Note E, On C. Xi. P. 176.
OF THE CROWN
[The “de Corona” was written probably A.D. 201, when Severus gave a “very large donative to his soldiers, the whole booty of Ctesiphon,” on occasion of their saluting his son Caracalla as Augustus, and Geta as Cæsar. Spartian in Severo, c. 16. Of two other liberalities of Severus, the first, A. 198, was to the people, (see Notice on Apol.) the last, A. 202, was an increase of pay, not a largess, Spart. l. c. The date A. 201 of this largess is obtained, 1. From Eusebius, who places the victories over the Parthians, A. 200; (Chron. 1. 2.) but Ctesiphon was taken at the approach of winter, (Spart. l. c.) and so at the end of that year. 2. Caracalla was then in his thirteenth year, (Spart. l. c.) but he was killed after six years’ reign, A. 217, aged 29. (Dio Cass. 1. 77.) 3. A Coin, A. 200, 1. gives Severus the title Parthicus Max., one A. 201, 2. exhibits Caracalla as Augustus, Geta as Cæsar. See Lumper, l. c. c. 2. Art. ii. §. 1. and Art. i. §. 5. It is probably the earliest treatise containing any trace of Montanism, see c. 1. The mention of the “long peace” which Christians had enjoyed, (c. 1.) may be accounted for, in that the scene lay not in Africa but in the East.]
I. IT came to pass the other day, the bounty of the most illustrious Emperors was being paid off at the camp. The soldiers were coming up wearing their laurel crowns. A certain man there, more the soldier of God, more firm of purpose, than the rest of his brethren who had presumed that they could serve two masters, stood conspicuous, his single head untrammelled, his crown hanging idle in his hand, the Christian being already, by this very ordering of himself, proclaimed. Every man began to point at him; the distant to mock, the near to gnash their teeth upon him. The murmur reacheth the ears of the Tribune, and the person had now quitted his place. Immediately the Tribune saith, “Why so different from the rest in thy dress?” He answered that he might not act with the rest. Being asked his reasons, he answered, ‘I am a Christian.’ O ‘soldier boastful’ of God! Straightway the votes were taken, and the business remanded, and the accused sent for trial before the Prefects. On the spot he laid down the cloak, wherewith he was so heavy laden, now beginning to receive his rest: he put off his shoe, so troublesome, from his feet, now beginning to stand upon holy ground: he delivered up the sword, not needed even for the defence of the Lord: the laurel crown fell even from his hand: and now, his robe empurpled with the earnest expectation of his own blood, his feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel, girt with the sharper word of God, his whole armour put on according to the Apostle, and looking for a better crown, in the white robe of martyrdom, he awaiteth in his prison the free gift of Christ. Opinions were then pronounced upon him, (whether those of Christians I know not, for none other are those of Heathens,) as though he had been headlong, and hasty, and too eager to die, in that, because questioned touching his dress, he brought trouble upon the Christian name. As though he alone were brave; among so many brethren and fellow-soldiers alone a Christian! Clearly nothing remains but that those intend to refuse martyrdom also, who have rejected the prophecies of the same Holy Spirit. Finally they murmur that so long and happy a peace hath been endangered; and I doubt not that some are removing their Scriptures, making ready their baggage, preparing to flee from one city to another; for they care not to remember any other part of the Gospel. I know their shepherds also: lions in peace, stags in fight. But on the questions respecting the avowal of our Faith I shall speak in another place: on this occasion, inasmuch as they advance this objection also, ‘Where are we forbidden to wear crowns?’ I shall attack this “where;”-the more specific shape of the present question,-that both those, who ask it from the anxiety of ignorance, may be instructed, and those, who argue it in excuse of the sin, may be refuted, (and that especially by this very man’s example,)—laurel-crowned Christians whom this question serveth to sooth, as though that may be thought to be either no sin, or a doubtful one, which admitteth of a question. But that it is neither no sin, nor a doubtful one, I shall now in the meanwhile shew.
II. I say that no believer alloweth a crown upon his head at any other time, except the time of this sort of temptation. All observe this rule from their novitiate up to their confession and martyrdom, or their apostasy. Whence the authority for this rule, which is now made the chief question, is for thee to look to. Moreover, when it is made a question why a thing is observed, it is meanwhile granted that it is observed. Wherefore that cannot be thought to be no sin, or no certain sin, which is committed against a rule, which, as such, ought to be maintained for its own sake, and is sufficiently authorized by the support of general consent. Doubtless; yet in such wise, of course, that the reason may be enquired into!—yes, but without hindrance of its observance, and not to overthrow, but rather to build it up, in order that thou mayest the more observe it, when thou art easy even with respect to the reason of it. But what sort of thing is it for a man then to call the observance of the rule into question, when he hath abandoned it, and to ask why he is bound to the observance, when he hath ceased from it? since although he may wish it to be thought that he therefore calleth it in question, that he may shew that he hath not done wrong in ceasing to observe it, yet nevertheless he sheweth that he did wrong before, in taking upon himself to observe it. For if he hath not done wrong in wearing the crown to-day, he hath at some time done wrong in refusing it. And therefore this treatise is not for them, to whom the question doth not belong, but for those who, from a desire to learn, proffer the question, not to dispute it, but to ask advice upon it. For the question on this point is endless, and I commend the faith which believeth that the rule ought to be observed, before it hath learned why. It is easy moreover to ask on the instant where it is written that we may not be crowned. But where is it written that we may be crowned? for they who demand the support of Scripture on the other side, already judge that their own side also ought to have the support of Scripture. For if it shall be said that we may be crowned because Scripture forbiddeth it not, it may be equally retorted that we may not be crowned, because Scripture commandeth it not. What shall Religion do? shall it admit both, because neither is forbidden? or refuse both, because neither is commanded? But (thou wilt say) that which is not forbidden is freely permitted. Nay, but that is forbidden, which is not freely permitted.
