A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume III (of 3) by Thomas Clarkson

T >> Thomas Clarkson >> A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume III (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

With respect to the practice of the early Christians, which is the next
point to be considered, it may be observed, that there is no well
authenticated instance upon record, of Christians entering into the army
for the first two centuries; but it is true, on the other hand, that
they declined the military profession, as one in which it was not lawful
for them to engage.

The first species of evidence, which I shall produce to this point, may
be found in the following facts, which reach from the year 169 to the
year 198, Avidius Crassus had rebelled against the emperor Verus, and
was slain in a short time afterwards. Clodius Albinus in one part of the
world, and Pescenninus Niger in another, rebelled against the emperor
Severus, and both were slain likewise. Now suspicion fell, as it always
did in these times, if any thing went wrong, upon the Christians, as
having been concerned upon these occasions. But Tertullian, in his
Discourse to Scapula, tells us, that no Christians were to be found in
these armies. And yet these armies were extensive. Crassus was master of
all Syria, with its four legions, Niger of the Asiatic and Egyptian
legions, and Albinus of those of Britain, which legions together
contained between a third and an half of the standing legions of Rome.
And the fact, that no Christians were to be found in these, is the more
remarkable, because, according to the same Tertullian, Christianity had
reached all the places, in which these armies were.

A second species of evidence, as far as it goes, may be collected from
expressions and declarations in the works of certain authors of those
times. Justin the Martyr, and Tatian, make distinctions between
soldiers and Christians; and the latter says, that the Christians
declined even military commands. Clemens of Alexandria, gives the
Christians, who were cotemporary with him, the appellation of
"peaceable, or of the followers of peace," thus distinguishing them from
the soldiers of his age. And he says expressly, that "those, who were
the followers of peace, used none of the instruments of war."

A third species of evidence, which is of the highest importance in this
case, is the belief which the writers of these times had, that the
prophecy of Isaiah, which stated, that men should turn their swords into
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, was then in the act
of completion.

Irenaeus, who flourished about the year 180, affirms, that this famous
prophecy had been completed in his time; "for the Christians, says he,
have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace,
and they know not how to fight," Justin Martyr, who was cotemporary with
Irenaeus, asserted the same thing, which he could not have done if the
Christians in his time had engaged in war. "That the prophecy, says he,
is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past
killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies." And here it is
observable, that the word "fight" does not mean to strike, or to beat,
or to give a blow, but to fight as in war; and the word "enemy" does
not mean a common adversary, or one who has injured us, but an enemy of
the state; and the sentence, which follows that which has been given,
puts the matter again out of all doubt. Tertullian, who lived after
these, speaks in those remarkable words: "Deny that these (meaning the
turning of swords into ploughshares) are the things prophesied of, when
you see what you see, or that they are the things fulfilled, when you
read what you read; but if you deny neither of these positions, then you
must confess, that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the
practice of every individual is concerned, to whom it is applicable." I
might go from Tertullian even as far as Theoderet, if it were necessary,
to shew, that the prophecy in question was considered as in the act of
completion in those times.

The fourth and last proof will be found in the assertions of Celsus, and
in the reply of Origen to that writer. Celsus, who lived at the end of
the second century, attacked the Christian religion. He made it one of
his charges against the Christians, that they refused in his time to
bear arms for the emperor, even in the case of necessity, and when their
services would have been accepted. He told them farther, that if the
rest of the empire were of their opinion, it would soon be overrun by
the Barbarians. Now Celsus dared not have brought this charge against
the Christians, if the fact had not been publicly known. But let us see
whether it was denied by those, who were of opinion that his work
demanded a reply. The person, who wrote against him in favour of
Christianity, was Origen, who lived in the third century. But Origen, in
his answer, admits the fact as stated by Celsus, that the Christians
would not bear arms, and justifies them for refusing the practice on the
principle of the unlawfulness of war.

