This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
VERY lately it happened thus: while the bounty of our most
excellent emperors(2) was dispensed in the camp, the soldiers,
laurel-crowned, were approaching. One of them, more a soldier of God,
more stedfast than the rest of his brethren, who had imagined that they
could serve two masters, his head alone uncovered, the useless crown in
his hand—already even by that peculiarity known to every one as a
Christian—was nobly conspicuous. Accordingly, all began to mark him
out, jeering him at a distance, gnashing on him near at hand. The
murmur is wafted to the tribune, when the person had just left the
ranks..The tribune at once puts the question to him, Why are you so
different in your attire? He declared that he had no liberty to wear
the crown with the rest. Being urgently asked for his reasons, he
answered, I am a Christian. O soldier! boasting thyself in God. Then
the case was considered and voted on; the matter was remitted to a
higher tribunal; the offender was conducted to the prefects. At once he
put away the heavy cloak, his disburdening commenced; he loosed from
his foot the military shoe, beginning to stand upon holy ground; a he
gave up the sword, which was not necessary either for the protection of
our Lord; from his hand likewise dropped the laurel crown; and now,
purple-clad with the hope of his own blood, shod with the preparation
of the gospel, girt with the sharper word of God, completely equipped
in the apostles' armour, and crowned more worthily with the white crown
of martyrdom, he awaits in prison the largess of Christ. Thereafter
adverse judgments began to be passed upon his conduct—whether on the
part of Christians I do not know, for those of the heathen are not
different—as if he were headstrong and rash, and too eager to die,
because, in being taken to task about a mere matter of dress, he
brought trouble on the bearers of the Name,(4)—he, forsooth, alone
brave among so many soldier-brethren, he alone a Christian. It is plain
that as they have rejected the prophecies of the Holy Spirit,(5) they
are also purposing the refusal of martyrdom. So they murmur that a
peace so good and long is endangered for them. Nor do I doubt that some
are already turning their back on the Scriptures, are making ready
their luggage, are equipped for flight from city to city; for that is
all of the gospel they care to remember. I know, too, their pastors are
lions in peace, deer in the fight. As to the questions asked for
extorting confessions from us, we shall teach elsewhere. Now, as they
forth also the objection—But where are we forbidden to be crowned?—I
shall take this point up, as more suitable to be treated of here, being
the essence, in fact, of the present contention. So that, on the one
hand, the inquirers who are ignorant, but anxious, may be instructed;
and on the other, those may be refuted who try to vindicate the sin,
especially the laurel-crowned Christians themselves, to whom it is
merely a question of debate, as if it might be regarded as either no
trespass at all, or at least a doubtful one, because it may be made the
subject of investigation. That it is neither sinless nor doubtful, I
shall now, however, show.
I affirm that not one of the Faithful has ever a crown upon his
head, except at a time of trial. That is the case with all, from
catechumens to confessors and martyrs,(1) or (as the case may be)
deniers. Consider, then, whence the custom about which we are now
chiefly inquiring got its authority. But when the question is raised
why it is observed, it is meanwhile evident that it is observed.
Therefore that can neither be regarded as no offence, or an uncertain
one, which is perpetrated against a practice which is capable of
defence, on the ground even of its repute, and is sufficiently ratified
by the support of general acceptance. It is undoubted, so that we ought
to inquire into the reason of the thing; but without prejudice to the
practice, not for the purpose of overthrowing it, but rather of
building it up, that you may all the more carefully observe it, when
you are also satisfied as to its reason. But what sort of procedure is
it, for one to be bringing into debate a practice, when he has fallen
from it, and to be seeking the explanation of his having ever had it,
when he has left it off? Since, although he may wish to seem on this
account desirous to investigate it, that he may show that he has not
done wrong in giving it up, it is evident that he nevertheless
transgressed previously in its presumptuous observance. If he has done
no wrong to-day in accepting the crown he offended before in refusing
it. This treatise, therefore, will not be for those who not in a proper
condition for inquiry, but for those who, with the real desire of
getting instruction, bring forward, not a question for debate, but a
request for advice. For it is from this desire that a true inquiry
always proceeds; and I praise the faith which has believed in the duty
of complying with the rule, before it has learned the reason of it. An
easy thing it is at once to demand where it is written that we should
not be crowned. But is it written that we should be crowned? Indeed, in
urgently demanding the warrant of Scripture in a different side from
their own, men prejudge that the support of Scripture ought no less to
appear on their part. For if it shall be said that it is lawful to be
crowned on this ground, that Scripture does not forbid it, it will as
validly be retorted that just on this ground is the crown unlawful,
because the Scripture does not enjoin it. What shall discipline do?