III. And how long shall we go on, sawing backwards and forwards upon this line, when we have an old established observance, which, in preventing the question, hath decided it? If no Scripture hath determined this, assuredly custom hath confirmed it, which, doubtless, hath been derived from tradition. For how can a thing be used unless it be first delivered to us? But, thou sayest, even where tradition is pleaded, written authority ought to be required. Wherefore let us enquire whether none, save a written tradition, ought to be received. Certainly we shall deny that it ought to be received, if there be no precedents to determine the contrary in other observances, which, without any Scripture document, we defend on the ground of tradition alone, and by the supports of consequent custom. In fact, to begin with Baptism, when we are about to come to the water, in the same place, but at a somewhat earlier time, we do in the Church testify, under the hand of a chief minister, that we renounce the Devil and his pomp and his angels. Then are we thrice dipped, pledging ourselves to something more than the Lord hath prescribed in the Gospel: then, some undertaking the charge of us, we first taste a mixture of honey and milk, and from that day we abstain for a whole week from our daily washing. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, commanded by the Lord at the time of supper, and to all, we receive even at our meetings before day-break, and from the hands of no others than the heads of the Church. We offer, on one day every year, oblations for the dead as birth-day honours. On the Lord’s day we account it unlawful to fast or to worship upon the knees. We enjoy the same freedom from Easter Day even unto Pentecost. We feel pained if any of the wine, or even of our bread, be spilled upon the ground. In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.
IV. For these and such like rules if thou requirest a law in the Scriptures, thou shalt find none. Tradition will be pleaded to thee as originating them, custom as confirming them, and faith as observing them. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, thou wilt either thyself perceive, or learn from some one who hath perceived it. Meanwhile thou wilt believe that some reason there is, to which submission is due. I will add yet one example, if it be fitting to teach by examples of the olden times also. Among the Jews the veil upon the head of their women is so sacred a custom, that by it they may be distinguished. I demand a written law for this. The Apostle I lay for the present out of the case. If Rebecca, when she beheld her spouse at a distance, betook herself to her veil, her individual modesty could not make this law, or made it for her own case: ‘Let virgins alone be covered, and that, when they come to be married, and not before they recognize their spouses.’ If Susanna also, in unveiling herself at her trial, furnisheth an argument for wearing the veil, I might say, ‘here too the veil was of her own choice.’ She had come an accused woman, blushing for the dishonour cast upon her, with good cause hiding her beauty, or because now afraid of pleasing. But in her husband’s walks I cannot think a woman who attracted admirers could have walked veiled. Be it now that she was always veiled. In her case also, or in any other, I demand the written authority for the dress. If I no where find such authority, it followeth that tradition hath given this rule to custom, which was hereafter to receive the authority of an Apostle, according to the interpretation of reason. By these examples therefore it will be declared, that even an unwritten tradition may be maintained in its observance, being confirmed by custom, a sufficient witness of a tradition at the time approved by the continuance of the observance. But even in civil matters custom is taken for law, where there is no law: nor is there any difference whether it be founded on any writing or on reason, since it is reason which commandeth even written authority. Moreover if law be founded in reason, then will all that is founded in reason, by whomsoever first brought forward, be law. Dost thou not think that any believer may have the power to conceive and to establish a thing, so it be agreeable to God, conducive to true Religion, profitable to salvation, when the Lord saith, And why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? and this not as touching judgment only, but every opinion also on things coming under examination. So also saith the Apostle: If in any thing ye be ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you; he himself having been accustomed to supply counsel, when he had no commandment of the Lord, and to ordain certain things of himself, yet himself also having the Spirit of God, That guideth into all truth. Wherefore his counsel and his ordinance have now obtained the likeness of a Divine command, because supported by the reason which cometh of God. Question now this reason, saving however thy respect for tradition, from whomsoever dated as having delivered it: and regard not the author, but the authority, and chiefly that of custom itself, which ought for this cause to be respected, because it may be the witness of reason: so that if it be God, Who hath given reason also, thou mayest learn, not, whether the custom ought to be observed by thee, but why the reason of Christian observances becometh greater than that of others, seeing that even nature, which is the first rule of all, defendeth them.
V. And therefore it is this which first prescribeth that a crown is not meet for the head. But methinks our God is the Lord of nature, Who formed man, and for the seeking, judging, and obtaining the enjoyment of things, hath disposed within him certain senses through those members which are in some sort their proper instruments. He hath formed a passage for hearing in the ears, hath kindled vision in the eyes, hath shut up taste in the mouth, hath wafted smell into the nostrils, hath placed touch in the extremities of the hands. Through these ministers of the outer man, the perceptions of the gifts of God are derived from the soul. Wherein then consisteth the enjoyment of flowers? for the proper, at all events the chief, material of crowns is the flowers of the field. Either in the scent, thou sayest, or in the colour, or in both together. What will be the senses concerned with colour and scent? sight, methinks, and smell. What parts of the body have these senses allotted to them? the eyes, if I mistake not, and the nose. Use therefore flowers by the sight and smell, in which senses their enjoyment lieth: use by means of the eyes and nose those senses of which they are the members. The thing itself was given thee by God: the fashion by the world; although an extraordinary fashion doth not oppose the ordinary use of the material. Let flowers be to thee, when set in a garland and bound either by thread or by rush, what they are when free and unconfined,—things, that is, to be looked at and inhaled. If perchance thou regardest a crown as a bunch of flowers gathered together in a certain order, in order that thou mayest carry the more at once, that thou mayest use all together, then stick them in thy bosom, if such be their neatness; strew them on thy bed, if such be their delicacy; commit them to thy cup, if such be their harmlessness. Enjoy them in as many ways as thou hast senses. But what savour is there in the flower, what perception of the crown (except only as a bandage) on the head, whereby colour is not perceived, nor scent inhaled, nor softness commended? It is as much against nature to follow after flowers by the head, as to follow after food by the ear, sound by the nose. But every thing which is against nature, deserveth to be noted as a monstrous thing among all men; but among us to be styled also sacrilege against God, the Lord and Author of nature.
