Chapter 12. THE CHRISTIAN REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN WAR IV: ORIGEN

We turn next to Origenes, the prince of early Christian thinkers. Apart from his general eminence as scholar, theologian, apologist, and practical Christian, he is far and away the most important writer who handles the question before us. Though he yields to Tertullianus in rhetorical brilliance and to Augustinus in his influence over posterity, his defence of the early Christian refusal to participate in war is the only one that faces at all thoroughly or completely the ultimate problems involved. He has however been strangely misunderstood and misinterpreted, and certainly never answered.

Our procedure will be, as before, to let our author first speak for himself, and then add a few elucidations and comments of our own. We begin, therefore, with a series of passages from Origenes' reply to Celsus (248 A.D.), some of which we have already had occasion to quote in another connection.

1. Or possibly 'take vengeance on' -- amunesthai.

2. Orig Cels ii. 30.

3. Orig Cels iii. 7.

4. Orig Cels v. 33 (see above, p. 63 n 3).

5. Orig Cels vii. 26.

Origenes, however, does not set himself seriously to grapple with the difficulties of the problem until near the end of his eighth and last book, Celsus having placed his criticism on this particular point at the end of his work and being followed in the matter of arrangement by his Christian opponent. Practically the whole of the eight chapters that come last but one in Origenes' reply are taken up in justifying the Christian attitude of aloofness from all forms of violence in the service of the state. We shall confine our quotations to the most pertinent passages.

First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says:

Then in the next chapter:

7. Orig Cels viii. 68.

8. Orig Cels viii. 69. He goes on to explain that God had not always fought for the Hebrews, because they had not always fulfilled the conditions of receiving such help by observing His law.

obscure one. Origenes quotes Celsus as saying to the Christian the following:

It is absolutely intolerable that thou shouldst say that, if those who now reign over us, having been persuaded by thee, should be taken captive, thou wilt persuade those who reign after (them, and) then others, if they should be taken captive, and others again, (and so on), until, when all who have been persuaded by thee have been taken captive, some one ruler who is prudent and foresees what is happening shall altogether destroy you, before he himself is destroyed.

Origenes replies that no Christian talks like this, and attributes it to the nonsensical invention of Celsus himself; and unfortunately we cannot get any further with it.⁽¹⁰⁾

He then proceeds:

He then has a long passage on the Christian anticipation of the complete destruction of evil, and concludes:

He then turns to the concrete appeal of Celsus that the Christians should serve in the army and take part in the business of government.

13. Orig Cels viii. 74.

There are several points in the teaching set forth in these passages which call for special comment.

14. Orig Cels viii. 75.

15. Orig Cels viii. 73 (p. 135).

16. Orig Cels iii. 7, vii. 26 (p. 130).

17. Orig Cels ii. 30 (see below, p. 207).

18. Orig Cels iv. 82. In the following chapter he rebukes Celsus for his attempt to depreciate the political institutions and defensive wars of men (see below, P. 207).

19. The question is more fully discussed below, pp. 211 ff.

2. His candid recognition of the temporary place and value of what was good in pagan and Mosaic ethics must not be taken as stultifying or cancelling his equally candid declaration that Christians ought not to and would not take part in war. Several modern writers have fallen into this fallacy. Thus Grotius says that Origenes and Tertullianus are not consistent, and he quotes in regard to the former the passage about the bees.⁽²⁰⁾ Guizot, in a note on Gibbon,⁽²¹⁾ says: "Origen, in truth, appears to have maintained a more rigid opinion (Cont. Cels. 1. viii); but he has often renounced this exaggerated severity, perhaps necessary to produce great results, and he speaks of the profession of arms as an honourable one (1. iv. C. [83] 218 . . .)."

