COR. 10. 184 Christian who accepts crown but from God, shamed by Heathen. DE vision, what will be the realities when truly presented? V. 15. These be thy sights, these thy sweet savours! Why condemnest thou to the garland and the wreath, that head Rev. 5, which is designed for a kingly crown? for Christ Jesus hath made us even kings unto God and His Father. What hast Is. 11,2. thou to do with a flower that dieth? Thou hast a flower out of the rod of Jesse, on which all the grace of the Spirit of God hath rested; a flower incorruptible, unwithering, everlasting, by choosing which, this good soldier hath been promoted to honour in the ranks of Heaven. Blush ye, his fellow-soldiers, who shall now stand condemned, not by him, but even by any soldier of Mithra, who, when he is enrolled in the cavern, the camp, in very truth, of darkness, when the crown is offered him, (a sword being placed between him and it, as if in mimicry of martyrdom,) and then fitted upon his head, is taught to put it aside from his head, meeting it with his hand, and to remove it, it may be, to his shoulder, saying that Mithra is his crown. And thenceforth he never weareth a crown, and he hath this as a sign whereby he is approved, if at any time he is tried touching his military oath and he is forthwith believed to be a soldier of Mithra, if he throweth down his crown, if he declareth that he hath it in his God. See we the wiles of the Devil, who pretendeth to some of the ways of God for this cause, that, through the faithfulness of his own servants, he may put us to shame and condemn us. The LXX. have vos, which Hesych. explains βλάστησις, our "branch;" the Latin fathers and Vulgate render "flos." Others suppose the LXX rendered as though it were d This is alluded to by Lamprid. vit. Comm. "He defiled by real homicide the Mithriac rites, wherein something is wont to be said or feigned after a form of fear." נץ Note E, on c. xi. P. 176. Tertullian, for the most part, in this chapter, rests his objections to military service, upon its involving offices inconsistent with the character of a Christian. Elsewhere, he directly approves of it. Apol. 5. 37. 42. ad Scap. c. 4. There can also be no doubt that war in itself is unbefitting Christians, implies a state of things miserably imperfect, and short of the promises of the Gospel. It seems questionable then, whether in those arguments, which go against military service altogether, he means more than to shew its contradiction to the Christian character in the abstract; and the more, since at the close of the argument he permits Fathers did not hold war forbidden. 185 Christians to remain in it, if already in it, when called to be Christians, only suffering martyrdom rather than do any thing unlawful; which he would not have tolerated, had he thought it wholly forbidden. It is the free choice of such a profession which he condemns; and serious persons could not have chosen it amid such perils to the Faith: 66 In like way, Origen, in the passages in which he is supposed to pronounce the service illegal, is mostly speaking of its inconsistency with the character of the Gospel; it was not contrary to that of the Law, which, under certain circumstances, enjoined it, and established a polity which needed it; it was to that of the Gospel, which increased through suffering, (c. Cels. vii. 26.) and in which they were to "beat their swords into pruning-hooks." (ib. v. 33.) In the same spirit, (viii. 73.) he claims for the Christians, as a spiritual priesthood, the same exemption as some of the Heathen Priesthoods had, not to defile themselves with blood; and says truly (with Tertullian, Apol c.30.33.) that they availed more with their prayers for the Empire than others with their arms; since too there were at all times Christians in the Roman armies, it is not to be taken to the letter, when he says, (ib.) “ and we war not with the Emperor, though he constrain us; but we war for him, banded into an army of piety, peculiar to ourselves, by intercessions unto God." At the same time, both the objection of Celsus, and the answer of Origen, imply the fact, which was to be expected, that fewer Christians in proportion were to be found in the armies. Origen, however, no where maintains war to be lawful for Christians, for which Grotius (de Jur. Bell. et Pac. i. 2. §.9.n.2.) and Spencer (in 1. viii. c. Cels. 73.) charge him with inconsistency. In iv. 82, where he says, that the wars of bees are an instruction how just and due wars might, if needs be, take place among men," there is no reference to Christians, in whom alone he held it was inconsistent; i. 1. is plainly an argumentum ad hominem only, that it was lawful for Christians to unite in a way unallowed by the state, to overthrow the tyranny of Satan, as it was "to remove a tyrant, who had taken possession of a city.” On the other hand, it does not appear that in speaking against the literal sense of Luke 22, 35. 36. (tom. xv. in Matt. §. 