De Corona

The Chaplet

THE CHAPLET: or On the Crown.

VERY RECENTLY: it happened like this. While the bounty of our most excellent emperors was being handed out in the camp, the soldiers approached, crowned with laurel. One of them was more truly a soldier of God, and more steadfast than the rest of his brothers, who had imagined that they could serve two masters. His head alone was uncovered, and he held the useless crown in his hand. By that unusual mark alone, everyone already knew he was a Christian. So they all began to point him out, mocking him at a distance and gnashing at him when they came near. The murmur reached the tribune when the man had just left the ranks. The tribune at once asked him, "Why are you so different in your dress?" He declared that he had no liberty to wear the crown with the rest. When he was urgently asked for his reasons, he answered, "I am a Christian." O soldier, boasting in God! Then the case was considered and voted on. The matter was referred to a higher tribunal, and the offender was taken to the prefects. At once he put away the heavy cloak, and his unburdening began. He loosed the military shoe from his foot, beginning to stand on holy ground. He gave up the sword, which was not necessary even for the protection of our Lord. The laurel crown also dropped from his hand. And now, clothed in purple with the hope of his own blood, shod with the preparation of the gospel, girded with the sharper word of God, fully equipped in the apostles' armor, and crowned more worthily with the white crown of martyrdom, he waits in prison for the largess of Christ. After that, adverse judgments began to be passed on his conduct. Whether this was on the part of Christians, I do not know, for the heathen are no different. They spoke as if he were headstrong and rash, and too eager to die, because by being called to account over a mere matter of dress, he brought trouble on the bearers of the Name. He, of course, alone was brave among so many soldier-brothers. He alone was a Christian. It is clear that since they have rejected the prophecies of the Holy Spirit, they are also planning the refusal of martyrdom. So they complain that a peace so good and so long is being endangered for them. Nor do I doubt that some are already turning their backs on the Scriptures, getting their baggage ready, and preparing to flee from city to city. For that is all of the gospel they care to remember. I know too that their pastors are lions in peace, deer in the fight. As for the questions asked for extorting confessions from us, we shall teach elsewhere. Now, since they also put forward this objection, "But where are we forbidden to be crowned?" I shall take up this point here, as more suitable to be treated here, being, in fact, the essence of the present contention. So that, on the one hand, inquirers who are ignorant but anxious may be instructed. And on the other hand, those may be refuted who try to defend the sin, especially the laurel-crowned Christians themselves. To them it is merely a matter for debate, as if it might be considered either no trespass at all, or at least a doubtful one, because it may be made the subject of investigation. But I will now show that it is neither sinless nor doubtful.

I MAINTAIN THAT NONE OF THE FAITHFUL EVER HAS A CROWN ON HIS HEAD: except at a time of testing. This is true for everyone, from catechumens to confessors and martyrs, or, as the case may be, those who deny the faith. So consider where the custom we are mainly asking about now got its authority. But when the question is raised why it is observed, one thing is already clear: it is observed. Therefore, an act committed against a practice that can be defended, even on the basis of its standing, and that is firmly confirmed by wide acceptance, can neither be treated as no offense nor as an uncertain one. It is beyond doubt. So we should look into the reason for it, but without harming the practice. We should not do this to tear it down, but rather to strengthen it, so that you may observe it even more carefully when you are also satisfied about its reason. But what kind of method is it when a person starts debating a practice after he has abandoned it, and seeks an explanation for why he ever followed it after he has stopped? Even if he wants to seem eager to examine it for this reason, so that he may show that he did no wrong in giving it up, it is still clear that he had previously transgressed by boldly observing it. If he does no wrong today in accepting the crown, then he offended before by refusing it. Therefore, this treatise is not for those who are not in a proper state for inquiry, but for those who, with a real desire to be taught, bring forward not a question for debate but a request for guidance. For a true inquiry always comes from this desire. And I praise the faith that believed it was a duty to follow the rule before it had learned the reason for it. It is easy at once to ask where it is written that we should not be crowned. But is it written that we should be crowned? In fact, when people urgently demand the authority of Scripture against the other side and not against their own, they already assume that the support of Scripture ought to appear just as much on their own side. For if it is said that it is lawful to be crowned because Scripture does not forbid it, it may be answered just as forcefully that the crown is unlawful for that very reason, because Scripture does not command it. What should discipline do? Should it accept both things, as though neither were forbidden? Or should it reject both, as though neither were commanded? But, someone says, what is not forbidden is freely permitted. I would rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.

