Created Jan. 1, 2011
THE CHAPLET, (also called in Latin) DE CORONA
Chapters 1 - 3
Chapters 4 - 6
Chapters 7 - 9
Chapters 10 - 11
Chapters 12 - 15
My Final Thoughts
If you notice the title, The Chaplet, what we might call a crown, was worn in recognition of a pagan god of victory, among other things. Soldiers typically wore them. Consider it is also likely related to our word, Chaplin. Chaplins are representatives of their various denominations in the US Armed forces. This is an abomination to God. I have written are article on Neutrality and War which you may have read or should read. But this shows that my proposition is not a new one, by any means. It is more than 1700 years old. Tertullian's article will be in black and my comments will be in red/brown letters in brackets.
The Chaplet is also known in Latin as De Corona and is often referred to by that name. Why they do not use the English translation escapes me.
VERY lately it happened thus: while the bounty of our most excellent emperors was dispensed in the camp, the soldiers, laurel-crowned, were approaching. One of them, more a soldier of God, more steadfast 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 of yourself in God.
>> Evidently, Tertullian
mentions how most Christians did not stand out in the army. But one did near to
the time of this writing. He was mocked and ridiculed for it. Soldiers are
supposed to act and conduct themselves in completely harmony and unity, fitting
in, in complete uniformity. This one did not. Independence of thought and action
is more despised in military situations, than in any other.<<
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' armor, 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,--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, 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.
>> So Tertullian has set up the
situation and is about to give it some dignity and substance.<<
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, 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 defense, 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 today 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 that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.
>> Tertullian suggests, perhaps not too strongly, that what has not been freely allowed should perhaps be forbidden. I urge great caution on this idea. Paul says: do not go beyond the things written. That means clearly stated one way or the other. If there is permission to do something or a requirement to do something, then we must. We can not forbid these if they are prescribed or permitted. Once allowed, if it is to be later repealed, there must be reasonable evidence that such was repealed or forbidden in plain speech or actions of those verified by God, such as apostles and prophets.
This does not mean that Tertullian is wrong at all times in suggesting what he does, but great caution is always the best course when there is little in word or action to verify or deny what is disputed. to Forbid because it is not specifically stated could easily be wrong. Or to encourage what is not specifically forbidden could be dangerous, too. Careful diligence and a searching of our hearts must be exercised when ever we try to determine a dispute.
To give examples, many have assumed masturbation to be forbidden, though not a word is said about it in the Bible. I have strongly argued that it is not forbidden. More and more authorities are beginning to come to this conclusion, very slowly. Many things have been forbidden that can not be justified. As well, man common practices go on that beg to be reconsidered. If one wants to justify something, they will seek until they find what they are looking to get them off the hook. But sincere diligent ones will search with all their power to make sure they have the matter reasonably settled and leaving no doubt in their conscience of their decision. They search their hearts in earnest to make sure they are not kidding themselves or trying to justify things which are not justified.
The biggest problem I have seen is that many, in their search, do not take all scriptures into account but use just one or 2 that lets them do what they want.<<
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. 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),
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. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. 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 own 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.
>> Oh, this is beautiful. It demonstrates what I speak of, at times. 1st, look how elaborate the baptism had become. They recite a number of things, such as disowning the devil. Listen, anyone who accepts the Father, the son, and the spirit of God, naturally also rejects Satan and his demons. It does not need to be said. No serious Christians would baptize someone without being sure they knew their obligations to God and men. By creating list of recitations, they make an elaborate ritual out of something important in symbol, but quite simple in practice. Before you know it, if someone does not carry out the ritual in a very precise detailed manner, some will insist the Baptism was not authenticate or accepted by God. They make baptism void unless done in many words not required by God.
Notice how Tertullian calls the head of the church or congregation the president, which is similar to overseer, and not bishop or priest. Tertullian has a better argument here. We do know that the breaking of the bread, which had been given a name by this time, the Eucharist, was done, and that by command. But never has it been documented exactly how it was done. Jesus passed it around in the evening beginning the 14th day of the month, beginning the week of passover. Paul mentions how it is done on a weekly basis and got mad at Corinthians for making a mockery of this weekly event on the Lord's day, the 1st day of the week when he rose from the dead and also the 1st day of the week when he ascended to heaven on Pentecost to offer his sacrifice before the throne and alter of heaven and God.