VI. Dost thou look then for a law from God? thou hast that universal one, in the public record of the world, in the tables of Nature, to which even the Apostle is wont to appeal. As when he saith touching the veil of the woman, Doth not even nature teach you? as when he writeth to the Romans, saying that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, and putteth them in mind that there is a law given by nature, and a nature which is law. But in the former part of this Epistle also, when he declareth that men and women had changed amongst themselves the natural use of their being, into that which is against nature, their sin being by a just recompense turned into their punishment, he manifestly advocateth the natural use. Even God Himself we first begin to know by nature, both when we call Him the God of gods, and assume that He is good, and call upon Him as our Judge. Dost thou question whether, in the enjoyment of His creatures, nature ought to be our guide, lest we be carried away by that way, by which the enemy of God hath corrupted, together with man himself, the whole creation put in subjection to man for certain uses; whence also the Apostle saith that it was made subject to vanity, not willingly, being subverted first through vain uses, and then through such as were vile, and unrighteous, and ungodly? It is thus that, as touching the pleasures of the shows, the creation hath been dishonoured by those, who by nature indeed know that all the things, wherewith the shows are furnished, are of God, but lack knowledge to understand this also, that all these things have been changed by the Devil. But on this subject, I have, for the sake of our play-lovers, written fully in Greek also.
VII. Let then these advocates of crowns meanwhile acknowledge the authority of nature, under the name of common wisdom, in that they are men, but as the tokens of their own religion, in that they are the nearest worshippers of the God of nature. And so let them, as over and above, examine the other reasons also, which forbid crowns, and those of every sort, to our heads especially. For indeed we are now compelled to turn from the rule of nature, which all have in common, to maintain all the specialties of the Christian rule, by considering other kinds of crowns also, which seem to be provided for other uses, as being framed of other materials; lest, because they are not made of flowers, the use of which nature hath pointed out, (as, for instance, this laurel crown of the soldiers,) they may be thought not liable to the prohibition of our sect, because they fall without the preclusive rule of Nature. I see therefore that we must deal more nicely and more fully with the question, from the first beginnings to the progress and the end of the matter. For this some worldly learning will be necessary, for worldly things must be shewn by their own documents. What little I have attained unto will, I believe, be sufficient. If there was ever a certain Pandora, whom Hesiod mentions as the first of woman-kind, her’s was the first head that was crowned by the Graces, when she received gifts from all the gods, whence her name Pandora. But to us Moses, a prophetic, not a poetic, shepherd, describeth the first woman Eve, as having her loins girt with leaves rather than her head with flowers. Pandora therefore there was none. But the origin of the crown is a thing to be ashamed of, even for its false history; yea, and it will soon appear, for its true one also. For of the rest it is known for certain that they were the originators or illustrators of the thing. Pherecydes relateth that Saturn was crowned before all others: Diodorus that Jupiter was, after conquering the Titans. The same writer giveth to Priapus also fillets for the head, and to Ariadne a garland of gold and Indian jewels, the work of Vulcan, the gift of Bacchus, and afterwards a constellation. Callimachus hath put the vine-branch upon Juno. So also her statue at Argos, crowned with vine-leaves, with the skin of a lion placed beneath its feet, displayeth the step-mother boasting over the spoils of both her step-sons. Hercules carrieth on his head the leaves sometimes of the poplar, sometimes of the wild olive, sometimes of parsley. Thou hast the tragedy of Cerberus: thou hast Pindar: and Callimachus, who relateth that Apollo also, after killing the serpent at Delphi, put on a laurel crown, in that he was a suppliant; for among the ancients suppliants wore crowns: Harpocration argueth that Bacchus, the same who among the Ægyptians is Osiris, is purposely crowned with ivy, because it is the nature of ivy to protect the brain from stupor. But besides this, even the vulgar acknowledge that Bacchus is the author without doubt of the laurel crown, in which he triumphed after his Indian wars, in that they call his solemn feast days, “the Great Crown.” If thou turnest over the writings of Leo the Ægyptian also, Isis first carried on her head the ears of corn, her own discovery, a thing rather pertaining to the belly. To those who seek for more examples, Claudius Saturninus, the very best commentator on this as on other subjects, will furnish all that can be had. For he hath a book upon crowns so fully treating of their origins, and their causes, and their varieties, and the solemnities pertaining to them, that there is not one beautiful flower, not one luxuriant leaf, not one sod or tendril which thou mayest not find consecrated to the head of some one. Whereby we are sufficiently taught, how foreign a thing from us we ought to consider the custom of crowning the head, first brought forward by those, and afterwards employed to the honour of those, whom the world hath believed to be gods. For if the Devil, who was a liar from the beginning, doth in this thing also work out his lying pretensions to divinity, without doubt he had himself also provided those, who might become his agents in pretending to divinity. What then must be thought among the people of the true God of a thing, which, being introduced by the Devil’s suitors, hath been also dedicated to the same from the beginning, and which even then was initiated into the service of idolatry by idols, and those idols yet alive? Not as though the idol was any thing, but because the things, which others do unto idols, pertain to devils. Moreover if the things, which others do unto idols, pertain to devils, how much more that which the idols, while yet alive, have done unto themselves! In truth the devils themselves have provided for themselves through those, in whose persons they before hungered for that which they have provided.
