käsel-Verlag, 1961), p. 22Google Scholar, the early Christians were in a “schwingenden Mitte zwischen Ja und Nein der Kirche zum Staat.”

12. I 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., Morey, C. R., Early Christian Art (Princeton, 1953)Google Scholar; Du Bourget, P., Early Christian Painting (N.Y., 1965)Google Scholar; Weidlé, W., The Baptism of Art (London, 1946)Google Scholar; Grabar, A., Christian Iconography (Princeton, 1968).Google Scholar

17. See the florilegium in Harnack, , Militia Christi, pp. 93–114.Google Scholar

18. MacMullen, R., Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1963), pp. 165–69Google Scholar. 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 Klein, R. in Tertullian und das Römische Reich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968), pp. 121–122Google Scholar, 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. 48Google Scholar, 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.

27. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. XII (Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar; Gagé, J., Les Classes Sociales dans l'Empire Romain (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar. 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, tons stratiötas ploutizete, tön allön pantön kataphroneite.” (Loeb ed., Vol. IX, pp. 270–272.)Google Scholar

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 anthröpön plëa emou argurion echein dein, hina auto tois stratiötais charizömai.”

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, 58–69Google Scholar; 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. IIGoogle Scholar, page and line numbers in parentheses. Guignebert, C. in his massive work, Tertullien, Etude sur ses sentiments a l'égard de l'Empire et de la société civile (Paris, 1901)Google Scholar, 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). d'Alès, A., La Théologie de Tertullien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1905), pp. 414–422Google Scholar, is not especially useful. The recent book of Klein, R., Tertullian und das römische Reich (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968), devotes a substantial appendix (pp. 102–124)Google Scholar 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 Tertu]lian 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).

40. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Vol. VIII, Pars 2, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1966), cols. 965–971Google Scholar. 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 “ (Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., Roman Civilization [N.Y., 1955], Vol. II, p. 510).Google Scholar

45. As Klein points out (op. cit., p. 26) “… findet sich bel ihm nahezu alle Gedanken der griechiachen Apologeten wieder, jedoch viel klarer, gestraffter, und wesentlich aggressiver.”See Lortz, J., Tertutllian at Apologet, 2. Band (Münster [Westf]:Aschendorff, 1927), Kap. 13.Google Scholar

46. I Apol., chs. 12, 17.

47. E.g. Philo, , Leg. 356.Google Scholar

48. As Klein remarks (op. oit, p. 106), “Die wenigen Andeutungen [of the Apologetieum] geben kein vollstandiges Bild.”

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

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. van Berchem, D. (“Le de pallio de Tertullien et le conflict de christianisme et de l'Empire,” Museum Helveticum, t. 1 [1944], 100–144)Google Scholar views the work as a défi to the Empire, “pas d'autre 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 Wendland, P., Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Berlin, 1895)Google Scholar; Oltrarame, A., Les origines de la diatribe romaine (Lausanne, 1926)Google Scholar; Geffcken, J., Kynika und Verwandtes (Heidelberg, 1909)Google Scholar. 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 Fontaine's, J.annotated edition, Septimi, Q.Florentis Tertulliani De Corona (Tertullien aur la Couronne), (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1966)Google Scholar. 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 glodio (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. Nock, A. D., “The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year,” Harvard Theological Review, 45 (1952), 187–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the text of the Feriale Duranum, see Yale Classical Studies, 7 (1940), 1–222Google Scholar; Lewis and Reinhold, op. cit., pp. 567–568. Still authoritative for religious practices in the Roman army is von Domaszewski, A., “Die Religion des römischen Heeres,” in Westdentsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte and Kunst, B. 14 (1895), 1–121Google Scholar. Domaszewski presents essential epigraphie and monumental data. For emperor worship in general, see Cerfaux, L. and Tondriau, J., Un concurrent de christianisme, le culte des souverains (Tournai, 1957), esp. pp. 339–409Google Scholar. 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. Cadonx, op. cit., p. 151.

62. Cor. 11, 4 (1057, 26–27).

63. Technical terms for the immersion and chrismation at baptism. Cf. Augustine, , peceat. merit., I, 25, 36Google Scholar “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. Mohrmann, Chr., “Encore une fois paganus,” Vigilsae Christianae 6 (1952), 109–121.Google Scholar

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

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 Apologetioum 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 (Schöpf, B., Das Tötangstrecht bei den früchrisflichen Schriftstellern bis zum Zeit Konstantins [Regensburg, 1953], pp. 200–202Google Scholar) 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)Google Scholar. Harnack, 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).

74. Signum 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 lucia and castra diabolis, Tertullian shows the influence of the apocalyptis-dualistic strain of early Christian thinking.

78. Idol. 19, 3 (1120, 22). Gaignebert (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…”). Harnack, , Militia Christi, p. 117.Google Scholar

80. Idol. 19, 3 (1120, 23–24). Quite a cogent argument exceept for the fact that it does not take into account the ease 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 Entwieklung gestellt,” Klein, op. cit., p. 124). I find it difficult to regard Tertullian, as Klein does, as a Eusebius avant la lettre.