AND HOW LONG MUST WE KEEP SAWING BACK AND FORTH ALONG THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT: when we already have an ancient practice that has settled the matter for us ahead of time—that is, the state of the question? If no passage of Scripture has commanded it, then certainly custom has confirmed it, and without doubt that custom came from tradition. For how can anything come into use unless it was first handed down? Even when we appeal to tradition, you say that written authority must be required. Let us ask, then, whether tradition should be accepted if it is not written down. Certainly we will say that it should not be accepted, if there are no examples of other practices that we keep on the ground of tradition alone, without any written document, and then with the support of custom afterward. To deal with this matter briefly, I will begin with baptism. When we are about to enter the water, shortly before that, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly declare that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. After this, we are immersed three times, making a somewhat fuller pledge than the Lord appointed in the Gospel. Then, when we are brought up out of the water, as newborn children, we first taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day, we keep away from the daily bath for a whole week. We also receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in congregational meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of no one except the presidents. This is the sacrament that the Lord both commanded to be eaten at mealtimes and ordered to be taken by all alike. Whenever the yearly anniversary comes around, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We consider fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's Day to be unlawful. We enjoy the same freedom also from Easter to Whitsunday. We are troubled if any wine or bread, even if it is our own, is spilled on the ground. At every step forward and every movement, at every going in and coming out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on the couch, on the seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace the sign on the forehead.

IF: for these and similar rules, you insist on having a direct command from Scripture, you will find none. Tradition will be set before you as their source, custom as what strengthens them, and faith as what keeps them. You will either see for yourself, or learn from someone who has, that reason supports tradition, custom, and faith. Meanwhile, you should believe that there is some reason to which submission is due. I add one more case, because it is proper to show you how it was among the ancients also. Among the Jews, it is so usual for their women to have the head veiled that they may be recognized by it. In this instance, I ask for the law. I set 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 person could not have made a law. Or it would have made it only for those who had the reason she had. Then let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not until they have recognized their destined husband. If Susanna also, who was subjected to unveiling at her trial, provides an argument for the veiling of women, I can say here also that the veil was voluntary. She had come accused, ashamed of the disgrace she had brought on herself, properly hiding her beauty, especially because now she was afraid to please. But I would not suppose that, when it was her aim to please, she took walks with a veil on in her husband's avenue. Grant, then, that she was always veiled. In this particular case too, or in fact in that of any other, I ask for the law about dress. If I find a law nowhere, it follows that tradition has given this fashion to custom, to find later its authorization in the apostle's sanction, through the true interpretation of reason. These examples, therefore, will make it plain enough that you can defend the keeping even of unwritten tradition established by custom. Long-continued observance is the proper witness for tradition. But even in civil matters custom is accepted as law when written law is lacking. And it is the same whether it rests on writing or on reason, since reason is in fact the basis of law. But, you say, if reason is the ground of law, then from now on everything will have to be counted as law, if anyone brings it forward and it has reason as its ground. Or do you think that every believer is allowed to originate and establish a law, if only it is agreeable to God, helpful to discipline, and promotes divine arrangement, when the Lord says, "But why do you not even of your own selves judge what is right?" Luke 12:57. And not merely with regard to a judicial sentence, but with regard to every decision in matters we are called to consider, the apostle also says, "If of anything you are ignorant, God shall reveal it to you." Philippians 3:15. He himself too was accustomed to offer counsel, though he did not have the Lord's command, and to dictate of himself as one possessing the Spirit of God, who guides into all truth. Therefore his advice has, by the warrant of divine reason, become equal to nothing less than a divine command. Therefore, now earnestly inquire of this teacher, while keeping your regard for tradition intact, from whoever it first came. Do not look to the author, but to the authority, and especially to the authority of custom itself. For this very reason we should revere it, so that we may not need an interpreter. Then, if reason too is God's gift, you may learn, not whether custom must be followed by you, but why.