Professor Bethune-Baker writes:

20. Grotius, De Jure, etc., I ii. ix, 2.

21. Wm. Smith's edition of the Decline and Fall, ii. 189.

22. B-Baker ICW 30.

part."⁽²³⁾ Guignebert remarks: "But already Origenes seems to admit at least defensive war"⁽²⁴⁾: and similarly Bigelmair: "Even Origenes at times gave a less rigorous judgment," for he meets a point brought forward by Celsus "with the remark--which contrasts curiously with his position elsewhere--that the wars of the bees were a pattern for the righteous and orderly wars of men."⁽²⁵⁾

All this misses the point. Origenes' view of the Christian's duty in regard to war is put as clearly as words could make it: and though he compares the intercessions of the Christians to the sacrifices of the pagan priesthood and speaks about the duty of the Christian clergy in training and governing others, the supposition that he meant to limit the abstention from bloodshed to the clergy is quite out of keeping with his actual statements. It is abundantly clear that he regarded the acceptance of Christianity as incompatible with the use of arms; and his relative justification of the wars of non-Christians cannot be made a ground either for doubting that his rigorism was seriously meant, or for accusing him of inconsistency in maintaining it.⁽²⁶⁾

23. Christianity and Politics, p. 252.

24. Guignebert p. 196: a note refers to Orig Cels iv. 82 f.

25. Bigelmair 180f. The same view is suggested by Schmidt (284).

26. Barbeyrac (Morale des Pères, p. 104 fn) recognizes that Origenes does not contradict himself in this matter.

27. Orig. Cels viii. 73, 75 (see pp. 135 f).

He speaks as if he was not aware that Christians ever took any other line⁽²⁸⁾: and though this cannot be construed as showing that none of them ever did so--for there is evidence to prove that many did--or that Origenes dishonestly concealed what he knew to be a fact--for the dishonesty would have been so patent as to serve no purpose, yet it proves that even at this date, the middle of the third century, the predominant opinion among Christians was that their religion forbade them to serve in the legions.⁽²⁹⁾

4. It is often urged that the early Christian disapproval of all violence has to be read in the light of early Christian eschatology. For if you could assume that within the near future, possibly almost immediately, the existing world-order was going to fall to pieces with a crash, the wicked were going to be rooted out and punished, and the reign of righteousness set up--all by the exercise of a special Divine intervention--then obviously there would not be much difficulty in proving all fighting, and indeed all judicial procedure, to be useless.

28. Neumann (241) is surely mistaken in supposing that Origenes' reference to soldiers as opponents of Christianity implies the presence of Christians in the army.

29. De Jong 15: "Considering that Origenes is here defending, not only his own opinion, but Christendom in general, we must assume that also in his time . . . the great majority of Christians was opposed to military service, and that principally out of aversion to bloodshed, and that only a small number took part in it--a conclusion to which in fact the archaeological data, negative on this point, also lead us."

his mind was not fettered by the crude obsessions of orthodox Christian eschatology: he had little or nothing to say of a bodily return of Christ, or of an end of the world due to occur in the near future; he contemplated an indefinite prolongation of human history under the divine control; he had his eyes open to the needs of society, and, though keen on the spiritual side of things, suffered from no blind 'otherworldliness'--from none of what Weinel aptly calls 'Jenseitsfanatismus.' Eschatology, it is urged, invalidates the early Christian witness in regard to war: it cannot however invalidate the witness given by Origenes, for he did not share even the weakened eschatological beliefs of his Christian contemporaries. Yet none gave a clearer or more intelligent witness on the subject of Christian gentleness than he.

30. Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. 191 (cf 236).

