(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all mistakes found.)
Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing intially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.
TERTULLIAN.
ON THE VEILING OF VIRGINS.(1)
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]
CHAP. I.--TRUTH RATHER TO BE APPEALED TO THAN CUSTOM, AND TRUTH PROGRESSIVE
IN ITS DEVELOPMENTS.
HAVING already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will
show in Latin also that it behoves our virgins to be veiled from the time
that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance
is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription--no space of
times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the
most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity,
custom finds its beginning; and then it is successionally confirmed into an
usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ
has surnamed Himself Truth,(2) not Custom. If Christ is always, and prior
to all, equally truth is a thing sempiternal and ancient. Let those
therefore look to themselves, to whom that is new which is intrinsically
old. It is not so much novelty as truth which convicts heresies. Whatever
savours of opposition to truth, this will be heresy, even (if it be an)
ancient custom. On the other hand, if any is ignorant of anything, the
ignorance proceeds from his own defect. Moreover, whatever is matter of
ignorance ought to have been as carefully inquired into as whatever is
matter of acknowledgment received. The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether
one, alone immoveable and irreformable; the rule, to wit, of believing in
one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus
Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised
again the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at
the right (hand) of the Father, destined to come to judge quick and dead
through the resurrection of the flesh as well (as of the spirit). This law
of faith being constant, the other succeeding points of discipline and
conversation admit the "novelty" of correction; the grace of God, to wit,
operating and advancing even to the end. For what kind of (supposition) is
it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the
ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else
have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the
Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all
things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and
ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy
Spirit. "Still," He said, "I have many things to say to you, but ye are not
yet able to bear them: when that Spirit of truth shall have come, He will
conduct you into all truth, and will report to you the supervening
(things)."(3) But above, withal, He made a declaration concerning this His
work.(4) What, then, is the Paraclete's administrative office but this: the
direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scriptures, the reformation
of the intellect, the advancement toward the "better things?"(5) Nothing is
without stages of growth: all things await their season. In short, the
preacher says, "A time to everything."(6) Look how creation itself advances
little by little to fructification. First comes the grain, and from the
grain arises the shoot, and from the shoot struggles out the shrub:
thereafter boughs and leaves gather strength, and the whole that we call a
tree expands: then follows the swelling of the germen, and from the germen
bursts the flower, and from the flower the fruit opens: that fruit itself,
rude for a while, and unshapely, little by little, keeping the straight
course of its development, is trained to the mellowness of its flavour.(1)
So, too, righteousness--for the God of righteousness and of creation is the
same--was first in a rudimentary state, having a natural fear of God: from
that stage it advanced, through the Law and the Prophets, to infancy; from
that stage it passed, through the Gospel, to the fervour of youth: now,
through the Paraclete, it is settling into maturity. He will be, after
Christ, the only one to be called and revered as Master;(2) for He speaks
not from Himself, but what is commanded by Christ.(3) He is the only
prelate, because He alone succeeds Christ. They who have received Him set
truth before custom. They who have heard Him prophesying even to the
present time, not of old, bid virgins be wholly covered.
CHAP. II.--BEFORE PROCEEDING FARTHER, LET THE QUESTION OF CUSTOM ITSELF BE
SIFTED.
But I will not, meantime, attribute this usage to Truth. Be it, for a
while, custom: that to custom I may likewise oppose custom.
Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority
of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this
(African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to
Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those
Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men; and antecedently,
I think, to certain (founders, who shall be nameless). Those Churches
therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom (to
appeal to); in opposing phalanx they range "times" and "teachers," more
than these later (Churches do). What shall we observe? What shall we choose?
We cannot contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot condemn, inasmuch
as it is not "strange," since it is not among "strangers" that we find it,
but among those, to wit, with whom we share the law of peace and the name
of brotherhood. They and we have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the
same hope, the same baptismal sacraments; let me say it once for all, we
are one Church.(4) Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only,
the body divides us.
Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of various practice, of
doubt, and of uncertainty), examination ought to have been made to see
which of two so diverse customs were the more compatible with the
discipline of God. And, of course, that ought to have been chosen which
keeps virgins veiled, as being known to God alone; who (besides that glory
must be sought from God, not from men(5)) ought to blush even at their own
privilege. You put a virgin to the blush more by praising than by blaming
her; because the front of sin is more hard, learning shamelessness from and
in the sin itself. For that custom which belies virgins while it exhibits
them, would never have been approved by any except by some men who must
have been similar in character to the virgins themselves. Such eyes will
wish that a virgin be seen as has the virgin who shall wish to be seen. The
same kinds of eyes reciprocally crave after each other. Seeing and being
seen belong to the self-same lust. To blush if he see a virgin is as much a
mark of a chaste(6) man, as of a chaste(7) virgin if seen by a man.
CHAP. III.--GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOM, AND ITS RESULTS. PASSIONATE
APPEAL TO TRUTH.
But not even between customs have those most chaste s teachers chosen
to examine. Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with
comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left
to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might
have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself
withal is neither enforced nor prohibited. Truth had been content to make
an agreement with custom, in order that under the name of custom it might
enjoy itself even partially. But when the power of discerning began to
advance, so that the licence granted to either fashion was becoming the
mean whereby the indication of the better part emerged; immediately the
great adversary of good things--and much more of good institutions--set to
his own work. The virgins of men go about, in opposition to the virgins of
God, with front quite bare, excited to a rash audacity; and the semblance
of virgins is exhibited by women who have the power of asking somewhat from
husbands,(9) not to say such a request as that (forsooth) their rivals--all
the more "free" in that they are the "hand-maids" of Christ alone(10)--may
be surrendered to them. "We are scandalized," they say, "because others
walk otherwise (than we do);" and they prefer being "scandalized" to being
provoked (to modesty). A "scandal," if I mistake not, is an example not of
a good thing, but of a bad, tending to sinful edification. Good things
scandalize none but an evil mind. If modesty, if bashfulness, if contempt
of glory, anxious to please God alone, are good things, let women who are
"scandalized" by such good learn to acknowledge their own evil. For what if
the incontinent withal say they are "scandalized" by the continent? Is
continence to be recalled? And, for fear the multinubists be "scandalized,"
is monogamy to be rejected? Why may not these latter rather complain that
the petulance, the impudence, of ostentatious virginity is a "scandal" to
them? Are therefore chaste virgins to be, for the sake of these marketable
creatures, dragged into the church, blushing at being recognised in public,
quaking at being unveiled, as if they had been invited as it were to rape?
For they axe no less unwilling to suffer even this. Every public exposure
of an honourable virgin is (to her) a suffering of rape: and yet the
suffering of carnal violence is the less (evil), because it comes of
natural office. But when the very spirit itself is violated in a virgin by
the abstraction of her covering, she has learnt to lose what she used to
keep. O sacrilegious hands, which have had the hardihood to drag off a
dress dedicated to God! What worse could any persecutor have done, if he
had known that this (garb) had been chosen by a virgin? You have denuded a
maiden in regard of her head, and forthwith she wholly ceases to be a
virgin to herself; she has undergone a change! Arise, therefore, Truth;
arise, and as it were burst forth from Thy patience! No custom do I wish
Thee to defend; for by this time even that custom under which Thou didst
enjoy thy own liberty is being stormed! Demonstrate that it is Thyself who
art the coverer of virgins. Interpret in person Thine own Scriptures, which
Custom understandeth not; for, if she had, she never would have had an
existence.
CHAP. IV.--OF THE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM 1 COR. XI. 5-16.
But in so far as it is the custom to argue even from the Scriptures in
opposition to truth, there is immediately urged against us the fact that
"no mention of virgins is made by the apostle where he is prescribing about
the veil, but that 'women' only are named; whereas, if he had willed
virgins as well to be covered, he would have pronounced concerning
'virgins' also together with the 'women' named; just as," says (our
opponent), "in that passage where he is treating of marriage,(1) he
declares likewise with regard to 'virgins' what observance is to be
followed." And accordingly (it is urged) that "they are not comprised in
the law of veiling the head, as not being named in this law; nay rather,
that this is the origin of their being unveiled, inasmuch as they who are
not named are not bidden."