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN PRACTICES BECOMES EVEN STRONGER WHEN NATURE: which is the first rule of all, also supports them. She is the first to lay down that a crown does not suit the head. But I think that the God of nature is our God, who formed man; and, so that he might desire, appreciate, and partake of the pleasures provided by His creatures, He endowed him with certain senses, acting through members which are, so to speak, their proper instruments. He planted the sense of hearing 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. What, then, in flowers gives you enjoyment? For it is the flowers of the field that are the special, or at least the chief, material of crowns. Either smell, you say, or color, or both together. What, then, are the senses of color and smell? Sight and smell, 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, and 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, whether fastened into each other and tied together with thread and rush, be what they are when free, when loose: things to be looked at and smelled. You count it a crown, let us say, when you have a bunch of them bound together in a series, so 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 remarkably pure. Strew them on your couch if they are so exquisitely soft. Put them in your cup if they are so perfectly harmless. Take pleasure in them in as many ways as they appeal to your senses. But what taste for a flower, or what sense for anything belonging to a crown except its band, do you have in the head, which is able neither to distinguish color, 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 that is against nature deserves to be branded as monstrous among all men; but with us it is also to be condemned as sacrilege against God, the Lord and Creator of nature.

IF YOU ASK FOR A LAW OF GOD: you have that common one prevailing all over the world. It is engraved on the natural tables to which the apostle too is accustomed to appeal, as when he says about the woman's veil, "Does not even Nature teach you?" 1 Corinthians 11:14. And when writing to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, Romans 2:14, he points to both natural law and a nature that reveals law. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he confirms nature, when he says that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, Romans 1:26, by way of penal retribution for their error. First of all, we indeed know God Himself by the teaching of Nature. We call Him God of gods, taking for granted that He is good, and calling on Him as Judge. Is it a question with you whether Nature should be our guide for the enjoyment of His creatures, so that we may not be carried away in the direction in which the rival of God has corrupted, along with man himself, the whole creation which had been made over to our race for certain uses? From this the apostle says that it too unwillingly became subject to vanity, completely bereft of its original character, first by vain uses, then by base, unrighteous, and ungodly uses. Accordingly, it is in the pleasures of the shows that the creature is dishonored 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 subject, for the sake of our own play-lovers, we have dealt sufficiently, and that too in a work in Greek.

SO: for the present, let these dealers in crowns recognize the authority of Nature, on the ground of the common sense shared by human beings, and also the certifications of their own religion, since, as was said in the last chapter, they are worshippers of the God of nature. And, as if beyond what is required, let them also consider those other reasons that forbid us to wear crowns, especially on the head, and indeed crowns of every kind. For we are obliged to turn from the rule of Nature, which we share with mankind in general, so that we may preserve the whole peculiarity of our Christian discipline, also in relation to other kinds of crowns that seem to have been made for different uses, since they are made of different materials. Otherwise, because they do not consist of flowers, the use of which Nature has pointed out, as in the case of this military laurel crown itself, they may be thought not to come under the prohibition of our sect, since they have escaped any objection from nature. So I see that we must examine this matter with greater care, and more fully, from its beginnings, through its successive stages of growth, and on to its more erratic developments. For this, we need to turn to heathen literature, because things belonging to the heathen must be proved from their own documents. The little I have learned from this, I believe, will be enough. If there really was a Pandora, whom Hesiod mentions as the first of women, then hers was the first head that the Graces crowned, because she received gifts from all the gods, and from that she got the name Pandora. But Moses, a prophet, not a shepherd-poet, shows us the first woman, Eve, having her loins more naturally girt about with leaves than her temples with flowers. So Pandora is a myth. Therefore we ought to be ashamed of the origin of the crown, even because of the falsehood connected with it, and, as will soon appear, no less because of its realities. For it is beyond doubt that certain persons either originated the thing or shed lustre on it. Pherecydes says that Saturn was the first to wear a crown. Diodorus says that Jupiter, after conquering the Titans, was honored with this gift by the rest of the gods. The same author also assigns fillets to Priapus, and to Ariadne a garland of gold and Indian gems, a gift first from Vulcan, then from Bacchus, and later turned into a constellation. Callimachus put a vine crown on Juno. In the same way, at Argos, her statue, vine-wreathed, with a lion's skin placed beneath her feet, shows the stepmother exulting over the spoils of her two stepsons. Hercules displays on his head, at one time poplar, at another wild olive, and at another parsley. You have the tragedy of Cerberus. You have Pindar. And besides them, Callimachus also says that Apollo, after killing the Delphic serpent, put on a laurel garland as a suppliant, because among the ancients it was customary for suppliants to be crowned. Harpocration argues that Bacchus, the same as Osiris among the Egyptians, was deliberately crowned with ivy because ivy naturally protects the brain against drowsiness. But even the common crowd also admits in another way that Bacchus was the originator of the laurel crown, the crown in which he celebrated his triumph over the Indians, when they call the days dedicated to him the Great Crown. If you open the writings of the Egyptian Leo, you learn that Isis was the first to discover and wear ears of grain on her head, a thing more suited to the belly. Those who want more information will find a full treatment of the subject in Claudius Saturninus, a writer of distinguished ability who also deals with this question. He has written a book on crowns, explaining their beginnings, causes, kinds, and rites so fully that you find that everything charming in the flower, everything beautiful in the leafy branch, and every sod or vine-shoot has been dedicated to some head or other. This makes it completely clear how foreign to us we should judge the custom of the crowned head, since it was introduced by, and afterward continually managed for the honor of, those whom the world has believed to be gods. If the devil, who is a liar from the beginning, is even in this matter working for his false system of godhead (idolatry), then without doubt he also provided for carrying out his false god-lie. What kind of thing, then, should that be counted among the people of the true God, if it was introduced by the nations in honor of the devil's candidates, and from the beginning was set apart for no others than these, and even then received its consecration to idolatry by idols and in idols while they were still alive? Not as if an idol were anything, but because the things that others offer up to idols belong to demons. But if the things that others offer to them belong to demons, how much more what idols offered to themselves, when they were alive! The demons themselves, no doubt, had made provision for themselves through those whom they had possessed, while in a state of desire and craving, before the provision had actually been made.

