WAR, Christian Views of. I. History of Opinion. — The question whether war is allowable to Christians divides itself into two, which are intimately related to each other: (a) Is it right for a Christian government to carry on war? and (6) is a Christian subject obliged to serve as a soldier? Christianity always breathes the spirit of peace among individuals and nations, and like- wise the spirit of freedom and personal respect, yet nev- er by command does it do away with either slavery or war, nor does it forbid civil government using the sword. The objections of early Christians to serve in war were based principally upon the text " Whosoever sheddeth blood," etc. But there were also other reasons. The early Christians did not feel obligated to serve a gov- ernment that constantly persecuted them, and they also dreaded the idolatry connected with the service of war. TertuUian forbids serving as a common soldier, although such were not so imperatively required to engage in idolatry as were those of higher rank ; yet it was suffi- cient for TertuUian to know that the Roman ensigns bore images and pictures of idols (see Tertull. Be Idololatria, c. xix ; Be Corona Militls, c. xi ; Apol. c. xiii; Ad Scapulam, c. iv). Notwithstanding these objections, a great many Christians served as soldiers. The conversion of Constantine and the exchange of the idol standards for the banner of the Cross laid every
WAR
882
WAR
Christian under obligations to serve as a soldier; the interests of the Church and State having now become common.
Augustine speaks of himself as holding no conscien- tious scruples concerning Christians serving as soldiers (A;j. 138, ail MarceUiiuun, xii). Tlie opinions of the early Christians do not entirely disapprove military service except in reference to the clergy. The opinion of Origen is now limited to the clergy (^Cont. Cdsum, vii, 73,74). In the Homisli Churcli tlie clergy assume the same attitude that the earlier Christians held, namely, that the services of the sanctuary forbid the shedding of blood; yet they liold that the more closely Churcli and State arc united, the more justifiable is war. Re- ferring, also, to the Old Test, and to the Church fa- thers, they make the following distinctions: (1) prose- cution of war in itself is no sin; ("i) the clergy are not personally to handle the sword, although they may in- cite others to do so. This was the doctrine of the Mid- dle Ages, and lias continued, to a great extent, the doc- trine of the Komish Church to-day (Richter, iv, § 94, note 12).
Yet the oft-repeated threatcnings and rebukes in early Christian documents {A post. Can. Ixxxii, c. 4, 23, (ju. 8 ; Cone. Tulet. iv, c. 45, aim. 633 ; Cone. Meldense, c. 37, ann. 845 ; c. 2, x; c. 25, x, 5, 39) indicate that the warlike inclinations of many of the clergy transgressed one of the above rules. Athanasius already lamented that bishops engaged in war. There were three causes that produced this spirit : {<C) zealotism, which was anx- ious to exterminate heretics; (U) self-defence in case of necessity; (c).the feudal system (see Ziegler, IvSi]- p6S,v\ov Eeelesidsticum [Wittenberg, 1672]). In the time of Chrysostom the monks travelled in large com- panies from place to place with imperial authority to exterminate heathenism ; and that which had a rough unsystematic commencement became very effectually systematized in after-ages. During the crusades bish- ops became renowned as military men (Raumer, Hohen- staufen, ch.i) ; and these holy wars were carriexl on by the Church to such an extent that it became part, so to speak, of tlie Church itself, in the form of the different orders of knights. This warlike spirit became so com- mon among the clergy that whenever anything was to be gained, they were ever ready for war.
The question as to whether individuals are obligated to serve as soldiers depends largely upon the govern- ment of the coimtry in which they live. So far as the Evangelical Churcli is concerned in the question wheth- er war is allowable to Christians, we have sufficient proof that the Reformers believed it to be right for Christians to use the sword. The A iir/shurg Confession refers to this subject in art. 16 ("Docent quod Chris- tianis liceat jure bellare"). Only a few small sects are opposed to Christians engaging in war. The evangel- ical doctrine has generally been on the affirmative side of the question (see Reinhard, Afo7-aL § 244, 302; Au- mon, Handb.d.christL Siltenlehre, § 181 , Ilarless, Christl. Ethik, p. 250). Schleiermacher {Die ehristl. Sitte, p. 273) contends that every individual is bound to obedience when a call to war is made ; so also Hegel, " The agita- tion of war purifies a nation" {Rechtsphilos. p. 324). The Evangelical Church at large has no ban against clergj' serving in war. — \\iinos^,Renl-I-'neiiklop.\\n,H\ sq.
II. Dor/malic I'ieir. — These modern opinions in de- fence of warfare, however, have evidently grown out of a desire to conciliate the civil power, and are clearly opposed to the ancient Christian doctrine and to the whole spirit of the (iospel, as well as to specific precepts in the New Test. (Matt, v, 39; Rom. xii, 17-21. etc.). The appeal to a few passages is futile against this (e. g. Luke xxii,26; comp. i\Iatt. xxvi, 52. Rom. xiii, 4 re- fers only to magisterial or municipal justice). The lame effort to avoid the force especially of Christ's command may be strikingly seen in Stier's inconclusive argument {Woi-(ls of the Lord JesKs [.\mer. ed.], i, 74), who con- tends that because they live in an. evil world Christians