VIII. Do thou maintain then this belief in the mean time, while I sift an objection which meeteth me. For already I hear it said that many other things also, which were first brought to light by those whom the world hath believed to be gods, are nevertheless found in daily use, both among ourselves and the ancient saints, and in the things of God, and in Christ Himself, Who lived the life of a man, through no other than the common means of human life. Be it so by all means: nor will I enquire any farther back into the origin of these things. Let Mercury have been the first teacher of letters: I shall allow that they are necessary for our intercourse with the world, and in our services towards God. And if it be he also who tuned the strings of instruments to music, I must not deny, while I listen to David, that the saints had the same talent on their side, and that it ministered unto God. Let Æsculapius be the first that invented medicines: I remember that Esaias also prescribed something medicinal to Hezekiah, when he was sick. Paul also knoweth that a little wine is profitable for the stomach. But let Minerva too be the first who built a ship: I cannot but see Jonah and the Apostles sailing in ships. And more than this—even Christ must have His robe; even Paul must have his cloak. If they name some one of the gods of the world as the inventor of every single article of furniture, and of each particular vessel, they must needs remember Christ, both when He sat upon a couch, and when He proffereth the basin for the feet of His disciples, and when He poureth water therein out of a pitcher, and when He girdeth Himself with a linen towel, the very clothing proper to Osiris. To this sort of argument I can answer thus: I allow indeed the common use of such implements, but demand that it shall be tested by the rule of distinction between things reasonable and things not reasonable, because this generalizing of the subject is fallacious, keeping out of sight the corruption of the creature, whereby it is made subject to vanity. For we say, in a word, that those things are meet both for our own uses, and for those of our fathers, and for the things of God, and for Christ Himself, which provide mere benefits, and certain helps, and honourable comforts in things necessary to human life: so that they may be thought to have been first inspired by God Himself, Who first prepared provision, and instruction, and, if you will, pleasure for His own creature, man: while the things, which transgress this line, are not meet for our uses, especially such things as are, for this reason I mean, not to be found either in the world, or in the things of God, or in the conversation of Christ.
IX. Finally, what Patriarch, what Prophet, what Levite, or Priest, or Ruler, what Apostle in after times, or Evangelist, or Bishop is found to have been crowned? Nor, methinks, was even the temple of God, nor the ark of the covenant, nor the tabernacle of the testimony, nor the altar, nor the candlestick, which it would have surely been meet should be crowned, both in the solemnity of their first dedication, and next in the rejoicings at their restoration, if this had been worthy of God. But if they were figures of ourselves, (for we are both temples of God, and His altars, and lights, and vessels,) this also they foreshewed in a figure, that the men of God ought not to be crowned. The reality ought to answer to the image. If so be thou objectest that Christ was crowned, to this thou shalt now hear a short answer: ‘Be thou also crowned in like manner: it is lawful for thee.’ Nevertheless the people did not contrive even this crown of impious mockery. It was a device of the Roman soldiers, according to the custom of the world, which the people of God have never allowed either under the name of public rejoicing or of inborn luxury: that people, which returned from the captivity in Babylon with cymbals and pipes and psalteries rather than with crowns, and who after eating and drinking rose up to play without crowns. For neither the description of their rejoicing, nor the reproof of their wantonness, would have been silent concerning either the honour or the dishonour of the crown. So also Esaias saith, since they drink wine with cymbals and pipes and psalteries, he would have said also ‘with crowns,’ if this custom had ever been used in the things of God.
X. Wherefore, in alleging that the ornaments of the gods of this world are found to pertain also to the true God, in order that thou mayest claim for common use, among these ornaments, a crown also for the head, in this thou layest down a rule for thyself, that whatsoever is not found in the things of God must not be applied to common use. For what is so unworthy of God, as that which is worthy of an idol? and what so worthy of an idol, as that which is worthy also of a dead man? for it belongeth to the dead also to be so crowned, since they themselves also immediately become idols, both in their dress and in the worship paid in their consecration, which with us is but a second sort of idolatry. It will be therefore the part of those, who are without sense, so to use that of which they have no sense, as though they would abuse it if they were not without sense. For when the real use of a thing ceaseth, from the ceasing of the natural sense, there is nothing between this and its abuse. Let any one abuse a thing as he will, when he hath not wherewith to use it. But for us it is not lawful to abuse things, according to the Apostle, who teacheth us rather not to use them: unless we say that they who have no sense do not even abuse them, but that the whole work is nothing, and is itself also dead as regardeth the idols, though clearly not dead as regardeth the dæmons, to whom the superstition appertaineth. The idols of the nations, saith David, are silver and gold. They have eyes, and see not; noses, and smell not; hands, and handle not. For it is by these members that one must enjoy flowers. But if he declareth that they that make idols shall be like unto them, then are they like unto them, who use any thing according to the fashion of idols. To the pure all things are pure; so also to them that are defiled all things are impure. Now nothing is more defiled than idols. But all substances are pure, as being the creatures of God, and, in this their character, meet for the use of all: but the application of this very use maketh the difference. For even I kill a fowl for myself, no less than Socrates did for Æsculapius: and if the savour of any place offendeth me, I burn something from Arabia, but not with the same ceremony, nor in the same dress, nor with the same outward show with which men deal with idols. For if the creature is defiled by a bare word, (as the Apostle teacheth, But if any man say this is offered in sacrifice to idols, touch it not;) much more is it defiled, when thou dancest in the dress, and with the ceremony and the outward show pertaining to things offered unto idols. Thus the crown also becometh a thing offered to idols; for