But we withal retort the self-same line of argument. For he who knew
elsewhere how to make mention of each sex--of virgin I mean, and woman,
that is, not-virgin--for distinction's sake; in these (passages), in which
he does not name a virgin, points out (by not making the distinction)
community of condition. Otherwise he could here also have marked the
difference between virgin and woman, just as elsewhere he says, "Divided is
the woman and the virgin."(2) Therefore those whom, by passing them over in
silence, he has not divided, he has included in the other species.
Nor yet, because in that case "divided is both woman and virgin," will
this division exert its patronizing influence in the present case as well,
as some will have it. For how many sayings, uttered on another occasion,
have no weight--in cases, to wit, where they are not uttered--unless the
subject-matter be the same as on the other occasion, so that the one
utterance may suffice! But the former case of virgin and woman is widely
"divided" from the present question. "Divided," he says, "is the woman and
the virgin." Why? Inasmuch as "the unmarried," that is, the virgin, "is
anxious about those (things) which are the Lord's, that she may be holy
both in body and in spirit; but the married," that is, the not-virgin, "is
anxious how she may please her husband." This will be the interpretation of
that "division," having no place in this passage (now under consideration);
in which pronouncement is made neither about marriage, nor about the mind
and the thought of woman and of virgin, but about the veiling of the head.
Of which (veiling) the Holy Spirit, willing that there should be no
distinction, willed that by the one name of woman should likewise be
understood the virgin; whom, by not specially naming, He has not separated
from the woman, and, by not separating, has conjoined to her from whom He
has not separated her.
Is it now, then, a "novelty" to use the primary word, and nevertheless
to have the other (subordinate divisions) understood in that word, in cases
where there is no necessity for individually distinguishing the (various
parts of the) universal whole? Naturally, a compendious style of speech is
both pleasing and necessary; inasmuch as diffuse speech is both tiresome
and vain. So, too, we are content with general words, which comprehend in
themselves the understanding of the specialties. Proceed we, then, to the
word itself. The word (expressing the) natural (distinction) is female. Of
the natural word, the general word is woman. Of the general, again, the
special is virgin, or wife, or widow, or whatever other names, even of the
successive stages of life, are added hereto. Subject, therefore, the
special is to the general (because the general is prior); and the succedent
to the antecedent, and the partial to the universal: (each) is implied in
the word itself to which it is subject; and is signified in it, because
contained in it. Thus neither hand, nor foot, nor any one of the members,
requires to be signified when the body is named. And if you say the
universe, therein will be both the heaven and the things that are in it,--
sun and moon, and constellations and stars,--and the earth and the seas,
and everything that goes to make up the list of elements. You will have
named all, when you have named that which is made up of all. So, too, by
naming woman, he has named whatever is woman's.
CHAP. V.--OF THE WORD WOMAN, ESPECIALLY IN' CONNECTION WITH ITS APPLICATION
TO EVE.
But since they use the name of woman in such a way as to think it
inapplicable save to her alone who has known a man, the pertinence of the
propriety of this word to the sex itself, not to a grade of the sex, must
be proved by us; that virgins as well (as others) may be commonly comprised
in it.
