In trying to evaluate the significance of the shift from third-century pacifism to fourth-century concern with the just-war theory, it may be helpful to give more attention to Lactantius, a man who lived through the Constantinian revolution and wrote seriously about the problem of military service for Christians both before and after Constantine. According to his Divine Institutes there is absolutely no place for Christians in the army. He says in so many words, * ‘It is not right for a just man to serve in the army . . . Nor is it right for a just man to charge someone with a capital crime. It does not matter whether you kill a man with the sword or with a word since it is killing itself that is prohibited. So there must be no exception to this command of God. Killing a human being whom God willed to be inviolable is always wrong.”22 Nowhere in early Christian literature is there any stronger, more absolute prohibition of killing, whether it be in war, by capital punishment, or otherwise. The pacifism of the early Lactantius is as total as possible. He is an early Tolstoi but, as Swift has pointed out, in his later work, after the tables have been turned and Christians are being given positions of privilege and responsibility rather than being persecuted by the Empire, he seems less sure of himself.
In his Epitome, for instance, he says: “Just as courage is good, if you are fighting for your country but evil if you are rebelling against it, so too with the emotions. If you use them for good ends, they will be virtues; if for evil ends, they will be called vices.”23 Other passages suggest that he now believed that it would not do simply to oppose all use of violence. The exercise of political responsibilities had now, for better and for worse, fallen squarely on the shoulders of large numbers of Christians for the first time. It was no longer possible to stay on Origen’s pedestal above the fray, so someone had better do some hard rethinking about the perceived incompatibility between Christian faith and military service, and come up with relevant answers for the challenging new circumstances.
James McGivern points to the example of Lactantius to illustrate the complexities of the early church views on war.
“According to his Divine Institutes there is absolutely no place for Christians in the army. He says in so many words, ‘It is not right for a just man to serve in the army . . . Nor is it right for a just man to charge someone with a capital crime. It does not matter whether you kill a man with the sword or with a word since it is killing itself that is prohibited. So there must be no exception to this command of God. Killing a human being whom God willed to be inviolable is always wrong.’ Nowhere in early Christian literature is there any stronger, more absolute prohibition of killing, whether it be in war, by capital punishment, or otherwise. The pacifism of the early Lactantius is as total as possible. He is an early Tolstoi but, as [Louis] Swift has pointed out, in his later work, after the tables have been turned and Christians are being given positions of privilege and responsibility rather than being persecuted by the Empire, he seems less sure of himself.
“In his Epitome , for instance, he says: ‘Just as courage is good, if you are fighting for your country but evil if you are rebelling against it, so too with the emotions. If you use them for good ends, they will be virtues; if for evil ends, they will be called vices.’ Other passages suggest that he now believed that it would not do simply to oppose all use of violence.”
One might judge this capitulation; surely pacifists would. But McGivern suggests that Lactantius is responding faithfully to new circumstances: “The exercise of political responsibilities had now, for better and for worse, fallen squarely on the shoulders of large numbers of Christians for the first time. It was no longer possible to stay on Origen’s pedestal above the fray, so someone had better do some hard rethinking about the perceived incompatibility between Christian faith and military service, and come up with relevant answers for the challenging new circumstances.”
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