FOR NOW: hold fast to this conviction while I examine a question that comes in our way. For I already hear it said that many other things, as well as crowns, were invented by those whom the world believes to be gods, and that these things are nevertheless found both in our present practices and in those of the early saints, and in the service of God, and in Christ Himself, who did His work as a man by no other than these ordinary instruments of human life. Well, let it be so. Nor will I inquire any further back into the origin of these things. Let Mercury have been the first who taught the knowledge of letters. I will admit that they are necessary both for the business and commerce of life, and for carrying out our devotion to God. Yes, if he also first strung the chord to give forth melody, I will not deny, when listening to David, that this invention has been used by the saints and has ministered to God. Let Aesculapius have been the first who sought and discovered cures. Isaiah 38:21 mentions that he ordered Hezekiah medicine when he was sick. Paul too knows that a little wine does the stomach good, in 1 Timothy 5:23. Let Minerva have been the first who built a ship. I shall see Jonah and the apostles sailing. Yes, there is more than this. For even Christ, we shall find, has ordinary clothing. Paul too has his cloak. If, for every article of furniture and each household vessel, you at once name some god of the world as the originator, well, I must recognize 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 girded with a linen towel, in John 13:1-5, a garment especially sacred to Osiris. It is in this general way that I reply on the point, admitting indeed that we use these articles along with others, but insisting that this must be judged in the light of the distinction between things agreeable and things opposed to reason. For the indiscriminate use of them is deceptive, concealing the corruption of the creature, by which it has been made subject to vanity. For we affirm that only those things 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 supply what is simply useful for the necessities of human life, and provide real help and honorable comfort, so that they may rightly be 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 suppose, of His own man. As for the things that are outside this class, they are not fit to be used among us, especially those which, for that very reason, are not to be found either in the world or in the ways of Christ.

IN SHORT: what patriarch, what prophet, what Levite, or priest, or ruler, or later what apostle, or preacher of the gospel, or bishop, do you ever find wearing a crown? I think not even the temple of God itself was crowned. Neither were the ark of the testament, the tabernacle of witness, the altar, nor the candlestick crowned, though certainly, at both that first solemnity of the dedication and 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, then they also set forth this in figure: 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, you will get this brief reply: You too may be crowned, as He was; you have full permission. Yet even that crown of insolent ungodliness was not by 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 regarding the honor or dishonor of the crown. Thus too Isaiah, as he says, "With timbrels, and psalteries, and flutes they drink wine," Isaiah 5:12, would have added, "with crowns," if this practice had ever had a place in the things of God.