2.) he means to speak against more than private requital of injuries. Lactantius, vi. 20. seems peremptorily to exclude all war. S. Basil also, Ep. 188. ad Amphiloch. (Canon. i.) Can. 13. recommends hesitatingly that such as have actually shed blood in war, be kept from the communion for three years, as having unclean hands. On the other hand, S. Basil himself attests in the same Canon, “our fathers did not account man-slaying in wars, as man-slaying,” adding, “in my opinion, having compassion on those who fought in behalf of chastity and piety," thus bearing witness to the Catholic practice, while counselling a restriction of it. (And of such voluntary self-restriction Theodosius furnishes an instance; "What, when having gained a splendid victory [over Eugenius], yet because the enemies were slain in the battle, he deprived himself of the participation of the Sacraments," &c. S. Ambr. de Ob. Valent. §. 34. In either case, out of reverence, not to approach the Holy Eucharist, with hands which had recently any how DECOR. 186 Christian soldier may obey even in unjust war. NOTE shed man's blood. S. Basil himself, in his Homily on the Forty Martyrs, both ON attests the fact of soldier-martyrs, and praises them, as "having acquired the highest honours with kings, for military experience, and valour of soul celebrated with all, for courage," §. 2. as S. Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. c. Jul. §. 83 sqq.) implies without disapprobation that there were many Christians in Julian's army. He also (Or. xix. ad Jul. Trib. Exæq. §. 11.) addresses soldiers on their duties, (cp. Ap. Const. viii. 32.) S. Ambrose, (de Off. i. 40.41.) panegyrizes the valour of the mighty men of the Old Testament and of the Maccabean period; though among Christians he instances only the firmness of martyrs: he praises also the pious valour of Theodosius, (de Ob. Theod. §. 7.) as does S. Augustine, (de Civ. D. v. 26.) S. Augustine argues, (Ep. 138. (ol. 5.) ad Marcell. §. 14.) that wars against the evil were not inconsistent with charity; (§. 15. and ad Bonif. §. 5.) that if military service had been forbidden to Christians, the advice, to be "content with their wages," would not have been given in the Gospel. He tells Boniface, himself a soldier, "Think not, no one can please God, who serves in arms of war," appealing to David and the two Centurions, (Ep. 189. ol. 95.) and gives him practical rules, §. 6. e. g. "Peace should be in will, war, of necessity." He defends it further, c. Faust. xxii. 74. 75. and shews that soldiers may lawfully carry on what, in those who declare it, is an unjust war. "But if war is waged out of the cupidity of man, this hurts not the saints—for there is no power, but of God, either commanding or permitting. A just man then, if perchance he be in military service under a king, who is even a sacrilegious man, may rightly war at his command, keeping the due order of internal peace, (to which what is commanded is either certain that it is not against the command of God, or not certain whether it be,) so that perchance the injustice of the command may make the king guilty, but the due order of obeying may prove the soldier innocent.” The sayings of S. Aug. alleged on the other side, are such as these; "We are not to pray that our enemies should die," (in Ps. 37. §. 14.) therefore, it is inferred, those of the land may not be killed in 66 war; we obtain this from the clemency of the Emperors, lest the sufferings of the servants of God, which ought to be glorious in the Church, should be dishonoured by the blood of their adversaries," (Ep. 139. ol. 158. ad Marcell. §. 2. so Ep. 133. ad Marcellin. fin. 134. ad Apring. §. 3. quoted by Barclay,) therefore, the enemies of the state are not to be repelled by force. So Erasmus. In like way, Barclay (Apology, Prop. 15.) adduces several passages in which the Fathers speak against private resistance, as S. Ambr. in Luc. 22. [v. 36. 1. x. §. 53.] S. Cyrill Al. 1. xi. in Joann. S. Chrys. Hom. 18. in Matt. 5. Hom. 85. in Matt. 26. S. Jerome, Ep. p. 3. t. i. ep. 2. [123. ad Ageruch. §. 13.] or contentions in the Church, as Ep. [77.] ad Ocean. §. 8. On such authorities, Gibbon says, (c. 15. §. 4.) nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either by the sword of justice or of that of war, even though their criminal or hostile attempt should threaten the peace or the safety of the whole community." OF PUBLIC SHOWS. [The " De Spectaculis" was written previously to the "De Corona" and the "De Idololatria ;" in the latter of which T. expressly refers to it, (c. 13.) and, by implication, in the former also; since, saying that he had written on shows "in Greek also," (c. 8.) he implies that he had written in Latin. The " De Corona" fixes it before A.D. 201: (see Notice to it:) the "De Idololatria," probably, in an earlier part of A.D. 198, (see Notice, below.) It is quoted also in the De Cultu Fem. i. 7. which books were written during a severe persecution, (ii. 13.) probably that under Severus, (Lumper 1. c. Art. ii. §. 