it is with this dress, and ceremony, and outward show, that the offering is made to the idol by those who first invented it, to whom, on this account especially, the use thereof properly belongeth, that nothing may be allowed for common use, which is not found in the things of God. For this reason the Apostle crieth out, flee from idolatry, of every kind, doubtless, and altogether. Examine all the branches of the matter, and see how many thorns lurk therein. Nothing must be given to an idol; so neither must any thing be taken from an idol. If to sit in the idol’s temple, be foreign to the faith, what is it to be seen in the idol’s dress? What communion hath Christ with Belial? Wherefore flee therefrom. For he commandeth that we be far separate from idolatry: in nothing must we come nigh unto it. Even an earthly serpent sucketh in men from a distance with its breath. John proceedeth still farther: Little children, saith he, keep yourselves from idols. He saith not now, from idolatry, as from a service, but from idols, that is from their very likeness. For it is not meet that thou, being the image of the living God, shouldest become the image of an idol and a dead man. Thus far do we claim for idols the sole property in this dress, both because of the origin, to which it is traced, and because of the superstitious use of it; and moreover from this also, that since it is not numbered among the things of God, it is reckoned more and more the representation of those, in whose ancient and solemn rites and services it is met with. Of these even the very doors, and the very victims and altars, and the very ministers and priests are crowned. Thou hast in Claudius the crowns of all the various colleges of priests. But we have interposed this distinction of the difference between things reasonable and things unreasonable, to meet those who by occasion of some particular instances maintain a communion in all. With a view therefore to this part of our subject, it remaineth that the causes for wearing crowns be now themselves examined, that, whilst we shew that they are foreign, yea, contrary to true Religion, we may prove that not one of them is so supported by the voice of Reason, that any dress of this kind can be claimed for the use of all; although there be some whose examples are objected to us.
XI. For to begin with the cause of the military crown itself, I think we must first enquire whether military service generally be meet for Christians. Otherwise what availeth to treat of incidental circumstances, when there is a fault in first principles? Do we believe that a human sacrament may supersede a Divine one, and that a man may pledge his faith to another lord after Christ? and renounce father and mother and all that are nearest to him, whom the Law teacheth should be honoured and loved next to God, whom the Gospel also hath in like manner honoured, only not valuing them more than Christ? Shall it be lawful for him to deal with the sword, when the Lord declareth that he that useth the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace act in battle, whom it will not befit even to go to law? Shall he administer bonds and imprisonment, and tortures, and punishments, who may not avenge even his own injuries. Again, shall he keep his station either for any others rather than for Christ, or on the Lord’s Day, when he doth it not even for Christ? And shall he keep watch before those temples which he hath renounced? And shall he sit at meat where the Apostle would not have him? And shall he defend by night those, whom in the day-time he hath put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting upon a spear, wherewith the side of Christ was pierced? shall he also carry the standard, the rival of Christ? and shall he ask a sign from his general, who hath already received one from God? Shall he also when dead be disturbed by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who waiteth to be awakened by the trump of the Angel? and shall the Christian be burned, according to the rules of the camp, to whom it was not lawful to burn any thing? to whom Christ hath given remission of the fire which he hath deserved? How many other things may we see around us, among those committed in the service of the camp, which must needs be construed as sin! The very transferring his enrolment from the army of light to the army of darkness is sin. Clearly if their after-conversion to the Faith findeth any preoccupied in military service, their case is a different one, as was that of those whom John admitted to baptism, as was that of those most true believers the Centurions, him whom Christ approved, and him whom Peter instructed: though notwithstanding, when the Faith hath been embraced and sealed, a man must either straightway quit the service, as hath been done by many, or must in every way demur to doing any thing against God, which things are not allowed, no, not on the ground of military service, or finally he must suffer for God’s sake, to which also the faith of one who is not a soldier hath pledged him. For the service of war will not promise him either impunity in sinning or immunity from martyrdoms. A Christian is no where any thing but a Christian. The Gospel is one, and Jesus is the Same; Who will deny every one that denieth God, and will confess every one that confesseth Him: and Who will save that life, which hath been lost for His Name’s sake; but on the other hand will destroy that, which hath been gained against His Name. In His sight, the believer who is no soldier is as much a soldier, as the unbeliever who is a soldier is no soldier. A state of faith alloweth no pleas of necessity. They have no necessity for sinning who are under the single necessity of not sinning. For a man is urged by the necessity imposed by tortures or penalties, both to sacrifice and directly to deny his faith. But our Religion doth not even wink at this necessity; because the necessity of fearing to deny the faith, and of undergoing martyrdom, is stronger than that of escaping suffering and fulfilling the required task. But an excuse of this sort overthroweth the whole substance of our sacramental vow in loosening the check even upon wilful sins. For even the will may be maintained to be necessity, in that it admitteth of being compelled. I might, as a first step, set up this very necessity in bar of all other reasons for crowns of office, in which the plea of necessity is most common. Since there is a necessity that the offices be shunned for this reason, that we fall not into sins, or else that martyrdoms be endured that we may break through the offices. On the first head of the question, whether even military service in itself be not unlawful, I shall say no more, in order that the second may be brought forward: lest, if, using my whole strength, I put military service out of the question, I should then be uselessly challenging a dispute touching the military crown. Suppose then that military service is lawful even to the point of its being the cause for wearing the crown.
