Tertullian · a new plain-English translation from the original language
[1] I say that none of the faithful has ever known a crown on his head, except at a time of such testing. All observe this, from catechumens up to confessors and martyrs -- or deniers. You may ask where the authority for the custom comes from; that is precisely what is now chiefly in question. But when the question is why a thing is observed, its being observed at all is meanwhile established as fact. Therefore an offense which is committed against an observance already claiming vindication under its own name, and sufficiently authorized by the patronage of general consent, cannot be seen as either nonexistent or uncertain. [2] Clearly, a reason ought to be sought -- but with the observance left intact, not for its destruction but rather for its edification, so that you may keep it all the more once you are also secure about the reason for it. But what sense does it make for a man to call an observance into question only once he has already abandoned it? To ask where he got the observance only once he has stopped keeping it? For even if he wants it to look as though he is raising the question in order to show that he did nothing wrong in abandoning the observance, it will nonetheless be plain that he did something wrong earlier, back when he was presuming to keep it. [3] For if he did no wrong today in accepting the crown, then he did wrong at some earlier time in refusing it. And so this discussion is not meant for those to whom the question does not even apply, but for those who, out of a zeal for learning, bring not a question but a genuine inquiry. For it is not always a matter of dispute, and I commend the faith that believed an observance ought to be kept before it ever learned why. [4] And it is easy enough to demand at once, "Where is it written that we should not wear crowns?" But then, where is it written that we should? For those who demand the patronage of Scripture for the opposing side thereby presuppose that their own side, too, ought to have the patronage of Scripture. For if it will be said that crowning is permissible because Scripture does not forbid it, it can equally be turned around that crowning is not permissible because Scripture does not command it. What, then, will discipline do? Accept both, as though neither were forbidden -- or reject both, as though neither were commanded? -- "But what is not forbidden is thereby freely permitted." -- On the contrary: what is not freely permitted is thereby forbidden.