Shall it accept both things, as if neither were forbidden? Or shall it
refuse both, as if neither were enjoined? But "the thing which is not
forbidden is freely permitted." I should rather say(2) that what has
not been freely allowed is forbidden.
And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line,
when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us
the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has
prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from
tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it
has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written
authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore,
whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted.
Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of
other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on
the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of
custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I
shall begin with baptism.(3) When we are going to enter the water, but
a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand
of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his
pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a
somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then
when we are taken up (as new-born children),(4) we taste first of all a
mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily
bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak,
and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and
enjoined to be taken by all alike.(5) As often as the anniversary comes
round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count
fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We
rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel
pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the
ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out,
when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at
table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on
seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon
the forehead the sign.(1)
If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having
positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be
held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their
strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support
tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or
learn from some one who has. Meanwhile you will believe that there is
some reason to which submission is due. I add still one case more, as
it will be proper to show you how it was among the ancients also. Among
the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that
they may thereby be recognised. I ask in this instance for the law. I
put the apostle aside. If Rebecca at once drew down her veil, when in
the distance she saw her betrothed, this modesty of a mere private
individual could not have made a law, or it will have made it only for
those who have the reason which she had. Let virgins alone be veiled,
and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have
recognised their destined husband. If Susanna also, who was subjected
to unveiling on her trial,(2) furnishes an argument for the veiling of
women, I can say here also, the veil was a voluntary thing. She had
come accused, ashamed of the disgrace she had brought on herself,
properly concealing her beauty, even because now she feared to please.
But I should not suppose that, when it was her aim to please, she took
walks with a veil on in her husband's avenue. Grant, now, that she was
always veiled. In this particular case, too, or, in fact, in that of
any other, I demand the dress-law. If I nowhere find a law, it follows
that tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find
subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the
true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it
sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten
tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when
demonstrated by long-continued observance.(3) But even in civil matters
custom is accepted as law, when positive legal enactment is wanting;
and it is the same thing whether it depends on writing or on reason,
since reason is, in fact, the basis of law. But, (you say), if reason
is the ground of law, all will now henceforth have to be counted law,
whoever brings it forward, which shall have reason as its ground.(4) Or
do you think that every believer is entitled to originate and establish
a law, if only it be such as is agreeable to God, as is helpful to
discipline, as promotes salvation, when the Lord says, "But why do you
not even of your own selves judge what is right?"(5) And not merely in
regard to a judicial sentence, but in regard to every decision in
matters we are called on to consider, the apostle also says, "If of
anything you are ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you;"(6) he
himself, too, being accustomed to afford counsel though he had not the
command of the Lord, and to dictate of himself(7) as possessing the
Spirit of God who guides into all truth. Therefore his advice has, by
the warrant of divine reason, become equivalent to nothing less than a
divine command. Earnestly now inquire of this teacher,(8) keeping
intact your regard for tradition, from whomsoever it originally sprang;
nor have regard to the author, but to the authority, and especially
that of custom itself, which on this very account we should revere,
that we may not want an interpreter; so that if reason too is God's
gift, you may then learn, not whether custom has to be followed by you,
but why.
The argument for Christian practices becomes all the stronger,
when also nature, which is the first rule of all, supports them. Well,
she is the first who lays it down that a crown does not become the
head. But I think ours is the God of nature, who fashioned man; and,
that he might desire, (appreciate, become partaker of) the pleasures
afforded by His creatures, endowed him with certain senses, (acting)
through members, which, so to speak, are their peculiar instruments.
The sense of hearing he has planted in the ears; that of sight, lighted
up in the eyes; that of taste, shut up in the mouth; that of smell,
wafted into the nose; that of touch, fixed in the tips of the fingers.
By means of these organs of the outer man doing duty to the inner man,
the enjoyments of the divine gifts are conveyed by the senses to the
soul.(9) What, then, in flowers affords you enjoyment? For it is the
flowers of the field which are the peculiar, at least the chief,
material of crowns. Either smell, you say, or colour, or both together.
