Lactantius was a public official who upon conversion to Christianity withdrew from office. Later he was called upon by the emperor Constantine to be the tutor to his son. Lactantius accepted the position, and also became one of the Roman Empire’s most notorious social critics.

Religion is to be defended—not by putting to death—but by dying. Not by cruelty, but by patient endurance. Not by guilt, but by faith. For the former belongs to evil, but the latter to the good.... For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, tortures, and guilt, it will no longer be defended. Rather, it will be polluted and profaned.... And, therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. (7.157, 158)

When the worship of God was taken away, men lost the knowledge of good and evil.... They then began to fight with one another, to plot, and to achieve glory for themselves from the shedding of human blood. (Divine Institutes 7.143)

If only God were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars. For men would know that they are the sons of one God. (7.141)

Why do contests, fights, and contentions arise among men? Is it because impatience against injustice often excites great tempests? However, if you meet injustice with patience, then no virtue can be found more true.... In contrast, if injustice ... has met with impatience on the same level as itself, ... it will ignite a great fire that no stream can extinguish, but only the shedding of blood. (7.184)

In what respect, then, does the wise and good man differ from the evil and foolish one? Is it not that he has unconquerable patience, of which the foolish are destitute? Is it not that he knows how to govern himself and to mitigate his anger—which those are unable to curb because they are without virtue? ... What if a man gives way to grief and anger and indulges these emotions (which he should struggle against)? What if he rushes wherever injustice will call him? Such a man does not fulfill the duty of virtue. For he who tries to return an injury desires to imitate that very person by whom he has been injured. In short, he who imitates a bad man cannot be good. (7.184)

When provoked by injury, if he returns violence to his assailant, he is defeated. (7.185)

Why would [the just man] carry on war and mix himself with the passions of others when his mind is engaged in perpetual peace with men? Would he be delighted with foreign merchandise or with human blood--he who does not know how to seek gain? For the Christian is satisfied with his standard of living. He considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but also to be present with those who do it. (7.153)

If desire is restrained, no one will use violence by land or by sea. No one will lead an army to carry off and lay waste the property of others.... For what are the interests of our own country, but the detriments of another state or nation? To extend the boundaries that are violently taken from others, to increase the power of the state, to improve the revenues--all of these things are not virtues. Rather, they are the overthrowing of virtues. (7.169)

If anyone should be so shameless as to inflict injury on a good and just man, such a man must bear it with calmness and moderation. He will not take upon himself his revenge. Rather, he will reserve it for the judgment of God. He must maintain innocence at all times and in all places. And this commandment is not limited to merely his not [being the first to] inflict injury on another. Rather, he should not even avenge it when injury is inflicted on him. For there sits on the judgment-seat a very great and impartial judge. (7.183)

How can a man be just who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet, those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things.... When they speak of the "duties" relating to warfare, their speech pertains neither to justice nor to true virtue. (7.169)

The Stoics say that the emotion of anger is the whetstone of virtue. As though no one could fight bravely against enemies unless he were excited by anger. By this, they plainly show that they neither know what virtue is, nor why God gave anger to man. If it were given to us for the purpose of using it to slay men, then what creature can be considered more savage than man? Who resembles wild beasts more than that creature whom God formed for communion and innocence? (7.185)

If we all derive our origin from one man whom God created, we are clearly of one blood. Therefore, it must be considered the greatest wickedness to hate a man—even if he is guilty. On this account, God has forbidden us to ever contract enmities. Rather, they are to be eliminated, so that we sooth those who are our enemies by reminding them of their relationship. For, if we are all inspired and quickened by one God, what else are we except brothers? ... Therefore, they are to be considered as savage beasts who injure man, who—in opposition to every law and right of human nature—plunder, torture, slay, and banish. On account of this relationship of brotherhood, God teaches us never to do evil, but always good. (7.172, 173)

Therefore, it is not befitting that those who strive to keep to the path of justice should be companions and sharers in this public homicide. For when God forbids us to kill, he prohibits more than the open violence that is not even allowed by the public laws. He also warns us against doing those things that are considered lawful among men. For that reason, it will not be lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it lawful for him to accuse anyone of a capital charge. For it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword instead. That is because it is the act of putting to death itself that is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this commandment of God, there should be no exception at all. Rather, it is always unlawful to put a man to death, whom God willed to be a sacred creature. (7.187)

It is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God. (7.271)

The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him. (7.160)

But how greatly utility differs from justice the Roman people themselves teach, who, by proclaiming war through the Fecials, and by inflicting injuries according to legal forms, by always desiring and carrying off the property of others, have gained for themselves the possession of the whole world [Daniel 7:23]. But these persons think themselves just if they do nothing against their own laws; which may be even ascribed to fear, if they abstain from crimes through dread of present punishment. But let us grant that they do that naturally, or, as the philosopher says, of their own accord, which they are compelled to do by the laws. Will they therefore be just, because they obey the institutions of men, who may themselves have erred, or have been unjust? ... Civil law is one thing, which varies everywhere according to customs; but justice is another thing, which God has set forth to all as uniform and simple: and he who is ignorant of God must also be ignorant of justice. (6.9)

Labels: Early Christians, Nonviolence, Pacifism