Thus, in the apostolic times (1st century – early 2nd century), we see unconditional pacifism in the church (church consciousness). (It could not be otherwise – love is unconditional; conditions appear when the law, commandments come into effect, that is, in the old covenant of carnal, religious life). This spirit continued (with lesser or greater intensity) until the 4th century. Let us list a few statements of the church fathers of this period (2nd-3rd centuries). The church authors of that time did not even think of “legalizing” violence, murder associated with military (and war) service. Already in the African Church of Tertullian’s time, there were different opinions among Christians on this issue. Some, referring to the example of Joshua, the commander of Old Testament Israel, approved of the Christian presence in imperial service. Others believed that only officers who personally gave orders to kill or persecute were guilty against the Christian conscience, while ordinary soldiers were only obedient to orders and could not be condemned. Tertullian himself advocates for “Peter’s disarmament” – dominus in Petro exarmando discinxit – and breaks all the arguments of pro-war co-religionists, calling them no more than an unsuccessful joke: “Regarding military service, which is also associated with power and dignity. On this subject, they ask whether a Christian can enter military service and whether it is permissible even for a simple soldier, who does not necessarily have to make sacrifices and pass judgments, to be accepted into the Christian faith? However, the oath of God does not agree with the human oath, the sign of Christ – with the sign of the devil, the army of light – with the army of darkness. It is not possible, having one soul, to swear to both – God and Caesar. If there is a desire to joke, it can be said that Moses carried the rod, and Aaron – the buckle, that John was girded, and Joshua led the army into battle, and indeed the whole people of God fought in the war. The question is how this person will fight (wage war), that is, I wanted to say, how will he serve during peacetime, without the sword, which the Lord took away from him? Because, although soldiers came to John, and received some form of piety from him, and the centurion even believed, but the Lord abolished all subsequent military service, disarming Peter. We are not allowed any rank (state), service in which will be aimed at a matter not allowed to us.” Tertullian rejects any compromises that would force (encourage) Christians to serve in the army. However, reading Tertullian, it can be understood that priority in his militant pacifism is given to issues of spiritual risk, to which his treatise De idololatria is actually dedicated. Christians in the Roman army were forced to participate in pagan rites. In each of the more than fifty Roman legions, there was its totem, its cult, its gods. And Christians until the fourth century did not have the opportunity to practice their faith in the army. It is understandable why military service caused them so many doubts. Of course, Christian Sunday liturgies in the Roman army would have been possible if Christianity allowed its adepts on other days to participate in the pagan festivals of the legion, according to the Feriale Duranum (the religious calendar of the Roman Empire), and in the procedure of sacramentum – an important religious-state act, which originated from the times of the “Laws of the Twelve Tables” (5th century BC). But joint religious practice was rejected by Christians, and they fell under judgment for disrespecting other cults and failing to follow mandatory procedures. This is what happened to the Christian soldier, whom Tertullian glorifies in his treatise De corona militis, who refused to place a laurel wreath on his head and was condemned to death for it. The soldier, about whom Tertullian writes, found himself in a situation where he had to decide: “Either immediately desert from the army, as many did, or resort to some tricks (evade in various ways) to avoid actions contrary to God, or, ultimately, face the sufferings of martyrs for God.” For Tertullian and many Christians like him, cunning and trickery were equivalent to betrayal. Therefore, he resolutely forbade baptized Christians to serve in the Roman army: “… Is it permissible to make the sword one’s profession when the Lord says that he who serves the sword will perish by the sword?”. But not only the spiritual side of service in the Roman army worried Tertullian. The moral evaluation of violence inherent in military service was no less strict in his works. For example, Tertullian establishes canons according to which it was considered a mortal sin for Christians to shed any blood, and it was forbidden to baptize soldiers who had not yet fled the army. It is difficult to say whether this position was shared by most Christians in North Africa at the time, but this approach is reflected in many written monuments of that time.