But Tertullian says they also make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. This, I see, as taking too much liberty. For one, we could easily add many more observations to the Lord's day or the passover of the 14th of Nisan. But in adding so many tings as we please, will we not diminish the attention to why this day is kept? That being the day of Jesus rising? Further, since their offerings to the dead have so much in common with pagans, it seems in poor choice to imitate the ways of false gods. Tertullian has lost his mind, here.
Now get that last one! They trace the "sign" upon the forehead. There is those rituals coming in that have not been authorized. already at this time, they are imitating pagans and it only gets worse with time. Soon, they might invent many more ritual and their lives with be ruled with rituals and eventually forgetting that these were not required, some will insist that those not doing these must be expelled.
Hence, we can see the wisdom of Paul, who says, Do not go beyond the things written. It leads to disaster.<<
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 recognized. I ask in this instance for the law. I put the apostle aside.
>> Tertullian is on shaky ground here. Tradition is not a reason. It must always be understood why we do something. There must be a reason behind every action. To act without reason is to be irrational. To condemn without a law forbidding it, is forbidden. To add something to God's commands is also presumptuousness on our part. The Independent Churches of Christ have an appropriate saying. Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. Jesus says, let your yes mean yes, and your no mean now. In excess of these is from the wicked one. We must be careful to do only what God says and not add to it.
Tertullian's big mistake here was in saying "I put the apostle aside," referring to Paul that I also mention just above. Regardless of custom or tradition, we can assume nothing beyond what is specifically prescribed to us in the Bible. The Bible does not regulate dress, or what language is spoken, nor what food we eat, or so many other trivial things. God recognized the many different choices, styles, and traditions of mankind. In any nation, in any tongue, in any language, in any culture or style, the man that fears God is acceptable to God, as long as God's few commands are obeyed.
Paul did require the veil and that is why that was required. Had it not been for Paul writing that, the tradition would not have been required of Christians.<<
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 recognized their destined husband. If Susanna also, who was subjected to unveiling on her trial, 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. These 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. 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.
>> Tertullian says that without Paul's law, this veil still would have been required. What is most ironic about this stupid statement is that many things kept by the law of Moses were not an excuse to continue them after Christ installed a new covenant with his blood. If things formerly required by law could be ignored, by command, of course, how much more so could tradition without law also be ignored.<<
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. 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?" 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;" he himself, too, being accustomed to afford counsel though he had not the command of the Lord, and to dictate of himself as possessing the Spirit of God who guides into all truth.
>> This, too, is a weak argument. We are not good judges of law nor even just plain good judges. We cna't even keep the real laws of God straight. Many keep the law of Moses when Christ freed us from it. Many do not keep the laws of Jesus and have turned to keeping practices that were clearly of pagan origin. Soo if we can not even remain loyal and righteous in what was given to us as law by Jesus and the Apostles, how can we possibly create new laws or judge matters of law?
Now I would agree that the word of God is loaded wiht wisdom and as Paul said to Timothy in his 2nd letter to him, that the word of God is good for, to shorten and paraphrase, all things; to make us exceedingly wise and make us good judges, and equip us for every good work on earth. But that said, few seem to learn from God well and tend to get off track very easy. So while it is possible in theory to follow God well, few have demonstrated the ability to do so. So Tertullian has nothing to stand on. History has revealed that Christianity was completely corrupted and lost in less than 200 years. FACT! So we can do nothing good and constantly wander off the path of God when left to ourselves. Only by remaining very close to God's word can we avoid presumptuousness.
Good sound reasoning can only be accomplished by good and pure hearts sincerely and diligently applied to God and His commands. Few have heats pure enough to secure good sound reasoning in abundance. Most need lots of help and may not even accept that help. I am sure this will prove to be the case when we are all finally judged. So you can carve this one in stone and hold it against me!
It does not belong to man who is walking, to be able to direct his own steps, says Jeremiah. So how can Tertullian suggest that we can direct our own steps well?<<
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, 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,
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.
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 color, or both together. What will be the senses of color 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 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 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.
Aristotle's technique of applying syllogisms is not Tertullian's strong point.
He does not reason well in this article. His argument over flowers is not really
relevant one way of the other. Chapter 5 was a waste.<<
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?"--as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, 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, by way of penal retribution for their error.
>> Paul referred to legitimate examples to illustrate his points. Like when he says we know every house has a maker, a builder, but he that makes all things is God. What Paul said between the lines was that it was obvious that a house could not build itself nor come about by accident. It absolutely requires a builder. And the same goes for the earth and us. Someone had to build or create us and the earth. That someone was the God of the bible, by name, Jehovah by English traditional translation. But Tertullian does not even come close to matching what Paul or Jesus reasoned.<<
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 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 topic we have, for the sake of our own play-lovers, sufficiently dealt, and that, too, in a work in Greek.