What will be the senses of colour and smell? Those of seeing and
smelling, I suppose. What members have had these senses allotted to
them? The eyes and the nose, if I am not mistaken. With sight and
smell, then, make use of flowers, for these are the senses by which
they are meant to be enjoyed; use them by means of the eyes and nose,
which are the members to which these senses belong. You have got the
thing from God, the mode of it from the world; but an extraordinary
mode does not prevent the use of the thing in the common way. Let
flowers, then, both when fastened into each other and tied together in
thread and rush, be what they are when free, when loose—things to be
looked at and smelt. You count it a crown, let us say, when you have a
bunch of them bound together in a series, that you may carry many at
one time that you may enjoy them all at once. Well, lay them in your
bosom if they are so singularly pure, and strew them on your couch if
they are so exquisitely soft, and consign them to your cup if they are
so perfectly harmless. Have the pleasure of them in as many ways as
they appeal to your senses. But what taste for a flower, what sense for
anything belonging to a crown but its band, have you in the head, which
is able neither to distinguish colour, nor to inhale sweet perfumes,
nor to appreciate softness? It is as much against nature to long after
a flower with the head, as it is to crave food with the ear, or sound
with the nostril. But everything which is against nature deserves to be
branded as monstrous among all men; but with us it is to be condemned
also as sacrilege against God, the Lord and Creator of nature.
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing
all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle
too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says,
"Does not even Nature teach you?"(1)—as when to the Romans, affirming
that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires,(2)
he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also
in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he
asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use
of the creature into that which is unnatural,(3) by way of penal
retribution for their error. We first of all indeed know God Himself by
the teaching of Nature, calling Him God of gods, taking for granted
that He is good, and invoking Him as Judge. Is it a question with you
whether for the enjoyment of His creatures, Nature should be our guide,
that we may not be carried away in the direction in which the rival of
God has corrupted, along with man himself, the entire creation which
had been made over to our race for certain uses, whence the apostle
says that it too unwillingly became subject to vanity, completely
bereft of its original character, first by vain, then by base,
unrighteous, and ungodly uses? It is thus, accordingly, in the
pleasures of the shows, that the creature is dishonoured by those who
by nature indeed perceive that all the materials of which shows are got
up belong to God, but lack the knowledge to perceive as well that they
have all been changed by the devil. But with this topic we have, for
the sake of our own play-lovers, sufficiently dealt, and that, too, in
a work in Greek.(4)
Let these dealers in crowns then recognize in the meantime the
authority of Nature, on the ground of a common sense as human beings,
and the certifications of their peculiar religion, as, according to the
last chapter, worshippers of the God of nature; and, as it were, thus
over and above what is required, let them consider those other reasons
too which forbid us wearing crowns, especially on the head, and indeed
crowns of every sort. For we are obliged to turn from the rule of
Nature, which we share with mankind in general, that we may maintain
the whole peculiarity of our Christian discipline, in relation also to
other kinds of crowns which seem to have been provided for different
uses, as being composed of different substances, lest, because they do
not consist of flowers, the use of which nature has indicated (as it
does in the case of this military laurel one itself), they may be
thought not to come Under the prohibition of our sect, since they have
escaped any objections of nature. I see, then, that we must go into the
matter both with more research, and more fully, from its beginnings on
through its successive stages Of growth to its more erratic
developments. For this we need to turn to heathen literature, for
things belonging to the heathen must be proved from their own
documents. The little of this I have acquired, will, I believe, be
enough. If there really was a Pandora, whom Hesiod mentions as the
first of women, hers was the first head the graces crowned, for she
received gifts from all the gads whence she got her name Pandora. But
Moses, a prophet, not a poet-shepherd, shows us the first woman Eve
having her loins more naturally girt about with leaves than her temples
with flowers. Pandora, then, is a myth. And so we have to blush for the
origin of the crown, even on the ground of the falsehood connected with
it; and, as will soon appear, on the ground no less of its realities.
For it is an undoubted fact that certain persons either originated the
thing, or shed lustre on it. Pherecydes relates that Saturn was the
first who wore a crown; Diodorus, that Jupiter, after conquering the
Titans, was honoured with this gift by the rest of the gods. To Priapus
also the same author assigns fillets; and to Ariadne a garland of gold
and of Indian gems, the gift of Vulcan, afterwards of Bacchus, and
subsequently turned into a constellation. Callimachus has put a vine
crown upon Juno. So too at Argos, her statue, vine-wreathed, with a
lion's skin placed beneath her feet, exhibits the stepmother exulting
over the spoils of her two step-sons. Hercules displays upon his head
sometimes poplar, sometimes wild-olive, sometimes parsley. You have the
tragedy of Cerberus; you have Pindar; and besides Callimachus, who
mentions that Apollo, too when he had killed the Delphic serpent, as a
suppliant, put on a laurel garland; for among the ancients suppliants
were wont to be crowned. Harpocration argues that Bacchus the same as
Osiris among the Egyptians, was designedly crowned with ivy, because it
is the nature of ivy to protect the brain against drowsiness. But that
in another way also Bacchus was the originator of the laurel crown (the
crown) in which he celebrated his triumph over the Indians, even the
rabble acknowledge, when they call the days dedicated to him the "great
crown." If you open, again, the writings of the Egyptian Leo, you learn
that Isis was the first who discovered and wore ears of corn upon her
head—a thing more suited to the belly. Those who want additional
information will find an ample exposition of the subject in Claudius
Saturninus, a writer of distinguished talent who treats this question
also, for he has a book on crowns, so explaining their beginnings as
well as causes, and kinds, and rites, that you find all that is
charming in the flower, all that is beautiful in the leafy branch, and
every sod or vine-shoot has been dedicated to some head or other;
making it abundantly clear how foreign to us we should judge the custom
of the crowned head, introduced as it was by, and thereafter constantly
managed for the honour of, those whom the world has believed to be
gods. If the devil, a liar from the beginning, is even in this matter
working for his false system of godhead (idolatry), he had himself also
without doubt provided for his god-lie being carried out. What sort of
thing, then, must that be counted among the people of the true God,
which was brought in by the nations in honour of the devil's
candidates, and was set apart from the beginning to no other than
these; and which even then received its consecration to idolatry by
idols and in idols yet alive? Not as if an idol were anything, but
since the things which others offer up to idols belong to demons. But
if the things which others offer to them belong to demons how much more
what idols offered to themselves, when they were in life! The demons
themselves, doubtless, had made provision for themselves by means of
those whom they had possessed, while in a state of desire and craving,
before provision had been actually made.