When this kind of second human being was made by God for man's
assistance, that female was forthwith named woman; still happy, still
worthy of paradise, still virgin. "She shall be called," said (Adam),
"Woman." And accordingly you have the name,--I say, not already common to a
virgin, but--proper (to her; a name) which from the beginning was allotted
to a virgin. But some ingeniously will have it that it was said of the
future, "She shall be called woman," as if she were destined to be so when
she had resigned her virginity; since he added withal: "For this cause
shall a man leave father and mother, and be conglutinated to his own woman;
and the two shall be one flesh." Let them therefore among whom that
subtlety obtains show us first, if she were surnamed woman with a future
reference, what name she meantime received. For without a name expressive
of her present quality she cannot have been. But what kind of (hypothesis)
is it that one who, with an eye to the future, was called by a definite
name, at the present time should have nothing for a surname? On all animals
Adam imposed names; and on none on the ground of future condition, but on
the ground of the present purpose which each particular nature served;(1)
called (as each nature was) by that to which from the beginning it showed a
propensity. What, then, was she at that time called? Why, as often as she
is named in the Scripture, she has the appellation woman before she was
wedded, and never virgin while she was a virgin.
This name was at that time the only one she had, and (that) when
nothing was (as yet) said prophetically. For when the Scripture records
that "the two were naked, Adam and his woman," neither does this savour of
the future, as if it said "his woman" as a presage of "wife;" but because
his woman(2) was withal unwedded, as being (formed) from his own substance.
"This bone," he says, "out of my bones, and flesh out of my flesh, shall be
called woman." Hence, then, it is from the tacit consciousness of nature
that the actual divinity of the soul has educed into the ordinary usage of
common speech, unawares to men, (just as it has thus educed many other
things too which we shall elsewhere be able to show to derive from the
Scriptures the origin of their doing and saying,) our fashion of calling
our wives our women, however improperly withal we may in same instances
speak. For the Greeks, too, who use the name of woman more (than we do) in
the sense of wife, have other names appropriate to wife. But I prefer to
assign this usage as a testimony to Scripture. For when two are made into
one flesh through the marriage-tie, the "flesh of flesh and bone of bones"
is called the woman of him of whose substance she begins to be accounted by
being made his wife. Thus woman is not by nature a name of wife, but wife
by condition is a name of woman. In fine, womanhood is predicable apart
from wifehood; but wifehood apart from womanhood is not, because it cannot
even exist. Having therefore settled the name of the newly-made female--
which (name) is woman--and having explained what she formerly was, that is,
having sealed the name to her, he immediately turned to the prophetic
reason, so as to say, "On this account shall a man leave father and
mother." The name is so truly separate from the prophecy, as far as (the
prophecy) from the individual person herself, that of course it is not with
reference to Eve herself that (Adam) has uttered (the prophecy), but with a
view to those future females whom he has named in the maternal fount of the
feminine race. Besides, Adam was not to leave "father and mother"--whom he
had not--for the sake of Eve. Therefore that which was prophetically said
does not apply to Eve, because it does not to Adam either. For it was
predicted with regard to the condition of husbands, who were destined to
leave their parents for a woman's sake; which could net chance to Eve,
because it could not to Adorn either.
If the case is so, it is apparent that she was not surnamed woman on
account of a future (circumstance), to whom (that) future (circumstance)
did not apply.
To this is added, that (Adam) himself published the reason of the name.
For, after saying, "She shall be called woman," he said, "inasmuch as she
hath been taken out of man"--the man himself withal being still a virgin.
But we will speak, too, about the name of man(1) in its own place.
Accordingly, let none interpret with a prophetic reference a name which was
deduced from another signification; especially since it is apparent when
she did receive a name rounded upon a future (circumstance)--there, namely,
where she is surnamed "Eve," with a personal name now, because the natural
one had gone before.(2) For if "Eve" means "the mother of the living,"
behold, she is surnamed from a future (circumstance)! behold, she is pre-
announced to be a wife, and not a virgin! This will be the name of one who
is about to wed; for of the bride (comes) the mother.
Thus in this case too it is shown, that it was not from a future
(circumstance) that she was at that time named woman, who was shortly after
to receive the name which would be proper to her future condition.
Sufficient answer has been made to this part (of the question).
CHAP. VI.--THE PARALLEL CASE OF MARY CONSIDERED.