And as the early Christians would not enter into the armies, so there is
good ground to suppose, that, when they became converted in them, they
relinquished their profession. Human nature was the same both in and out
of the armies, and would be equally worked upon, in this new state of
things, in both cases. Accordingly we find, from Tertullian, in his
"Soldier's Garland," that many in his time, immediately on their
conversion, quitted the military service. We are told also, by
Archelaus, who flourished under Probus in the year 278, that many Roman
soldiers, who had embraced Christianity, after having witnessed the
piety and generosity of Marcellus, immediately forsook the profession of
arms. We are told also by Eusebius, that, about the same time, "Numbers
laid aside a military life, and became private persons, rather than
abjure their religion." And here it may not be unworthy of remark, that
soldiers, after their conversion, became so troublesome in the army,
both on account of their scruples against the idolatrous practices
required of the soldiery, and their scruples against fighting, that they
were occasionally dismissed the service on these accounts.

SECT. III.

_Objection to the foregoing statement, that the idolatry, which was then
connected with the military service, and not the unlawfulness of war,
was the reason why Christians declined it--Idolatry admitted to be a
cause--Instance in Marinus--But the belief of the unlawfulness of
fighting was another, and an equally powerful cause--Instances in
Maximilian--Marcellus--Cassian--Marlin--The one scruple as much then a
part of the Christian religion as the other._

As an objection may be made to the foregoing statement, I think it
proper to notice it in this place.

It will be said, that the military oath, which all were obliged to take
alike in the Roman armies, and which was to be repeated annually, was
full of idolatry; that the Roman standards were all considered as gods,
and had divine honours paid to them by the soldiery; and that the images
also of the emperors, which were either fixed upon these standards, or
placed in the midst of them in a temple in the camp, were to be adored
in the same manner. Now these customs were interwoven with the military
service. No Roman soldier was exempted from them. It will be urged,
therefore, that no Christian could submit to these services. Indeed when
a person was suspected of being a Christian in those times, he was
instantly taken to the altars to sacrifice, it being notorious, that if
he were a Christian he would not sacrifice, though at the hazard of his
life. Is it not, therefore, to be presumed, that these idolatrous tests
operated as the great cause, why Christians refused to enter into the
army, or why they left it when converted as described in the former
section?

That these tests operated as a cause, we must allow. And let this be
considered as an insuperable argument against those, who contend that
there were Christian soldiers in these times, for no Christian could
submit to such idolatrous homage; but, if so, no Christian could be a
soldier.

That these tests must have operated as a cause, we may infer from the
history of Marinus. Marinus, according to Eusebius, was a man of family
and fortune, and an officer in a legion, which, in the year 260, was
stationed at Caesarea of Palestine. One of the centurion's rods happened
to become vacant in this legion, and Marinus was appointed to it. But
just at this moment another, next to him in rank, accused him before the
tribunal of being a Christian, stating, that "the laws did not allow a
Christian, who refused to sacrifice to the emperors, to hold any dignity
in the army." Achaeus, the judge, asked Marinus if it was true, that he
had become a Christian. He acknowledged it. Three hours were then
allowed him to consider, whether he would sacrifice or die. When the
time was expired, he chose the latter. Indeed, so desirous were the
early Christians of keeping clear of idolatry in every shape, that they
avoided every custom that appeared in the least degree connected with
it. Thus when a largess was given in honour of the emperors, L.
Septimius Severus the father, and M. Aurelius Caracalla the son, a
solitary soldier, as we learn from Tertullian, was seen carrying the
garland, which had been given him on that occasion, in his hand, while
the rest wore it upon their heads. On being interrogated by the
commander, why he refused wearing it, he replied, that[13] he had become
a Christian. He was immediately punished before the army, and sent into
prison. What became of him afterwards is not related. But it must be
clear, if he lived and cherished his Christian feelings, that, when the
day of the renewal of his oath, or of the worshipping of the standards,
or of any sacrifice in the camp, should arrive, he would have refused
these services, or abandoned his profession.

[Footnote 13: The priests wore the garland, when they sacrificed to the
Heathen gods.]