Hold fast in the meantime this persuasion, while I examine a
question which comes in our way. For I already hear it is said, that
many other things as well as crowns have been invented by those whom
the world believes to be gods, and that they are notwithstanding to be
met with both in our present usages and in those of early saints, and
in the service of God, and in Christ Himself, who did His work as man
by no other than these ordinary instrumentalities of human life. Well,
let it be so; nor shall I inquire any further back into the origin of
this things. Let Mercury have been the first who taught the knowledge
of letters; I will own that they are requisite both for the business
and commerce of life, and for performing our devotion to God. Nay, if
he also first strung the chord to give forth melody, I will not deny,
when listening to David, that this invention has been in use with the
saints, and has ministered to God. Let AEsculapius have been the first
who sought and discovered cures: Esaias(1) mentions that he ordered
Hezekiah medicine when he was sick. Paul, too, knows that a little wine
does the stomach good.(2) Let Minerva have been the first who built a
ship: I shall see Jonah and the apostles sailing. Nay, there is more
than this: for even Christ, we shall find, has ordinary rai- ment;
Paul, too, has his cloak.(1) If at once, of every article of furniture
and each household vessel, you name some god of the world as the
originator, well, I must recognise Christ, both as He reclines on a
couch, and when He presents a basin for the feet of His disciples, and
when He pours water into it from a ewer, and when He is girt about with
a linen towel(2)—a garment specially sacred to Osiris. It is thus in
general I reply upon the point, admitting indeed that we use along with
others these articles, but challenging that this be judged in the light
of the distinction between things agreeable and things opposed to
reason, because the promiscuous employment of them is deceptive,
concealing the corruption of the creature, by which it has been made
subject to vanity. For we affirm that those things only are proper to
be used, whether by ourselves or by those who lived before us, and
alone befit the service of God and Christ Himself, which to meet the
necessities of human life supply what is simply; useful and affords
real assistance and honourable comfort, so that they may be well
believed to have come from God's own inspiration, who first of all no
doubt provided for and taught and ministered to the enjoyment, I should
suppose, of His own man. As for the things which are out of this class,
they are not fit to be used among us, especially those which on that
account indeed are not to be found either with the world, or in the
ways of Christ.
In short, what patriarch, what prophet, what Levite, or priest,
or ruler, or at a later period what apostle, or preacher of the gospel,
or bishop, do you ever find the wearer of a crown?(3) I think not even
the temple of God itself was crowned; as neither was the ark of the
testament, nor the tabernacle of witness, nor the altar, nor the
candlestick crowned though certainly, both on that first solemnity of
the dedication, and in that second rejoicing for the restoration,
crowning would have been most suitable if it were worthy of God. But if
these things were figures of us (for we are temples of God, and altars,
and lights, and sacred vessels), this too they in figure set forth,
that the people of God ought not to be crowned. The reality must always
correspond with the image. If, perhaps, you object that Christ Himself
was crowned, to that you will get the brief reply: Be you too crowned,
as He was; you have full permission. Yet even that crown of insolent
ungodliness was not of any decree of the Jewish people. It was a device
of the Roman soldiers, taken from the practice of the world,—a
practice which the people of God never allowed either on the occasion
of public rejoicing or to gratify innate luxury: so they returned from
the Babylonish captivity with timbrels, and flutes, and psalteries,
more suitably than with crowns; and after eating and drinking,
uncrowned, they rose up to play. Neither would the account of the
rejoicing nor the exposure of the luxury have been silent touching the
honour or dishonour of the crown. Thus too Isaiah, as he says, "With
timbrels, and psalteries, and flutes they drink wine,"(4) would have
added "with crowns," if this practice had ever had place in the things
of God.
