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.