>> There are many things we can learn from nature and animal behavior. but in all these, we need to use God's laws and precedents in analyzing nature or else we could make errors in judgment. Some things are obvious and these are what Jesus or Paul draw attention to. Tertullian does not point out the obvious. He goes off into territory not very clear or distinct at all. It is his choice of subject and reason which are grossly lacking.<<
Chapters 7 - 9
Back to Top
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.
>>The bold faced text below confirms Paul Pezron's accounting of the same, quoting Tertullian as the author.<<
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 honored 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 honor 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 honor 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.
>> I can silence Tertullian with half my brain gouged out. God had the kings of Israel wear crowns. We are all spoken of as having crowns for having been victorious in remaining faithful to God, even to the point of death. We are given crowns in Revelation. Jesus has a crown, symbolically. Can we forbid crowns when God uses them liberally in His own symbols? I think not.
if the head commander of the army were to say, wear these crowns in honor of
Zeus, then it would be wrong to wear a crown. But a crown, in and of itself, is
not right or wrong. What is generally assumed by most when one wears a crown in
the Roman army. This, Tertullian has never addressed.<<
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: Isaiah mentions that he ordered Hezekiah medicine when he was sick. Paul, too, knows that a little wine does the stomach good. 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 raiment; Paul, too, has his cloak. 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 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 girt about with a linen towel--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 honorable 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.
The argument is made that it is our use of things for good reasons that
justifies them. But in the case of say, entertainment, it may not be for use as
much as just just entertainment. Again, more important is whether anything bad
is connected with it or not. for instance, there is no law forbidding decorating
the inside of a house. Nor is it even forbidden to decorate the yard. Now if
pagans would decorate trees in some pagan festival, and we imitate them, what
signal are we giving? They might conclude that we worship as they do, the same
that they do. This would be wrong. But if we decorate a tree in the middle of
summer to welcome to our home guests special to us, who are to arrive in the
enving to show our pleasure at being able to have them visit, which thing is not
done by pagans, then maybe we have done nothing wrong. It is the association
that we put to it and what others might connect with it, that would condemn it
or allow it.<<
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? 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 honor or dishonor of the crown. Thus too Isaiah, as he says, "With timbrels, and psalteries, and flutes they drink wine," would have added "with crowns," if this practice had ever had place in the things of God.
>> Tertullian seems completely unaware of the use of crowns in the Bible. It does leave one to wonder, does it not? While Christians wearing crowns in some regular way would seem out of place, forbidding crowns in special circumstances can not be automatic. Suppose a small group of Christians, say 10 or so, had their picture taken together with all wearing crowns in symbol of their having endured some persecution and having remained faithful against the attack, to show their joy at having attained a corwn of victory and life, this would not be such a bad thing. Perhaps a bit unusual to some, but not sinful.
Again, association and the reason behind what we do is what matters.<<
10 - 11
Back to Top
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 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." 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;" 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. 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," 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; 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:" 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,"--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 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 honor and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honor?
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?
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, 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; or, last of all,
for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to
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 dishonor. With Him the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen.
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.
Chapters 12 - 15
Back to Top
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. 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" 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," 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; 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; 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. 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; there is the branch out of the root of Jesse. 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. From so much as a dwelling in that Babylon of John's Revelation 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. 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." 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. 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 honor 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, honors, 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 dishonor 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 covering, 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, much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above. 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, 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 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 afterwards 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 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." 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 also, as he goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to conquer, receives a crown of victory; and another is adorned with an encircling rainbow (as it were in its fair colors)--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 odors. 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 fullness 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.
My Final Thoughts
Back to Top
Although I have supplied many scriptural arguments, it is important to understand how even Christianity, who was already substantially corrupted, was protested by some writers. Tertullian stands as a monument of integrity in his stand against war. While much of Christianity had joined Constantine and later Roman emperors, this was far from standard policy. It was significantly opposed by some. Who do you support, the "emperor," your government, or God? Being part of the army then, was practically being pagan. Still they did it. Today, when one serves the armies of the governments which are moving toward a One World Government, you are helping the devil to gain control of the world and bring the antichrist. Is that what you want to help?
So I hope you will re-evaluate this position and let the dead fight the dead while you remain loyal to God. Satan has enough soldiers without you helping him. Be a "solider" for God.
Back to Top