So, when you allege that the ornaments of the heathen deities are
found no less with God, with the object of claiming among these for
general use the head-crown, you already lay it down for yourself, that
we must not have among us, as a thing whose use we are to share with
others, what is not to be found in the service of God. Well, what is so
unworthy of God indeed as that which is worthy of an idol? But what is
so worthy of an idol as that which is also worthy of a dead man? For it
is the privilege of the dead also to be thus crowned, as they too
straightway become idols, both by their dress and the service of
deification, which (deification) is with us a second idolatry. Wanting,
then, the sense, it will be theirs to use the thing for which the sense
is wanting, just as if in full possession of the sense they wished to
abuse it. When there ceases to be any reality in the use, there is no
distinction between using and abusing. Who can abuse a thing, when the
precipient nature with which he wishes to carry out his purpose is not
his to use it? The apostle, moreover, forbids us to abuse, while he
would more naturally have taught us not to use, unless on the ground
that, where there is no sense for things, there is no wrong use of
them. But the whole affair is meaningless, and is, in fact, a dead work
so far as concerns the idols; though, without doubt, a living one as
respects the demons(5) to whom the religious rite belongs. "The idols
of the heathen," says David, "are silver and gold." "They have eyes,
and see not; a nose, and smell not; hands, and they will not
handle."(1) By means of these organs, indeed, we are to enjoy flowers;
but if he declares that those who make idols will be like them, they
already are so who use anything after the style of idol adornings. "To
the pure all things are pure: so, likewise, all things to the impure
are impure;"(2) but nothing is more impure than idols. The substances
are themselves as creatures of God without impurity, and in this their
native state are free to the use of all; but the ministries to which in
their use they are devoted, makes all the difference; for I, too, kill
a cock for myself, just as Socrates did for Aesculapius; and if the
smell of some place or other offends me, I burn the Arabian product
myself, but not with the same ceremony, nor in the same dress, nor with
the same pomp, with which it is done to idols.(3) If the creature is
defiled by a mere word, as the apostle teaches, "But if any one say,
This is offered in sacrifice to idols, you must not touch it,"(4) much
more when it is polluted by the dress, and rites, and pomp of what is
offered to the gods. Thus the crown also is made out to be an offering
to idols;(5) for with this ceremony, and dress, and pomp, it is
presented in sacrifice to idols, its originators, to whom its use is
specially given over, and chiefly on this account, that what has no
place among the things of God may not be admitted into use with us as
with others. Wherefore the apostle exclaims, "Flee idolatry:"(6)
certainly idolatry whole and entire he means. Reflect on what a thicket
it is, and how many thorns lie hid in it. Nothing must be given to an
idol, and so nothing must be taken from one. If it is inconsistent with
faith to recline in an idol temple, what is it to appear in an idol
dress? What communion have Christ and Belial? Therefore flee from it;
for he enjoins us to keep at a distance from idolatry—to have no close
dealings with it of any kind. Even an earthly serpent sucks in men at
some distance with its breath. Going still further, John says, "My
little children, keep yourselves from idols,"(7)—not now from
idolatry, as if from the service of it, but from idols—that is, from
any resemblance to them: for it is an unworthy thing that you, the
image of the living God, should become the likeness of an idol and a
dead man. Thus far we assert, that this attire belongs to idols, both
from the history of its origin, and from its use by false religion; on
this ground, besides, that while it is not mentioned as connected with
the worship of God, it is more and more given over to those in whose
antiquities, as well as festivals and services, it is found. In a word,
the very doors, the very victims and altars, the very servants and
priests, are crowned. You have, in Claudius, the crowns of all the
various colleges of priests. We have added also that distinction
between things altogether different from each other—things, namely,
agreeable, and things contrary to reason—in answer to those who,
because there happens to be the use of some things in common, maintain
the right of participation in all things. With reference to this part
of the subject, therefore, it now remains that the special grounds for
wearing crowns should be examined, that while we show these to be
foreign, nay, even opposed to our Christian discipline, we may
demonstrate that none of them have any plea of reason to support it, on
the basis of which this article of dress might be vindicated as one in
whose use we can participate, as even some others may whose instances
are cast up to us.
To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we
must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians.