31. Above, p. 115.

6. Origenes happily lays great stress on the positive service which the Christians render to the State, a service which he claims is diviner, more needful, and more effective than that of the soldier or magistrate. "We do help the Emperors as occasion (requires) . . . We labour with (him) in the public affairs . . . we fight for the Emperor more (than others do) . . . Christians benefit the(ir) countries more than the rest of men," and so on.⁽³²⁾

Of this service he specifies two forms. (a) Intercessory prayer, which he rightly regards as exceedingly effective when coming from Christians: this prayer is that the Emperor and those associated with him may be successful in their efforts, in so far as their purposes are righteous, "in order that all things opposed and hostile to those that act righteously may be put down" (kathairethe). It assumes that the Emperor has a standard of righteousness which is valid relative to his own sub-Christian condition, and it does not commit the Christian who offers it to an approval of the same standard for himself. The Christians, moreover, by their prayers, put down the demons who rouse warlike passions and disturb the peace. (b) Influence for good over others by the activities of the Church and the power of Christian life, "educating the citizens and teaching them to be devout towards the God of the State," taking charge of those within and those without the Church, and working effectually for their moral and spiritual salvation. No criticism of Origenes, which does not give full weight to this positive side of his plea, is either fair to him or worthy of a Christian critic.

quibbles," he says,

Now the party guilty of evading the point in this case is not the ancient apologist, but the late lamented historian himself; for in speaking of military service as a duty to one's country, he is, of course, simply assuming without argument the very point under debate: he has not a word to say on the very serious question as to how slaughter in war is to be reconciled with the teaching of Jesus. Not only does he assume that military service is a duty, but he calls the Christian refusal of it a renunciation of duty at pleasure. He does not realize that the early Christian, in refusing the use of arms, more than compensated for his withdrawal from the army by the moral and spiritual power for good which lie exercised as a Christian, that he did--as Origenes claimed--really and literally help the Emperor in the maintenance of peace and justice, and really did benefit his country more than the rest of men.

On the score of the results which, it is assumed, would follow from the adoption of his teaching, the political views expressed by him have been criticized as extravagant.⁽³⁴⁾

34. Lecky ii. 39 ("The opinions of the Christians of the first three centuries were usually formed without any regard to the necessities of civil or political life"); Harnack ME i. 263 f ("How extravagant (hochfliegend) are his ideas!" Yet Harnack recognizes Origenes as "a great and sensible statesman"-- "ein grosser und einsichtiger Politiker"); Troeltsch 123 f ("With such presuppositions [as those of Origenes] every venture in regard to social possibilities (and) every idea of the Christian criticism of society having to be also an organic reformation of it, were out of the question. God would take care that society held together. The cutting-off of the forbidden callings suffices; the rest will remain standing. . . . Elsewhere there are not wanting compromises and compositions which recognize the necessity of these callings for the social system and therefore enjoin here too continuance in the calling").

35. See above, pp. 133 f.

disastrous breakdown of civilization being occasioned by its expansion.

That task he performs with admirable common-sense and insight. He does not desire or advocate or expect a sudden and wholesale abandonment by society of its usual methods of dealing with internal and external enemies, without any of those compensating safeguards and improvements which the gradual and steady growth of Christianity would ensure. And it is as a gradual growth that he thinks of the expansion of Christianity--as a growth consisting of the accretion of one individual after another, "the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls" until it has mastered the whole rational creation,⁽³⁶⁾ as a growth going on, not only among the civilized inhabitants of the Empire, but also among the uncivilized barbarians beyond its borders,⁽³⁷⁾ not only among the virtuous, but also among the sinful and criminal people, and therefore as removing steadily the wrongdoing which evokes wars and calls for penalties, while supplying steadily pari passu a more effectual cure for that wrongdoing in the shape of the mighty spiritual and moral influence of the Church.

36. Orig Cels viii. 68 fin, 72 (see pp. 132-134).

37. Orig Cels i. 53, viii. 4, 68.

programme give for the charge of anarchy? Celsus actually made such a charge, but had to contradict himself in doing so. He first professed to posit the conversion of all to Christianity--in itself a legitimate supposition--but immediately had to make an exception of the barbarians in order to manufacture some sort of a bogey. Origenes had no difficulty in pointing out that Celsus' assumption of all doing the same as the Christian presupposed the conversion of the barbarians as well as the subjects of the Empire.