But though unquestionably the idolatrous services, required of the
soldiers of those times, hindered Christians from entering into the
armies, and compelled those, who were converted in them, to leave them,
nothing is more true, than that the belief, that it was unlawful for
Christians to fight, occasioned an equal abhorrence of a military life.
One of the first effects, which Christianity seems to have produced upon
its first converts, when it was pure and unadulterated, and unmixed
with the interpretations of political men, was a persuasion, that it
became them, in obedience to the divine commands, to abstain from all
manner of violence, and to become distinguishable as the followers of
peace. We find accordingly from Athenagoras, and other early writers,
that the Christians of his time, abstained, when they were struck, from
striking again, and that they carried their principles so far, as even
to refuse to go to law with those who injured them. We find also, from
the same Athenagoras, and from Theophilus Antiochenus, Tatian, Minucius
Felix, and others, that they kept away from the shews of the gladiators.
This they did, not only because these shews were cruel; but because, as
Theophilus says, "lest we should become partakers of the murders
committed there." A similar reason is also given by Athenagoras on this
occasion: "Who is there, says he, that does not prize the shews of the
gladiators, which your emperors make for the people? But we, thinking
that there is very little difference whether a man be the author or
spectator of murder, keep away from all such sights." And here it may be
observed, that the gladiators themselves were, generally prisoners of
war, or reputed enemies, and that the murder of these was by public
authority, and sanctioned; as in war, by the state. Now what conclusion
are we to draw from these premises? Can we think it possible, that
those, who refused to strike again, or to go to law with those who
injured them, and who thought an attendance at the gladiatorial
spectacles criminal on the principle, that he who stood by was a
murderer, though the murder was sanctioned by law; should not have an
objection to the military service, on the principle, that it was
unlawful to fight?

In short, the belief of the unlawfulness of war, was universal among
Christians in those times. Every Christian writer of the second century,
who notices the subject, makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms.
And if the Christian writers of this age were of this opinion, contrary
to all their sentiments before their conversion, and wholly from their
knowledge of divine truths, why should not others, who had a common
nature with these, be impressed, on receiving the same truths, in a
similar manner? And so undoubtedly they were. And as this belief was
universal among the Christians of those times, so it operated with them
as an impediment to a military life, quite as much as the idolatry, that
was connected with it, of which the following instances, in opposition
to that of Marinus, may suffice.

The first case I propose to mention shall be, where there was an
objection to entering into the military service upon this principle. And
here, I apprehend none can be more in point than that of Maximilian, as
preserved in the acts of Ruinart.

Maximilian, having been brought before the tribunal, in order to be
enrolled as a soldier, Dion, the proconsul, asked him his name.
Maximilian, turning to him, replied, "Why wouldst thou know my name? I
am a Christian, and cannot fight."

Then Dion ordered him to be enrolled, and when he was enrolled, it was
recited out of the register, that he was five feet ten inches high.
Immediately after this, Dion bade the officer mark him. But Maximilian
refused to be marked, still asserting that he was a Christian. Upon
which Dion instantly replied, "Bear arms, or thou shalt die."

To this Maximilian answered, "I cannot fight, if I die. I am not a
soldier of this world, but a soldier of God." Dion then said, "Who has
persuaded thee to behave thus?" Maximilian answered, "My own mind, and
he who called me." Dion then spoke to his father, and bade him persuade
his son. But his father observed, that his son knew his own mind, and
what it was best for him to do.

After this had passed, Dion addressed Maximilian again in these words,
"Take thy arms, and receive the mark." "I can receive, says Maximilian,
no such mark. I have already the mark of Christ." Upon which Dion said,
"I will send thee quickly to thy Christ." "Thou mayest do so, said
Maximilian, but the glory will be mine."

Dion then bade the officer mark him. But Maximilian still persisted in
refusing, and spoke thus: "I cannot receive the mark of this world, and
if thou shouldst give me the mark, I will destroy it. It will avail
nothing. I am a Christian, and it is not lawful for me to wear such a
mark about my neck, when I have received the saving mark of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, whom thou, knowest not, who
died to give us life, and whom God gave for our sins. Him all we
Christians obey. Him we follow as the restorer of our life, and the
author of our salvation."

Dion instantly replied to this, "Take thy arms, and receive the mark, or
thou shalt suffer a miserable death."--"But I shall not perish, said
Maximilian. My name is already enrolled with Christ. I cannot fight."

Dion said, "Consider then thy youth, and bear arms. The profession of
arms becomes a young man." Maximilian replied, "My arms are with the
Lord. I cannot fight for any earthly consideration. I am now a
Christian."