What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on
which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human
oath(8) to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise
to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all
nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love
next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less
account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be
held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims
that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son
of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to
sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the
torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own
wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more
than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord's day, when he does not
even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the
temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the
apostle has forbidden him?(1) And shall he diligently protect by night
those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms,
leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ's side was
pierced? Shall he carry a flag,(2) too, hostile to Christ? And shall he
ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God?
Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who
expects to be aroused by the angel's trump? And shall the Christian be
burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn
incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire?
Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of
camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God's
law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over
from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of
course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military
service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John
used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I
mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter
instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and
faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of
it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will
have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not
allowed even outside of military service;(3) or, last of all, for God
the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready
to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from
punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the
Christian change his character. There is one gospel, and the same
Jesus, who will one day deny every one who denies, and acknowledge
every one who acknowledges God,—who will save, too, the life which has
been lost for His sake; but, on the other hand, destroy that which for
gain has been saved to His dishonour. With Him the faithful citizen is
a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen.(4) A state of
faith admits no plea of necessity; they are under no necessity to sin,
whose one necessity is, that they do not sin. For if one is pressed to
the offering of sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ by the
necessity of torture or of punishment, yet discipline does not connive
even at that necessity; because there is a higher necessity to dread
denying and to undergo martyrdom, than to escape from suffering, and to
render the homage required. In fact, an excuse of this sort overturns
the entire essence of our sacrament, removing even the obstacle to
voluntary sins; for it will be possible also to maintain that
inclination is a necessity, as involving in it, forsooth, a sort of
compulsion. I have, in fact, disposed of this very allegation of
necessity with reference to the pleas by which crowns connected with
official position are vindicated, in support of which it is in common
use, since for this very reason offices must be either refused, that we
may not fall into acts of sin, or martyrdoms endured that we may get
quit of offices. Touching this primary aspect of the question, as to
the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more,
that the secondary question may be restored to its place. Indeed, if,
putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military
life, I should now to no purpose issue a challenge on the matter of the
military crown. Suppose, then, that the military service is lawful, as
far as the plea for the crown is concerned.(5)
But I first say a word also about the crown itself. This laurel
one is sacred to Apollo or Bacchus—to the former as the god of
archery, to the latter as the god of triumphs. In like manner Claudius
teaches; when he tells us that soldiers are wont too to be wreathed in
myrtle. For the myrtle belongs to Venus, the mother of the AEneadae,
the mistress also of the god of war, who, through Ilia and the Romuli
is Roman. But I do not believe that Venus is Roman as well as Mars,
because of the vexation the concubine gave her.(6) When military
service again is crowned with olive, the idolatry has respect to
Minerva, who is equally the goddess of arms—but got a crown of the
tree referred to, because of the peace she made with Neptune. In these
respects, the superstition of the military garland will be everywhere
defiled and all-defiling. And it is further defiled, I should think,
also in the grounds of it. Lo the yearly public pronouncing of vows,
what does that bear on its face to be? It takes place first in the part
of the camp where the general's tent is, and then in the temples. In
addition to the places, observe the words also: "We vow that you, O
Jupiter, will then have an ox with gold-decorated horns." What does the
utterance mean? Without a doubt the denial (of Christ). Albeit the
Christian says nothing in these places with the mouth, he makes his
response by having the crown on his head. The laurel is likewise
commanded (to be used) at the distribution of the largess. So you see
idolatry is not without its gain, selling, as it does, Christ for
pieces of gold, as Judas did for pieces of silver. Will it be "Ye
cannot serve God and mammon"(1) to devote your energies to mammon, and
to depart from God? Will it be "Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's,"(2) not only not to
render the human being to God, but even to take the denarius from
Caesar? Is the laurel of the triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is
it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments,
or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be of some Christians
too;(3) for Christ is also among the barbarians.(4) Has not he who has
carried (a crown for) this cause on his head, fought even against
himself? Another son of service belongs to the royal guards. And indeed
crowns are called (Castrenses), as belonging to the camp; Munificoe
likewise, from the Caesarean functions they perform. But even then you
are still the soldier and the servant of another; and if of two
masters, of God and Caesar: but assuredly then not of Caesar, when you
owe yourself to God, as having higher claims, I should think, even in
matters in which both have an interest.
For state reasons, the various orders of the citizens also are
crowned with laurel crowns; but the magistrates besides with golden
ones, as at Athens, and at Rome. Even to those are preferred the
Etruscan. This appellation is given to the crowns which, distinguished
by their gems and oak leaves of gold, they put on, with mantles having
an embroidery of palm branches, to conduct the chariots containing the
images of the gods to the circus. There are also provincial crowns of
gold, needing now the larger heads of images instead of those of men.
