Chapter 2
TERTULLIAN
know their shepherds! When things are quiet, they are lions, but in time of danger they are frightened deer. The questions, however, concerning our moral obligation to confess the faith,
I shall discuss somewhere else.14
(6) Seeing that they also produce the following objection:
'But where [in the Gospel] are we forbidden to wear a crown?'—I will, at this time, rather turn my attention to this point, as more appropriate to be dealt with here, since it is, in fact, the essence of the present contention. I will do this in order to enlighten those inquirers who are really concerned about their ignorance as well as to refute those who try to defend such sinful conduct. By the latter I mean especially those laurel-crowned Christians who console themselves with saying: 'It is merely a question of debate.' As if such con duct could be regarded as either no trespass at all, or at least a doubtful one that may be made the subject of an investi gation! But I will show them that it is a real offense and not merely a doubtful one.
Chapter 2 (1) It is my contention that not one of the faithful ever wears a crown except in a time of trial. Everyone, from catechumens to confessors, martyrs, and even apostates, observes this custom. The important point here and now is the authority of this custom. Now, when you inquire into the validity of a custom, you implicitly admit its existence. Hence, an action which is committed against a practice that is its own justification and is further validated by the acceptance it
14 Tertullian fulfilled the promise by writing Flight in Time of Persecution.
THE CHAPLET
has long enjoyed can neither be regarded as no offense nor as one which is doubtful. (2) To be sure, we ought to inquire into the reason for an established custom, but without prejudice to the practice; not for the purpose of undermining the custom, but rather of strengthening it, so that the obser vance in question may be solidified when you have made sure of the reason behind it.
What are we to think of people who raise the question concerning the validity of an observance then when they have rejected it? Who inquire into the origin of an observance just when they no longer honor it? The only reason they bring the matter up is to justify their own dereliction; by the very same token they admit they were wrong in observing a custom in which they did not believe. (3) If there is no sin in accepting the crown today, then he was wrong when he refused it in the past. Therefore, the following discussion is not for those who have no right to inquire into the matter, but for those who, with a sincere desire of enlightenment, start no debate but look for advice. True inquiry is always promoted by such a desire, and I have nothing but praise for the faith that believes before it has learned the reason for it.
(4) To be sure, it is very easy to ask: 'Where in Scripture are we forbidden to wear a crown?' But, can you show me a text which says we should be crowned? When men demand the support of a scriptural text for a view they do not hold, they ought to be willing to subject their own stand to the same test of holy writ. If they try to say that we may be crowned because the Scriptures do not forbid it, then they leave themselves open to the retort that we may not be crowned because Scripture does not prescribe it. What should be the official ruling on that? Accept both as if neither were prohibited? Or reject both, on the ground that neither is