XII. But let us first speak of the crown itself. This laurel is sacred to Apollo or to Bacchus: to the one as the God of arrows, to the other as the God of triumphs. So teacheth Claudius, when he saith that soldiers are wont to be crowned with the myrtle also: for that the myrtle belongeth to Venus the mother of the race of Æneas, the mistress also of Mars, who, through Ilia and the twin Romuli, is of Roman kin. But I do not believe that Venus is, like Mars, attached to Rome, through the quarter in which her grievance as his mistress lieth. Since the soldiery are crowned with the olive also, this is idolatry to Minerva, who is equally the goddess of arms, but crowned with this tree for the peace also which she made with Neptune. In these respects the superstition of the military wreath will be every where defiled and defiling; and so the whole will be directly defiled in the very source. Behold now! what think ye of the yearly recitation of vows, first in the head-quarters, secondly in the Capitoline temples? Next to the ‘places,’ hear what are the ‘words’ used: ‘Then have we vowed, O Jupiter, that an offering shall be made to thee with an ox having his horns crowned with gold.’ What do the words import? surely a denial of the Faith. Although in such a case the Christian be silent with the mouth, yet by wearing the crown on his head he hath responded. The same laurel, in the distribution of the bounty-money, is denounced as idolatry, certainly not without hire, since it selleth Christ for certain pieces of gold, as Judas did for pieces of silver. Shall this be the meaning of, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon, to give the hand to Mammon and to forsake God? Shall this be the meaning of Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, not to render the man to God, and to take the penny from Cæsar? Is the triumphal laurel crown strewed with leaves, or with corpses? Is it adorned with plates of metal, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? perhaps even of some Christians, for Christ is among barbarians also. Hath not he, who weareth on his head the cause of all this, himself also assailed them? There is also another kind of soldiery in the royal households; they are called also ‘of the camp,’ being moreover themselves bound to do service at the imperial solemnities. But thou also art henceforth the soldier and the servant of another: and if of two, of God and of Cæsar, thou art surely not Cæsar’s at the time when thou owest thyself to God, the greater Master of the two, methinks, even in things not sacred.
XIII. There are also state-occasions for crowning orders of the state with laurel, and magistrates moreover with golden crowns, as at Athens, as at Rome. Above even these are placed the Tuscan: this is the name of those crowns, which, distinguished by jewels and oak-leaves of gold, in honour of Jupiter, they use, together with striped cloaks, in accompanying the procession of the cars. There are also provincial crowns of gold which now require the larger heads of statues and not of men. But thy order, and thy magistracies, and the very name of thy court, is the Church of Christ. His thou art, being enrolled in the books of life. There is thy purple, the Blood of the Lord, and thy broad ‘clavus’ in His Cross: there is the axe, laid unto the root of the tree,—there are the rods, out of the root of Jesse. No matter also for the public horses with their crowns. Thy Lord, when He would enter Jerusalem according to the Scriptures, had not even an ass of His own. These in chariots, and these in horses, but we will call on the name of the Lord our God. In the Revelation of John we are withheld even from dwelling in this Babylon; much more from her pomp. The common people also are crowned, sometimes out of joy for the prosperity of their princes, sometimes according to the special custom of the solemnities of their cities: and extravagance layeth hold of all public rejoicing. But thou art a stranger in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem which is above. Our citizenship, saith he, is in Heaven. Thou hast thine own enrolment, thine own solemn days. Thou hast no concern with the rejoicings of the world, yea thou oughtest to do the contrary; for the world shall rejoice, and ye shall lament. And methinks He saith, Blessed are they that mourn, not ‘they that are crowned.’ Marriage also crowneth the betrothed: wherefore let us not marry with heathens, lest they bring us even to idolatry, with which marriage among them beginneth. Thou hast a law even from the Patriarchs: thou hast an Apostle commanding thee to marry in the Lord. The making also a freeman in this world is an occasion of crowning. But thou art already redeemed by Christ, and that at a great price. How shall the world set free another’s servant? Although it seemeth to be freedom, yet was it seen also to be a state of service. In the world all things are imaginary, and nothing real: for even then, when thou wert redeemed by Christ, thou wert free from man, and now although made free by man, thou art Christ’s servant. If thou thinkest that the freedom of this world is true liberty, so that thou even distinguishest it by a crown, thou hast returned to the service of man, which thou thinkest to be liberty: thou hast lost the liberty of Christ, which thou thinkest to be service. Will the occasions furnished by the games also be disputed, which their own titles at once condemn? as pertaining, that is, to sacred and funereal rites. For it remaineth only that the Olympian Jupiter, and the Nemean Hercules, and the poor little Archemorus, and the unhappy Antinous be crowned in the Christian, that he himself may become the spectacle, where he ought to be the spectator. We have, methinks, enumerated all the occasions: and not one of them are our concern: all are foreign to us, profane, unlawful, renounced once for all in our sacramental profession. For these were the pomps of the Devil and his angels, the offices of the world, its honours, its solemnities, its popular arts, its false vows, its human services, its vain praises, its shameful glories. And in all these things there is idolatry, if only in the character of the crowns, with which all these things are adorned. Claudius will begin by telling us that, in the verses of Homer, even the Heaven is crowned with stars: certainly by God; certainly for man: wherefore man himself also ought to be crowned by God. But by the world are crowned brothels, and baths, and the mill, and the prison, and the school, and the very amphitheatres, and the very places for stripping the slain, and the very funerals themselves. How doubly sacred, how honourable and pure is this dress, judge not from the “heaven” of the Poet alone, but by the conversation of the whole world! But the Christian will not dishonour even his door with laurels, if he knoweth how many gods the Devil hath fabricated even for doors; Janus, from ‘janua,’ Limentinus, from ‘limen,’ Forculus and Carda, from ‘fores’ and ‘cardines;’ and among the Greeks, Apollo ‘Thyræus,’ ‘of the door,’ and the Dæmons called Antelii, ‘facing the sun.’