6.) Of internal evidence, it has been noticed, that it was probably written when some great shows were being given, the chief occasion of which, about this period, was Severus's return to Rome, after his victory over Albinus, A.D. 198. (see Notice on Apol.) The "secular games," A.D. 204, fell too late. It was also written apparently before the edict of Severus against the Christians, since T. ascribes the persecution to the populace only, (c. 26.) or the governors of the provinces, (c. 30.) (see Lumper 1. c. Art. i. §. xiv.) Neander also, (Tertullian S. 22.) supposes it to have been written on occasion of this victory of Severus. It has no trace of Montanism; for not the expectation of a Jerusalem," (c. ult.) of which the Apocalypse also speaks, is Montanistic; but the affirmation that such a city had been actually seen in the air for forty days. adv. Marc. iii. ult.] new I. WHAT state of faith, what argument of truth, what rule of discipline, barreth, among other errors of the world, the Pamelius (drawing, as he says, in much from the Author of the Obss. Div. et Hum. Jur.) shews at length that T. almost uniformly combines the condemnation of the four sorts of shows, 1. racing, in the Circus, 2. plays, in the Theatre, 3. gymnastics, in the Stadium, 4. gladiators and fighting with beasts, in the Amphitheatre; thus c. 2. he instances the things abused, 1. the horse, 2. melody of voice, 3. bodily strength, 4. the lion. The places are named in the same order, c. 20.21.28. the actors, c. 22. 23. 25. ult. the games, c. 3. circus, theatrum, agon, (gymnastics,) munus, (sc. gladiatorium,) and 29. and Apol. c. 38. Isidor. Etym. xviii. 16. (copying T.): in a different order, de Pudic. c. 7. and perhaps ad Mart. c. 2. auct. de Spect. ap. Cypr. c. 3-6. In the de Cult. Fem. i. 7. and adv. Marc. i. 7. T. only mentions the 1st, 2d, and 4th, as do the later writers, Arnob. ii. after mid. iv and vii. end. Lact. vi. 20. Jerome in Vit. Hilar. and Ep. 69. ad Ocean. §. 9. The 1st and 2d are spoken against for the most part by S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine, (imitating Tertullian); by S. Chrysostome in almost all his writings; the 1st by S. Aug. de Civ. D. ii. 6. the 2d de Cons. Ev. i. 37. de Civ. D. ii. 4-8. 10-14. yet also the 4th, Conf. vi. 8. The same two were prohibited by Theodosius the younger (on the Lord's day, the Festivals of our Lord, and between Easter and Whitsunday, de Spect. in Cod. Theodos.) as though the others were disused; and Zeno, in forbidding the theatre and the circus on the Lord's day, adds only the pitiable spectacles of the wild beasts," ex ult. cod. de Feriis, ib. 66 VI. 1. 188 Rejection of pleasure training to Christian firmness. с DE pleasures also of the public shows, hear, ye servants of SPECT. God, who are coming very nigh unto God; hear again, ye who have witnessed and professed that ye have already come unto Him", that none may sin either from real or pretended ignorance. For so great is the influence of pleasures, that it maketh ignorance linger to take advantage of it, and bribeth knowledge to dissemble itself. In either case to some, perchance, the opinions of those heathens have still a charm, who, on this question, have been accustomed to argue against us thus: that these great refreshments of the eyes or the ears from without are no hindrance to religion in the mind and in the conscience; and that God is not offended by such gratification of a man as there is no sin in his enjoying at its proper time and in its proper place, saving always the fear and the honour due unto God.' But this is what we are prepared especially to prove, how it is that these things do not accord with true religion, and with the true service of the true God. There are who think that the Christians, a people ever ready for death, are trained up to this obstinacy', by the renouncement of pleasures, so that they may the more easily despise life, having, as it were, cut its bonds asunder; and may not pine after that, which they have already rendered superfluous to themselves; that so The term "pleasures" was almost The Catechumens, candidates for The baptized. "A man may, by phrenzy, be so disposed thereto [to death], and the Galilæans by habit," Arr. ad Epict. iv. 7. ap. Rig. f T. uses the received heathen term of reproach, "obstinacy," see ad Nat. i. 17, 18. Apol. c. 27. Plin. Ep. ad Trajan, "For I doubted not that, whatever they might be, contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished," add Diocletian Edict. ap. Hermog. Coll. Legg. Jud. et Rom. vii. lit. 14. heathen ap. Lact. v. 9. 11. Prudent. hymn. de Vincent. ii. 17. in ag. Rom. xiv. 63. 581. Arn. 1. vi. beg. ap. Kortholt. ad Epp. Traj. et Plin. p. 57 sqq. The charge chiefly related (as here) to their suffering rather than abjuring the faith; but their uniform stedfastness is attested by the proverb, " Sooner might one unteach the disciples of Moses and Christ," ap. Galen. de Diff. Puls. 1. 3. and the Pythian oracle given to Porphyry," Sooner may you write, stamping letters on the water, or filling light wings fly as a bird through the air, than recall the mind of the defiled, impious woman." Porph. ix λyí 2. ap. Aug. de Civ. D. xix. 23. quoted by Rig. |