Dion the proconsul, said, "Among the life-guards of our masters
Dioclesian and Maximian, and Constantius and Maximus, there are
Christian soldiers, and they fight." Maximilian answered, "They know
best what is expedient for them, but I am a Christian, and it is
unlawful to do evil."

Dion said, "Take thy arms. Despise not the profession of a soldier, lest
thou perish miserably."--"But I shall not perish, says Maximilian; and
if I should leave this world, my soul will live with Christ the Lord."

Dion then ordered his name to be struck from the roll, and, when this
was done, he proceeded, "Because, out of thy rebellious spirit, thou
hast refused to bear arms, thou shall be punished according to thy
deserts for an example to others." And then he delivered the following
sentence: "Maximilian! because thou hast with a rebellious spirit
refused to bear arms, thou art to die by the sword." Maximilian replied,
"Thanks be to God."

He was twenty years, three months, and seventeen days old, and when he
was led to the place of execution, he spoke thus: "My dear brethren,
endeavour with all your might, that it may be your portion to see the
Lord, and that he may give you such a crown;" and then, with a pleasant
countenance, he said to his father, "Give the executioner the soldier's
coat thou hast gotten for me, and when I shall receive thee in the
company of the blessed martyrs, we may also rejoice together with the
Lord."

After this he suffered. His mother Pompeiana obtained his body of the
judge, and conveyed it to Carthage, and buried it near the place where
the body of Cyprian the Martyr lay. And thirteen days after this his
mother died, and was buried in the came place. And Victor, his father,
returned to his habitation, rejoicing and praising God, that he had sent
before such a gift to the Lord, himself expecting to follow after.

I shall only observe, upon this instance, that it is nearly pure and
unmixed, or that it is but little connected with idolatrous
circumstances, or rather, that the unlawfulness of fighting was
principally urged by Maximilian as a reason against entering upon a
military life. Let us now find a case, where, when a person was
converted in the army, he left it, pleading this principle, as one among
others, for his dereliction of it.

Marcellus was a centurion in the legion called "Trajana." On a festival,
given in honour of the birth-day of Galerius, he threw down his military
belt at the head of the legion, and in the face of the standards,
declared with a loud voice, that he would no longer serve in the army,
for that he had become a Christian. "I hold in detestation, said he,
addressing himself to all the soldiers, the worship of your gods: gods,
which are made of wood and stone, gods which are deaf and dumb." So far
Marcellus, it appears, seems to have been influenced in his desertion of
a military life by the idolatry connected with it. But let us hear him
farther on this subject. "It is not lawful, says he, for a Christian,
who is the servant of Christ the Lord, to bear arms for any earthly
consideration." After a delay of more than three months in prison after
this transaction, which delay was allowed for the purpose of sparing
him, he was brought before the prefect. There he had an opportunity of
correcting his former expressions. But as he persisted in the same
sentiments, he suffered. It is remarkable, that, almost immediately
after his execution, Cassian, who, was the notary to the same legion,
refused to serve any longer, by publicly throwing his pen and
accompt-book upon the ground, and declaring, at the same time, that the
sentence of Marcellus was unjust. When taken up by the order of
Aurelianus Agricolanus, he is described by the record, preserved by
Ruinart, to have avowed the same sentiments as Marcellus, and, like him,
to have suffered death.

It may not be necessary, perhaps, to cite any other instances, as
opposed to that of Marinus, to the point in question. But, as another
occurs, which may be related in few words, I will just mention it in
this place. Martin, of whom Sulpicius Severus says so much, had been
bred to the profession of arms, but, on his conversion to Christianity,
declined it. In the answer, which he gave to Julian the Apostate for his
conduct on this occasion, we find him making use only of these words, "I
am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight."

Now this answer of Martin is detached from all notions of idolatry. The
unlawfulness of fighting is given as the only motive for his
resignation. And there is no doubt, that the unlawfulness of fighting
was as much a principle of religion in the early times of Christianity,
as the refusal of sacrifice to the Heathen gods; and that they operated
equally to prevent men from entering into the army, and to drive them
out of it on their conversion. Indeed these principles generally went
together, where the profession of arms presented itself as an occupation
for a Christian. He, who refused the profession on account of the
idolatry connected with it, would have refused it on account of the
unlawfulness of fighting. And he, who refused it on account of the guilt
of fighting, would have refused it oh account of the idolatrous services
it required. Both and each of them were impediments, in the early times
of Christianity, to a military life.