SO: when you claim that the ornaments of the heathen deities are found no less with God, in order to argue that the head-crown should be for general use, you already lay down this rule for yourself: we must not have among us, as something whose use we share with others, what is not found in the service of God. Now, what is so unworthy of God as what is worthy of an idol? And what is so worthy of an idol as what is also worthy of a dead man? For the dead too have the privilege of being crowned in this way, since they too immediately become idols, both by their dress and by the service of deification, which for us is a second idolatry. Since they lack sense, it will be theirs to use the thing for which sense is lacking, just as if, with full possession of sense, they wished to abuse it. When there ceases to be any reality in the use, there is no distinction between using and abusing. For who can abuse a thing, when the faculty of perception by which he wishes to carry out his purpose is not his to use? Moreover, the apostle forbids us to abuse, though he would more naturally have taught us not to use, unless it is because, where there is no sense for things, there is no wrong use of them. But the whole affair is meaningless, and in fact a dead work as far as the idols are concerned, though without doubt a living one with respect to the demons to whom the religious rite belongs. David says, "The idols of the heathen are silver and gold. They have eyes, and see not; a nose, and smell not; hands, and they will not handle." By 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 in the style of idol adornments. "To the pure all things are pure"; so likewise, to the impure all things are impure, Titus 1:15. But nothing is more impure than idols. The substances themselves, as creatures of God, are without impurity, and in their natural state are free for the use of all. But the ministries to which they are devoted in their use make all the difference. For I too kill a cock for myself, just as Socrates did for Aesculapius. And if the smell of some place 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. If a creature is defiled by a mere word, as the apostle teaches, "But if anyone says, 'This is offered in sacrifice to idols,' you must not touch it," 1 Corinthians 10:28, how much more is it polluted by the dress, and rites, and pomp of what is offered to the gods. So the crown also is shown to be an offering to idols. For with this ceremony, and dress, and pomp, it is presented in sacrifice to idols, its originators, to whom its use is especially given over. And chiefly for this reason: that what has no place among the things of God may not be admitted into use with us as with others. Therefore the apostle cries out, "Flee idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. Certainly he means idolatry whole and entire. Think about what a thicket it is, and how many thorns lie hidden 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 commands 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 from some distance with its breath. Going still further, John says, "My little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21. He does not now say, "from idolatry," as if from the service of it, but "from idols"; that is, from any likeness 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. So far we maintain that this attire belongs to idols, both from the history of its origin and from its use by false religion; on this ground also, 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. In Claudius, you have the crowns of all the various colleges of priests. We have also added that distinction between things altogether different from each other, namely, things agreeable to reason 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. Therefore, with reference to this part of the subject, it now remains to examine the special grounds for wearing crowns, so that, while we show these to be foreign, indeed even opposed, to our Christian discipline, we may prove that none of them has any plea of reason to support it, on the basis of which this article of dress might be defended as one whose use we may share, as even some others may whose examples are cast up to us.

TO BEGIN WITH THE REAL ISSUE OF THE MILITARY CROWN: I think we must first ask whether warfare itself is proper at all for Christians. What is the point of discussing what is merely secondary, when the thing it rests on is itself to be condemned? Do we believe it is lawful for a human oath to be added to a divine one, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all his nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honor and love next to God Himself, and to whom the gospel also, holding them only of less account than Christ, has likewise given honor? Should it be considered lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord declares that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And should the son of peace take part in battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? And should he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment, when he is not even the avenger of his own wrongs? Should he really keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or should he do it on the Lord's Day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And should he keep guard before the temples he has renounced? And should he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? 1 Corinthians 8:10 And should he diligently protect by night those whom in the daytime he has put to flight by his exorcisms, while leaning and resting on the spear with which Christ's side was pierced? Should he also carry a flag hostile to Christ? And should he ask a watchword from the emperor, when he has already received one from God? Should he be troubled in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, when he expects to be aroused by the angel's trumpet? And should the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when Christ remitted to him the punishment of fire? Then you may see, by a brief survey, how many other offenses are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must regard as involving a transgression of God's law. The very carrying over of the name from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later and finds someone already occupied in military service, his case is different, as in the case 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, once a man has become a believer and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which many have done; or else all kinds of quibbling will have to be used in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside military service; or, finally, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen's faith has been no less ready to accept. Military service does not provide escape from the 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 everyone who denies, and acknowledge everyone who acknowledges God. He will also save the life that has been lost for His sake; but on the other hand, He will destroy the life that for gain has been saved to His dishonor. With Him, the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen. A state of faith allows no plea of necessity. Those whose one necessity is that they do not sin are under no necessity to sin. For even if someone is pressed by torture or punishment to the offering of sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ, discipline does not connive even at that necessity, because there is a higher necessity: to dread denying and to undergo martyrdom, rather than to escape suffering and render the homage required. In fact, an excuse of this kind overturns the entire essence of our sacrament, because it removes even the obstacle to voluntary sins. For then it would also be possible to maintain that inclination is a necessity, since it too involves, supposedly, a kind of compulsion. I have already dealt with this very claim of necessity in relation to the arguments by which crowns connected with official position are defended, in support of which it is commonly used, since for this very reason offices must either be refused, so that we may not fall into acts of sin, or martyrdoms must be endured so that we may get quit of offices. On this first part of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of military life itself, I will add no more, so that the second question may be restored to its place. Indeed, if by pressing the question I banish military life from among us, I would now challenge the matter of the military crown to no purpose. Suppose, then, that military service is lawful, as far as the plea for the crown is concerned.

