It is much more natural to conceive of a society directed and guided by rational ideas that are profitable to everyone than the society of the present day, where violence alone determines the conduct of men.

It is likely that constraint, exercised by the State, was necessary in former days to assure the grouping of men.  Perhaps it is still necessary today, but men can no longer close their eyes or help feeling the state of things in which violence can only trouble their peaceful existence.  It follows that in seeing it, or in feeling it, they cannot prevent themselves from seeking to realize this order of things.  The means of realizing it is in the moral improvement of each one of us, and in abstention from any violence.  (Daily Reading, October 13th)

The declarations made before the military judges by conscientious objectors are only repetitions of what has been said since the appearance of the Christian doctrine.  The most ardent and sincere fathers of the Church declared the teaching of Christ to be incompatible with one of the fundamental conditions of the existence of the State: armed force.  In other words, a Christian must not be a soldier, prepared to kill everyone that he is ordered to.

The Christian communities of the first four centuries declared categorically, from the mouths of their pastors, the prohibition of all murder, individual or collective – that is to say, war.

The philosopher Tatian, converted to Christianity in the second century, considered murder in warfare to be just as inadmissible for his co-religionists as any other kind of assassination, and looked upon the laurel crown of the victor as an unworthy symbol. 

In the same period Athenagoras of Athens said that not only must Christians not kill, but that they also must not be witnesses of executions.

In the third century, Clement of Alexandria contrasted warlike pagans with “the peaceful community of Christians.”

But it was Origen who most forcibly expressed the Christians’ dislike of war.  In applying the words of Isaiah to the Christians, “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,” he said clearly, “We do not arm ourselves against any nation.  We do not learn the art of war because, through Jesus Christ, we have become the children of peace.”  Answering the accusation of Celsus against the Christians who avoided military service (in Celsus’ opinion, the Roman Empire would disappear as soon as it became Christian), Origen said that Christians fought more than the rest for the welfare of the emperor, since they defended him by good actions, by prayers and by good influence on other men.  As to armed combat, Origen added that he was certain that they would neither take part with the imperial armies, nor would they take part even if the emperor himself obliged them to do so.

Tertullian, a contemporary of Origen, expressed himself as categorically on the impossibility of Christians being warriors.  Speaking of military service he said, “It is not fitting to serve at the same time the symbol of Christ and the symbol of the devil, the power of light and the power of darkness.  One and the same soul cannot serve two masters.  And how may we wage war without the sword that God himself has taken away from us?  How can we learn the use of the sword, when Our Lord said that he who raised the sword would perish by the sword?  How can the sons of peace take part in combat?”

The celebrated Cyprian in his turn said, “The world is going mad in mutual extermination, and murder, considered as a crime when committed individually, becomes a virtue when it is committed by large numbers.  It is the multiplication of the frenzy that assures impunity to the assassins.”

Lactantius declared the same thing in the fourth century: “There cannot be a thousand exceptions to God’s commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’  No weapon except truth should be carried by Christians.”

The rules of the Church of Egypt in the third century, as well as the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, absolutely forbid any Christian to serve in the army, under pain of excommunication.

In the Acts of the Saints, there are many examples of martyrdom suffered by the faithful of Christ for having refused to serve.  For example, Maximilian who was brought before the conscription council and asked to give his name to the proconsul, answered, “I am called a Christian, and consequently am not a warrior.”  He was delivered to the executioner.

Marcellus was a centurion in the Legion of Troy.  Having embraced the Christian doctrine, and being convinced that war was an impious act, he took off his armor before the whole legion, threw it on the ground, and declared that having become a Christian he could no longer remain in the army.  He was imprisoned, but again he repeated, “A Christian must not carry weapons.”  He was executed.

Cassius likewise confessed to the same religion and refused to serve.  He suffered a similar fate.

Under Julian the Apostate, Martin of Tours, brought up in a military atmosphere, refused to continue his service.  During the examination that the emperor made him undergo he only answered with the words, “I am a Christian and therefore am not a warrior.”

In the year 325, the first general council instituted a severe penance for Christians who went back to the army after having left it.  Here are the exact terms of this order in the Russian translation recognized by the Orthodox Church:

Called by the grace of the profession of faith and having shown their first ardor in removing their warlike accouterments, then having returned to them like the dogs towards their vomiting, they should implore the Church for a period of ten years, asking pardon, [after having] listened to the Scriptures for three years on the threshold of the Church.

Christians, enrolled for the first time in the army, were instructed not to kill their enemies during war.  In the fourth century Basil the Great recommended that soldiers who had infringed this rule should not be admitted to the Communion for three years.

One sees that the conviction that war is incompatible with Christianity was in force, not only during the first three centuries, during which time Christians were persecuted, but even at the moment of their triumph over paganism, when their doctrine was recognized as the state religion.

Ferrucius declared it very clearly and paid for it with his life.  “He forbade Christians to shed blood, even in a just war and under the orders of Christian sovereigns.”

In the fourth century Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, professed that the Christians should defend faith, their greatest possession, not in killing, but in sacrificing their own lives.

Paulin, Bishop of Nole, who died in the year 431, threatened eternal torment to those who served Caesar bearing weapons.

Thus it was during the first four centuries of Christianity.

But the standards of the Roman Legions were already carrying the cross under the reign of Constantine.  And in 416 an order was decreed that pagans were not admitted into the army.  All the soldiers had become Christians.  In other words, all the Christians had, with few exceptions, denied Christ.

Since then, and for about fifteen centuries, the simple and evident truth of the incompatibility of Christianity with the committing of all kinds of violence, including assassination, has been so hidden from men that generation after generation succeed each other in killing, participating in and profiting by murder, while professing the doctrine that condemns them.

The crusades were a mockery, and the most horrible crimes were committed in the name of Christianity; so much so, that the few people who kept to the true principles of Christianity by not consenting to any violence – the Montagnists, Albigensians, and Waldensians – were universally despised or persecuted.

But, like fire, truth little by little consumes all the veils that hide it, and since the beginning of the last century, it has sprung up with even increasing brightness by attracting attention in spite of everything.  This truth has often been manifested in Russia, especially in the beginning of the nineteenth century.  Its manifestations were doubtless many, but its traces have been effaced.  Only a few are known to us.