Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter II.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
II.
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,385
| 385 [Kaye (p. 231)
notes this as a rare instance of classing Catechumens among
“the Faithful.”] |
or (as the case may be) deniers. Consider, then, whence the
custom about which we are now chiefly inquiring got its authority. But
when the question is raised why it is observed, it is meanwhile evident
that it is observed. Therefore that can neither be regarded as no
offence, or an uncertain one, which is perpetrated against a practice
which is capable of defence, on the ground even of its repute, and is
sufficiently ratified by the support of general acceptance. It is
undoubted, so that we ought to inquire into the reason of the thing;
but without prejudice to the practice, not for the purpose of
overthrowing it, but rather of building it up, that you may all the
more carefully observe it, when you are also satisfied as to its
reason. But what sort of procedure is it, for one to be bringing into
debate a practice, when he has fallen from it, and to be seeking the
explanation of his having ever had it, when he has left it off? Since,
although he may wish to seem on this account desirous to investigate
it, that he may show that he has not done wrong in giving it up, it is
evident that he nevertheless transgressed previously in its
presumptuous observance. If he has done no wrong to-day in
accepting the crown he offended before in refusing it. This treatise,
therefore, will not be for those who not in a proper condition for
inquiry, but for those who, with the real desire of getting
instruction, bring forward, not a question for debate, but a request
for advice. For it is from this desire that a true inquiry always
proceeds; and I praise the faith which has believed in the duty of
complying with the rule, before it has learned the reason of it. An
easy thing it is at once to demand where it is written that we should
not be crowned. But is it written that we should be crowned?
Indeed, in urgently demanding the warrant of Scripture in a different
side from their own, men prejudge that the support of Scripture ought
no less to appear on their part. For if it shall be said that it is
lawful to be crowned on this ground, that Scripture does not forbid it,
it will as validly be retorted that just on this ground is the crown
unlawful, because the Scripture does not enjoin it. What shall
discipline do? Shall it accept both things, as if neither were
forbidden? Or shall it refuse both, as if neither were enjoined? But
“the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” I
should rather say386
| 386 [This is said not
absolutely but in contrast with extreme license; but it shows the
Supremacy of Scripture. Compare De Monogam, cap. 4.] | that what has not
been freely allowed is forbidden.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