BUT FIRST I WILL ALSO SAY A WORD ABOUT THE CROWN ITSELF: This laurel crown is sacred to Apollo or Bacchus — to the former as the god of archery, to the latter as the god of triumphs. Claudius teaches the same thing, when he tells us that soldiers also are accustomed to be crowned with myrtle. For the myrtle belongs to Venus, the mother of the Aeneadae, and also the mistress 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. Again, when military service is crowned with olive, the idolatry has respect to Minerva, who is also the goddess of arms. But she got a crown from that tree because of the peace she made with Neptune. In these ways, the superstition of the military garland will everywhere be defiled, and all-defiling. And I think it is further defiled also in the grounds of it. Look at the yearly public pronouncing of vows. What does that show 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. Besides the places, notice the words also: "We vow that you, O Jupiter, will then have an ox with gold-decorated horns." What does this utterance mean? Without a doubt, the denial of Christ. Although the Christian says nothing with his mouth in these places, 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 that idolatry is not without its gain, selling Christ for pieces of gold, as Judas did for pieces of silver. Will "You cannot serve God and mammon," Matthew 6:24, mean that you should devote your energies to mammon, and depart from God? Will "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," Matthew 22:21, mean not only that you do not render the human being to God, but even that you take the denarius from Caesar? Is the laurel of 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, for Christ is also among the barbarians. 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; likewise Munificae, from the Caesarean functions they perform. But even then, you are still the soldier and servant of another. And if of two masters, of God and Caesar, then assuredly 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 REASONS OF STATE: the different ranks of citizens are also crowned with laurel wreaths. But the magistrates, besides these, wear golden ones, as at Athens and at Rome. Even the Etruscan crowns are preferred to those. This name is given to the crowns that are distinguished by their gems and oak leaves of gold. They wear them, along with mantles embroidered with palm branches, to lead the chariots carrying the images of the gods to the circus. There are also provincial crowns of gold, now needing the larger heads of images instead of those of men. But your ranks, your offices, 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, Philippians 4:3. There the blood of the Lord serves as your purple robe, and your broad stripe is His own cross. There the axe is already laid to the trunk of the tree, Matthew 3:10. There is the branch from the root of Jesse, Isaiah 11:1. Never mind the state horses with their crown. Your Lord, when, according to Scripture, He would enter Jerusalem in triumph, did not even have an ass of His own. These trust in chariots, and these in horses; but we will seek our help in the name of the Lord our God. From so much as a dwelling in that Babylon of John's Revelation we are called away; much more, then, from its pomp. The common crowd also are crowned, at one time because of some great rejoicing over the success of the emperors, and at another because of some custom connected with city 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, Philippians 3:20. You have your own records and your own calendar. You have nothing to do with the joys of the world. No, you are called to the very opposite, for the world shall rejoice, but you shall mourn, John 16:20. And I think the Lord declares that those who mourn are happy, not those who are crowned. Marriage also places a crown on the bridegroom. Therefore we will not have heathen brides, lest they lead us into the idolatry with which marriage among them is begun. You do indeed have the law from the patriarchs, and you have the apostle commanding people to marry in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 7:39. You also receive a crown when a man is made free. But you have already been ransomed by Christ, and at a great price. How can the world set free the servant of another? Though it seems to be liberty, it will be found to be bondage. In the world everything is in name only, and nothing is real. For even then, since you had been 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 the world's freedom is real, so that you even confirm it with a crown, you have gone back to the slavery of man while imagining it is freedom. You have lost the freedom of Christ while thinking it is slavery. Can there be any dispute about the cause of crown-wearing, which contests in the games in their turn supply, and which, both as sacred to the gods and in honor of the dead, their own reason at once condemns? It only remains that Olympian Jupiter, Nemean Hercules, miserable little Archemorus, and unhappy Antinous should be crowned in a Christian, so that he himself may become a disgusting spectacle to look at. I think we have recounted all the different causes of wearing a crown, and not one of them has any place among us. All of them are foreign to us, unholy, unlawful, having already been abjured once for all in the solemn declaration of the sacrament. For they were of the pomp of the devil and his angels: the world's offices, honors, festivals, popularity-seeking, false vows, displays of human slavery, empty praise, shameful glory, and in all of them idolatry, even in respect of the origin of the crowns with which they are all wreathed. Claudius, in his preface, will indeed tell us that in the poems of Homer even heaven is crowned with constellations, and no doubt by God, no doubt for man. Therefore man too should be crowned by God. But the world crowns brothels, baths, bakehouses, prisons, schools, the amphitheaters themselves, the rooms where the clothes are stripped from dead gladiators, and even the biers of the dead. So decide how sacred and holy, how worthy of honor and pure, this article of dress is, not from the heaven of poetry alone, but from the traffickings of the whole world. Indeed, a Christian should not even dishonor his own gate with laurel wreaths, if 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 also there are the Thyræan Apollo and the evil spirits, the Antelii.