SECT. IV.

_Early Christians then declined the army on account, of one, among other
persuasions, that it was unlawful for Christians to fight--Their
practice examined farther, or into the fourth century--shewn from hence,
that while Christianity continued pure, Christians still declined the
military profession--but as it became less pure, their scruples against
it became less--and when it became corrupt, their scruples against it
ceased--Manner in which the Quakers make the practice of these early
times support the meaning of the scriptural passages, which they adduce
in favour of their tenet on war._

As it will now probably be admitted, that the early Christians refused
to enter into the army, and that they left it after their conversion, on
account of one, among other persuasions, that it was unlawful for them
to fight, I must examine their practice, as it related to this subject,
still farther, or I must trace it down to a later period, before I can
show how the Quakers make the practice of these early times support the
meaning of the scriptural passages, which they advance in favour of
their tenet on war.

It may be considered as a well founded proposition, that, as the lamp of
Christianity burnt bright, in those early times, so those, who were
illuminated by it, declined the military profession; and, that, as its
flame shone less clear, they had less objection to it. Thus, in the two
first centuries, when Christianity was the purest, there were no
Christian soldiers. In the third century, when it became less pure,
there is frequent mention of such soldiers. And in the fourth, when its
corruption was fixed, Christians entered upon the profession of arms
with as little hesitation, as they entered upon any other occupation in
life.

That there were no Christian soldiers in the first and second centuries,
has already been made apparent.

That Christianity also was purest in these times, there can be no doubt.
Let us look at the character which is given of the first Christians by
Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, and others of the early
Christian writers. According to these they were plain and neat in their
apparel, and frugal in their furniture. They were temperate in their
eating and drinking. They relinquished all the diversions of the times,
in which they saw any tendency to evil. They were chaste in their
conversation, tempering mirth with gravity. They were modest and chaste
in their deportment and manners. They were punctual to their words and
engagements. They were such lovers of the truth, that, on being asked,
if they were Christians, they never denied it, though death was the
consequence of such a religious profession. They loved each other as
brethren, and called one another by that name. They were kind, and
courteous, and charitable, beyond all example, to others. They abstained
from all manner of violence. They prayed for those who persecuted them.
They were patterns of humility and patience. They made no sacrifice of
their consciences, but would persevere in that which was right, never
refusing to die for their religion. This is the character, which is
uniformly given of them by the Christian writers of those times.

That their conduct was greatly altered in the third century, where we
are now to view it, we may collect from indisputable authority. I stated
in the former section, that a Christian soldier was punished for
refusing to wear a garland, like the rest of his comrades, on a public
occasion. This man, it appears, had been converted in the army, and
objected to the ceremony on that account. Now Tertullian tells us, that
this soldier was blamed for his unseasonable zeal, as it was called, by
some of the Christians at that time, though all Christians before
considered the wearing of such a garland as unlawful and profane. In
this century there is no question but the Christian discipline began to
relax. To the long peace the church enjoyed from the death of Antoninus
to the tenth year of Severus, is to be ascribed the corruption that
ensued. This corruption we find to have spread rapidly; for the same
Tertullian was enabled to furnish us with the extraordinary instance of
manufacturers of idols being admitted into the ecclesiastical order.
Many corruptions are also noticed in this century by other writers.
Cyprian complained of them, as they existed in the middle, and Eusebius,
as they existed at the end of it, and both attributed it to the peace,
or to the ease and plenty, which the Christians had enjoyed. The latter
gives us a melancholy account of their change. They had begun to live in
fine houses, and to indulge in luxuries. But, above all, they had begun
to be envious, and quarrelsome, and to dissemble, and to cheat, and to
falsify their word, so that they lost the character, which Pliny, an
adversary to their religion, had been obliged to give of them, and which
they had retained for more than a century, as appears by their own
writers.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19