XIV. So far must the Christian be from putting this work of idolatry upon his own head, yea, I might even say, upon Christ, if so be that Christ is the head of the man, which head is as free as Christ Himself, not obliged to wear even a veil, far less a bandage. Moreover also the head which is obliged to wear a veil, the head of the woman, being already occupied by the veil, hath not room for the bandage also: she beareth the burden of her own subjection. If she ought not to be seen with her head uncovered, because of the Angels, much more, having her head crowned, will she offend those who are perhaps at the same time wearing their crowns. For what is a crown on the head of a woman but the pander of her beauty, the highest mark of lewdness, the extreme denial of modesty, the contriver of allurement? Wherefore also the woman will not be too carefully adorned, according to what the Apostle provideth, that she be not crowned even by the plaiting of the hair. But He that is both the Head of the man, and the Beauty of the woman, the Husband of the Church, Christ Jesus, what sort of crown, I pray thee, did He put on for both man and woman? ‘Twas one, methinks, of thorns and briers, as a figure of those sins, which the earth of our flesh hath brought forth unto us, but the power of the Cross hath taken away, overcoming the sharpness of every sting of death, in the sufferings of the head of the Lord. Surely, setting aside the figure, there is on the face of it mockery, and debasement, and dishonour, and mixed with these cruelty, which then defiled and tore the brow of the Lord, that thou mayest now be crowned with thy laurel, and thy myrtle, and thy olive, and every famous branch, and what is of more frequent use, with roses also of an hundred leaves culled from the garden of Midas, and lilies of either kind, and every sort of violets, even with jewels perchance and gold, that thou mayest rival also that crown of Christ, which came unto Him afterwards, because it was after the gall that He tasted the honey also, nor was He saluted as the King of Glory by the hosts of Heaven, before He had been proscribed upon the cross as the King of the Jews. Being first made by the Father a little lower than the angels, and so crowned with glory and worship. If for these things thou owest thy head to Him, pay Him if thou canst with such an head as His own was, when He offered it up for thine: or wear not a crown of flowers, if thou art not able to wear one of thorns; for thou art able not to wear one of flowers.
XV. Preserve undefiled for God that thing which is His own. He shall crown it, if He will. Yea and He doth will; He even inviteth thee thereto. To him that overcometh, saith He, I will give a crown of life. Be thou also faithful unto death. Fight thou also, the good fight, whereof the Apostle likewise with good cause trusteth that there is laid up for him a crown. The Angel also receiveth a crown of victory, going forth on a white horse to conquer. And another is adorned with a rainbow encircling him, like a meadow in the Heavens. The elders also sit wearing crowns; and with a like crown of gold the Son of man Himself shineth above the cloud. If such be the images in the vision, what will be the realities when truly presented? These be thy sights, these thy sweet savours! Why condemnest thou to the garland and the wreath, that head which is designed for a kingly crown? for Christ Jesus hath made us even kings unto God and His Father. What hast thou to do with a flower that dieth? Thou hast a flower out of the rod of Jesse, on which all the grace of the Spirit of God hath rested; a flower incorruptible, unwithering, everlasting, by choosing which, this good soldier hath been promoted to honour in the ranks of Heaven. Blush ye, his fellow-soldiers, who shall now stand condemned, not by him, but even by any soldier of Mithra, who, when he is enrolled in the cavern, the camp, in very truth, of darkness, when the crown is offered him, (a sword being placed between him and it, as if in mimicry of martyrdom,) and then fitted upon his head, is taught to put it aside from his head, meeting it with his hand, and to remove it, it may be, to his shoulder, saying that Mithra is his crown. And thenceforth he never weareth a crown, and he hath this as a sign whereby he is approved, if at any time he is tried touching his military oath: and he is forthwith believed to be a soldier of Mithra, if he throweth down his crown, if he declareth that he hath it in his God. See we the wiles of the Devil, who pretendeth to some of the ways of God for this cause, that, through the faithfulness of his own servants, he may put us to shame and condemn us.
NOTE E, ON C. XI. P. 176.
Tertullian, for the most part, in this chapter, rests his objections to military service, upon its involving offices inconsistent with the character of a Christian. Elsewhere, he directly approves of it. Apol. 5. 37. 42. ad Scap. c. 4. There can also be no doubt that war in itself is unbefitting Christians, implies a state of things miserably imperfect, and short of the promises of the Gospel. It seems questionable then, whether in those arguments, which go against military service altogether, he means more than to shew its contradiction to the Christian character in the abstract; and the more, since at the close of the argument he permits Christians to remain in it, if already in it, when called to be Christians, only suffering martyrdom rather than do any thing unlawful; which he would not have tolerated, had he thought it wholly forbidden. It is the free choice of such a profession which he condemns; and serious persons could not have chosen it amid such perils to the Faith.