But your orders, and your magistracies, and your very place of meeting,
the church, are Christ's. You belong to Him, for you have been enrolled
in the books of life.(6) There the blood of the Lord serves for your
purple robe, and your broad stripe is His own cross; there the axe is
already laid to the trunk of the tree;(7) there is the branch out of
the root of Jesse.(8) Never mind the state horses with their crown.
Your Lord, when, according to the Scripture, He would enter Jerusalem
in triumph, had not even an ass of His own. These (put their trust) in
chariots, and these in horses; but we will seek our help in the name of
the Lord our God.(9) From so much as a dwelling in that Babylon of
John's Revelation(10) we are called away; much more then from its pomp.
The rabble, too, are crowned, at one time because of some great
rejoicing for the success of the emperors; at another, on account of
some custom belonging to municipal festivals. For luxury strives to
make her own every occasion of public gladness. But as for you, you are
a foreigner in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem, the city above. Our
citizenship, the apostle says, is in heaven.(11) You have your own
registers, your own calendar; you have nothing to do with the joys of
the world; nay, you are called to the very opposite, for "the world
shall rejoice, but ye shall mourn."(12) And I think the Lord affirms,
that those who mourn are happy, not those who are crowned. Marriage,
too, decks the bridegroom with its crown; and therefore we will not
have heathen brides, lest they seduce us even to the idolatry with
which among them marriage is initiated. You have the law from the
patriarchs indeed; you have the apostle enjoining people to marry in
the Lord.(13) You have a crowning also on the making of a freeman; but
you have been already ransomed by Christ, and that at a great price.
How shall the world manumit the servant of another? Though it seems to
be liberty, yet it will come to be found bondage. In the world
everything is nominal, and nothing real. For even then, as ransomed by
Christ, you were under no bondage to man; and now, though man has given
you liberty, you are the servant of Christ. If you think freedom of the
world to be real, so that you even seal it with a crown, you have
returned to the slavery of man, imagining it to be freedom; you have
lost the freedom of Christ, fancying it is slavery. Will there be any
dispute as to the cause of crown-wearing, which contests in the games
in their turn supply, and which, both as sacred to the gods and in
honour of the dead, their own reason at once condemns? It only remains,
that the Olympian Jupiter, and the Nemean Hercules, and the wretched
little Archemorus, and the hapless Antinous, should be crowned in a
Christian, that he himself may become a spectacle disgusting to behold.
We have recounted, as I think, all the various causes of the wearing of
the crown, and there is not one which has any place with us: all are
foreign to us, unholy, unlawful, having been abjured already once for
all in the solemn declaration of the sacrament. For they were of the
pomp of the devil and his angels, offices of the world,(1) honours,
festivals, popularity huntings, false vows, exhibitions of human
servility, empty praises, base glories, and in them all idolatry, even
in respect of the origin of the crowns alone, with which they are all
wreathed. Claudius will tell us in his preface, indeed, that in the
poems of Homer the heaven also is crowned with constellations, and that
no doubt by God, no doubt for man; therefore man himself, too, should
be crowned by God. But the world crowns brothels, and baths, and
bakehouses, and prisons, and schools, and the very amphitheatres, and
the chambers where the clothes are stripped from dead gladiators, and
the very biers of the dead. How sacred and holy, how venerable and pure
is this article of dress, determine not from the heaven of poetry
alone, but from the traffickings of the whole world. But indeed a
Christian will not even dishonour his own gate with laurel crowns, if
so be he knows how many gods the devil has attached to doors; Janus
so-called from gate, Limentinus from threshold, Forcus and Carna from
leaves and hinges; among the Greeks, too, the Thyraean Apollo, and the
evil spirits, the Antelii.
Much less may the Christian put the service of idolatry on his
own head—nay, I might have said, upon Christ, since Christ is the Head
of the Christian man—(for his head) is as free as even Christ is,
under no obligation to wear a covernig, not to say a band. But even the
head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman's, as already taken
possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a band. She has
the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with
her head uncovered on account of the angels,(2) much more with a crown
on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing
crowns above.(3) For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty
made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness,—a notable casting away
of modesty, a setting temptation on fire? Therefore a woman, taking
counsel from the apostles' foresight,(4) will not too elaborately adorn
herself, that she may not either be crowned with any exquisite
arrangement of her hair. What sort of garland, however, I pray you, did
He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman, Christ Jesus,
the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both sexes? Of
thorns, I think, and thistles,—a figure of the sins which the soil of
the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross
removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord, death's
every sting. Yes, and besides the figure, there is contumely with ready
lip, and dishonour, and infamy, and the ferocity involved in the cruel
things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the Lord,
that you may now be crowned with laurel, and myrtle, and olive, and any
famous branch, and which is of more use, with hundred-leaved roses too,
culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of lily, and with
violets of all sorts, perhaps also with gems and gold, so as even to
rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained. For it was
after the gall He tasted the honeycomb(5) and He was not greeted as
King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the
cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a
time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and
honour. If for these things, you owe your own head to Him, repay it if
you can, such as He presented His for yours; or be not crowned with
flowers at all, if you cannot be with thorns, because you may not be
with flowers.