STILL LESS MAY THE CHRISTIAN PUT THE SERVICE OF IDOLATRY ON HIS OWN HEAD: No, 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 covering, not to say a band. But even the head that is bound to have the veil, I mean the 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, much more with a crown on it will she offend those elders who perhaps are then wearing crowns above. Revelation 4:4. For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but a mark of utter wantonness, a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire? Therefore a woman, taking counsel from the apostles' foresight, will not adorn herself too elaborately, so 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 dishonor, 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 afterward obtained. For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb. 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 honor. 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 WHAT BELONGS TO HIM: pure and untouched. He will crown it if He chooses. No, more than that, He truly does choose. He calls us to it. He says, "To him who conquers I will give a crown of life." You too, be faithful unto death, and you too, fight the good fight, whose crown the apostle says in 2 Timothy 4:8 has been laid up for him, and of which he feels such rightful confidence. The angel in Revelation 6:2 also, as he goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to conquer, receives a crown of victory. And another, in Revelation 10:1, is adorned with an encircling rainbow, like a heavenly meadow in its fair colors. In the same way, the elders sit crowned around, crowned too with a crown of gold, and the Son of Man Himself shines forth above the clouds. If these are the appearances in the vision of the seer, what will the realities be like in the actual manifestation? Look at those crowns. Inhale those odors. Why do you condemn to a little chaplet, or a twisted headband, the brow that has been destined for a diadem? For Christ Jesus has made us kings to God and His Father. What do you have in common with the flower that is to die? You have a flower in the Branch of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its fullness rested—a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting. By choosing which, the good soldier, too, has got promotion in the heavenly ranks. Blush, you fellow-soldiers of his, so that henceforth you may be condemned not even by him, but by some soldier of Mithras. At his initiation in the gloomy cavern, in what may well be called the camp of darkness, a crown is presented to him at the sword's point, as though in mimicry of martyrdom. Then it is put upon his head, and he is admonished to resist it and cast it off, and, if you like, transfer it to his shoulder, saying that Mithras is his crown. And thenceforth he is never crowned. He has that as a mark to show who he is, if ever he is subjected to trial in respect of his religion. He is at once believed to be a soldier of Mithras if he throws the crown away, if he says that in his god he has his crown. Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is accustomed to imitate some of God's things for no other purpose than, by the faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame and to condemn us.