Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the ChurchFirth, John B. (John Benjamin)
History
Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the Church
Firth, John B. (John Benjamin)
Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Constantine I, Emperor of Rome, -337
There was also brought against Christianity the charge that it
discouraged military service and looked askance upon the profession of
arms. The accusation is true within certain limits. Christianity was and
is a gospel of peace. Ideally, therefore, it is always antagonistic to
war as a general principle, and there is always a considerable section
of Christian opinion which is opposed, irrespective of the justice of
the quarrel, to an appeal to arms. That section of Christian opinion was
naturally at its strongest when the Roman Empire was pagan, and when it
was practically impossible for a Christian to be a soldier without
finding himself compelled to worship, at the altars of Rome, the Roman
Emperor and the Roman gods. _Omnis militia est religio_, Seneca had said
most truly. There was a permanent altar fixed before the _prætorium_ of
every camp. That being the case, one can understand that the army was
regarded with abhorrence by every Christian at a time when Christianity
was a proscribed, or barely tolerated, religion, and hence the violent
denunciations of the army and military service to be found in some of
the early Fathers. Hence too the number of Christian soldier martyrs,
who had been converted while serving in the ranks. But the whole case
was changed when the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and the army took
its oath to a champion and no longer to an enemy of the Church. The
bishops at once changed front—they could not help themselves—and at the
Council of Arles we have seen the Gallican bishops passing a canon
anathematising any Christian who flung down his arms in time of peace.
There were still extremists, as there are to-day, who denounced war with
indiscriminate censure; there must have been a much larger number who
acquiesced in standing armies as a necessary evil, but themselves
carefully kept aloof from service; the majority, as to-day, would
recognise that the security of a State rests ultimately upon force, and
would pray that their cause might be just whenever that force had to be
put into operation. It is not Tertullian with his dangerous doctrine
that politics have no interest for the Christian (_nec ulla magis res
aliena quam publica_), that the Christian has no country but the world,
and that Christ had bidden the nations disarm when he bade Peter put up
his sword—it is not Tertullian who is the typical representative of the
Church in its relations with the State and mundane affairs, but the
broad-minded Augustine who, when nervous Christians appealed to him to
say whether a Christian could serve God as a soldier, said that a man
might do his duty to his God and his Emperor as well in a camp as
elsewhere.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account