In like way, Origen, in the passages in which he is supposed to pronounce the service illegal, is mostly speaking of its inconsistency with the character of the Gospel; it was not contrary to that of the Law, which, under certain circumstances, enjoined it, and established a polity which needed it; it was to that of the Gospel, which increased through suffering, (c. Cels. vii. 26.) and in which they were to “beat their swords into pruning-hooks.” (ib. v. 33.) In the same spirit, (viii. 73.) he claims for the Christians, as a spiritual priesthood, the same exemption as some of the Heathen Priesthoods had, not to defile themselves with blood; and says truly (with Tertullian, Apol c. 30.33.) that they availed more with their prayers for the Empire than others with their arms; since too there were at all times Christians in the Roman armies, it is not to be taken to the letter, when he says, (ib.) “and we war not with the Emperor, though he constrain us; but we war for him, banded into an army of piety, peculiar to ourselves, by intercessions unto God.” At the same time, both the objection of Celsus, and the answer of Origen, imply the fact, which was to be expected, that fewer Christians in proportion were to be found in the armies. Origen, however, no where maintains war to be lawful for Christians, for which Grotius (de Jur. Bell. et Pac.i.2.§.9.n.2.) and Spencer (in 1. viii. c. Cels. 73.) charge him with inconsistency. In iv. 82, where he says, that “the wars of bees are an instruction how just and due wars might, if needs be, take place among men,” there is no reference to Christians, in whom alone he held it was inconsistent; i. 1. is plainly an argumentum ad hominem only, that it was lawful for Christians to unite in a way unallowed by the state, to overthrow the tyranny of Satan, as it was “to remove a tyrant, who had taken possession of a city.” On the other hand, it does not appear that in speaking against the literal sense of Luke 22:35, 36. (tom. xv. in Matt. §. 2.) he means to speak against more than private requital of injuries. Lactantius, vi. 20. seems peremptorily to exclude all war. S. Basil also, Ep. 188. ad Amphiloch. (Canon. i.) Can. 13. recommends hesitatingly that such as have actually shed blood in war, be kept from the communion for three years, as having unclean hands.
On the other hand, S. Basil himself attests in the same Canon, “our fathers did not account man-slaying in wars, as man-slaying,” adding, “in my opinion, having compassion on those who fought in behalf of chastity and piety,” thus bearing witness to the Catholic practice, while counselling a restriction of it. (And of such voluntary self-restriction Theodosius furnishes an instance; “What, when having gained a splendid victory [over Eugenius], yet because the enemies were slain in the battle, he deprived himself of the participation of the Sacraments,” &c. S. Ambr. de Ob. Valent. §. 34. In either case, out of reverence, not to approach the Holy Eucharist, with hands which had recently any how shed man’s blood. S. Basil himself, in his Homily on the Forty Martyrs, both attests the fact of soldier-martyrs, and praises them, as “having acquired the highest honours with kings, for military experience, and valour of soul celebrated with all, for courage,” §. 2. as S. Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. c. Jul. §. 83 sqq.) implies without disapprobation that there were many Christians in Julian’s army. He also (Or. xix. ad Jul. Trib. Exæq. §. 11.) addresses soldiers on their duties, (cp. Ap. Const. viii. 32.) S. Ambrose, (de Off. i. 40, 41.) panegyrizes the valour of the mighty men of the Old Testament and of the Maccabean period; though among Christians he instances only the firmness of martyrs: he praises also the pious valour of Theodosius, (de Ob. Theod. §. 7.) as does S. Augustine, (de Civ. D. v. 26.) S. Augustine argues, (Ep. 138. (ol. 5.) ad Marcell. §. 14.) that wars against the evil were not inconsistent with charity; (§. 15. and ad Bonif. §. 5.) that if military service had been forbidden to Christians, the advice, to be “content with their wages,” would not have been given in the Gospel. He tells Boniface, himself a soldier, “Think not, no one can please God, who serves in arms of war,” appealing to David and the two Centurions, (Ep. 189. ol. 95.) and gives him practical rules, §. 6. e.g. “Peace should be in will, war, of necessity.” He defends it further, c. Faust. xxii. 74. 75. and shews that soldiers may lawfully carry on what, in those who declare it, is an unjust war. “But if war is waged out of the cupidity of man, this hurts not the saints—for there is no power, but of God, either commanding or permitting. A just man then, if perchance he be in military service under a king, who is even a sacrilegious man, may rightly war at his command, keeping the due order of internal peace, (to which what is commanded is either certain that it is not against the command of God, or not certain whether it be,) so that perchance the injustice of the command may make the king guilty, but the due order of obeying may prove the soldier innocent.”
The sayings of S. Aug. alleged on the other side, are such as these; “We are not to pray that our enemies should die,” (in Ps. 37. §. 14.) therefore, it is inferred, those of the land may not be killed in war; “we obtain this from the clemency of the Emperors, lest the sufferings of the servants of God, which ought to be glorious in the Church, should be dishonoured by the blood of their adversaries,” (Ep. 139. ol. 158. ad Marcell. §. 2. so Ep. 133. ad Marcellin. fin. 134. ad Apring. §. 3. quoted by Barclay,) therefore, the enemies of the state are not to be repelled by force. So Erasmus. In like way, Barclay (Apology, Prop. 15.) adduces several passages in which the Fathers speak against private resistance, as S. Ambr. in Luc 22. [v. 36. 1. x. §. 53.] S. Cyrill Al. 1. xi. in Joann. S. Chrys. Hom. 18. in Matt. 5. Hom. 85. in Matt. 26. S. Jerome, Ep. p. 3. t. i. ep. 2. [123. ad Ageruch. §. 13.] or contentions in the Church, as Ep. [77.] ad Ocean. §. 8.
On such authorities, Gibbon says, (c. 15. §. 4.) “nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either by the sword of justice or of that of war, even though their criminal or hostile attempt should threaten the peace or the safety of the whole community.”