Keep for God His own property untainted; He will crown it if He
choose. Nay, then, He does even choose. He calls us to it. To him who
conquers He says, "I will give a crown Of life."(6) Be you, too,
faithful unto death, and fight you, too, the good fight, whose crown
the apostle · feels so justly confident has been laid up for him. The
angel(2) also, as he goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to
conquer, receives a crown of victory; and another(3) is adorned with an
encircling rainbow (as it were in its fair colours)—a celestial
meadow. In like manner, the elders sit crowned around, crowned too with
a crown of gold, and the Son of Man Himself flashes out above the
clouds. If such are the appearances in the vision of the seer, of what
sort will be the realities in the actual manifestation? Look at those
crowns. Inhale those odours. Why condemn you to a little chaplet, or a
twisted headband, the brow which has been destined for a diadem? For
Christ Jesus has made us even kings to God and His Father. What have
you in common with the flower which is to die? You have a flower in the
Branch of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its
fulness rested—a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting, by choosing
which the good soldier, too, has got promotion in the heavenly ranks.
Blush, ye fellow-soldiers of his, henceforth not to be condemned even
by him, but by some soldier of Mithras, who, at his initiation in the
gloomy cavern, in the camp, it may well be said, of darkness, when at
the sword's point a crown is presented to him, as though in mimicry of
martyrdom, and thereupon put upon his head, is admonished to resist and
east it off, and, if you like, transfer it to his shoulder, saying that
Mithras is his crown. And thenceforth he is never crowned; and he has
that for a mark to show who he is, if anywhere he be subjected to trial
in respect of his religion; and he is at once believed to be a soldier
of Mithras if he throws the crown away—if he say that in his god he
has his crown. Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is
wont to ape some of God's things with no other design than, by the
faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame, and to condemn us.
I.
(Usages, p. 94.)
HERE a reference to Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. III., so often
referred to in the former volume, will be useful. A slight metaphrase
will bring out the sense, perhaps, of this most interesting portrait of
early Christian usages.
In baptism, we use trine immersion, in honour of the trinal Name,
after renouncing the devil and his angels and the pomps and vanities of
his kingdom.(1) But this trinal rite is a ceremonial amplification of
what is actually commanded. It was heretofore tolerated in some places
that communicants should take each one his portion, with his own hand,
but now we suffer none to receive this sacrament except at the hand of
the minister. By our Lord's own precept and example, it may be received
at the hour of ordinary meals, and alike by all the faithful whether
men or women, yet we usually do this in our gatherings before daybreak.
Offerings are made in honour of our departed friends, on the
anniversaries of their deaths, which we esteem their true birthdays, as
they are born to a better life. We kneel at other times, but on the
Lord's day, and from the Paschal Feast to Pentecost we stand in prayer,
nor do we count it lawful to fast on Sundays. We are concerned if even
a particle of the wine or bread, made ours, in the Lord's Supper, fails
to the ground, by our carelessness. In all the ordinary occasions of
life we furrow our foreheads with the sign of the Cross, in which we
glory none the less because it is regarded as our shame by the heathen
in presence of whom it is a profession of our faith. He owns there is
no Scripture for any of these usages, in which there was an amplifying
of the precepts of Christ. Let us note there was yet no superstitious
usage even of this sign of the Cross. It was an act by which, in
suffering "shame for Jesus' name," they fortified themselves against
betraying the Master. It took the place, be it remembered, of
innumerable heathen practices, and was a protest against them. It
meant—" God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross." I express
no personal opinion as to this observance, but give the explanation
which the early Christians would have given. Tertullian touched with
Montanism, but not yet withdrawn from Catholic Communion, pleads the
common cause of believers.
II.
(Traditions, cap. iv., p. 95.)
The traditions here argued for respect things in their nature
indifferent. And as our author asserts the long continuance of such
usages to be their chief justification, it is evident that he supposed
them common from the Sub-apostolic age. There is nothing here to
justify amplifications and traditions which, subsequently, came in like
a flood to change principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
Even in his little plea for Montanistic revelations of some possible
novelties, he pre-supposes that reason must be subject to Scripture and
Apostolic Law. In a word, his own principle of "Prescription" must be
honoured even in things indifferent; if novel they are not Catholic.