Let us now see whether the apostle withal observes the norm of this
name in accordance with Genesis, attributing it to the sex; calling the
virgin Mary a woman, just as Genesis (does) Eve. For, writing to the
Galatians, "God," he says, "sent His own Son, made of a woman,"(3) who, of
course, is admitted to have been a virgin, albeit Hebion(4) resist (that
doctrine). I recognise, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to "a
virgin."(5) But when he is blessing her, it is "among women," not among
virgins, that he ranks her: "Blessed (be) thou among women." The angel
withal knew that even a virgin is called a woman.
But to these two (arguments), again, there is one who appears to
himself to have made an ingenious answer; (to the effect that) inasmuch as
Mary was "betrothed," therefore it is that both by angel and apostle she is
pronounced a woman; for a "betrothed" is in some sense a "bride." Still,
between "in some sense" and "truth" there is difference enough, at all
events in the present place: for elsewhere, we grant, we must thus hold.
Now, however, it is not as being already wedded that they have pronounced
Mary a woman, but as being none the less a female even if she had not been
espoused; as having been called by this (name) from the beginning: for that
must necessarily have a prejudicating force from which the normal type has
descended. Else, as far as relates to the present passage, if Mary is here
put on a level with a "betrothed," so that she is called a woman not on the
Found of being a female, but on the ground of being assigned to a husband,
it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a virgin, because (born)
of one "betrothed," who by this fact will have ceased to be a virgin.
Whereas, if He was born of a virgin--albeit withal "betrothed," yet intact-
-acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman.
Here, at all events, there can be no semblance of speaking prophetically,
as if the apostle should have named a future woman, that is, bride, in
saying "made of a woman." For he could not be naming a posterior woman,
from whom Christ had not to be born--that is, one who had known a man; but
she who was then present, who was a virgin, was withal called a woman in
consequence of the propriety of this name,--vindicated, in accordance with
the primordial norm, (as belonging) to a virgin, and thus to the universal
class of women.
CHAP. VII.--OF THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE APOSTLE FOR BIDDING WOMEN TO BE
VEILED.
Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead
the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether
the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the
community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established,
while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in
each case.
If "the man is head of the woman,"(6) of course (he is) of the virgin
too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a
third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If" it is
shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn," of course it is so for a
virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts
that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing
hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be
shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If" the woman is the
glory of the man," how much more the virgin, who is a glory withal to
herself! If "the woman is of the man," and "for the sake of the man," that
rib of Adam(7) was first a virgin. If "the woman ought to have power upon
the head,"(1) all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the
essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on
account of the angels--those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from
God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females--who can presume
that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such
angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins,
whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does
Scripture withal suggest: "And it came to pass," it says, "when men had
begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters
born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that
they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected."(2) For
here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense "wives," inasmuch
as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says "the daughters of men,"
it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to
their parents--for wedded women are called their husbands'--whereas it
could have said "the wives of men:" in like manner not naming the angels
adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded" daughters of men," who
it has above said were "born," thus also signifying their virginity:
first, "born;" but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that
they were except "born" and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then,
ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven:
that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused
of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush
before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty
of its head,--(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes.
But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had
desired, so much the more "on account of the angels" would it have been the
duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for
virgins to have been the cause of the angels' sinning. If, moreover, the
apostle further adds the prejudgment of "nature," that redundancy of locks
is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering? of course it
is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very
adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon
the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an
encirclement of hair.
CHAP. VIII.--THE ARGUMENT E CONTRARIO.
The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect
that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature
been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not
shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels
transgressed; because his Head is Christ.(4) Accordingly, since the apostle
is treating of man and woman--why the latter ought to be veiled, but the
former not--it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin;
allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same
reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing
the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and
man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man:(5)
"She shall be called," says he, "woman, because she hath been taken from
her own man." Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like
manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence
apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and
briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, "Every
woman." What is "every," but of every class, of every order, of every
condition, of every dignity, of every age?--if, (as is the case), "every"
means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin
is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the
man, he says "every." Behold two diverse names, Man and Woman--"every one"
in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of
veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is
said "every man" makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him
who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is
common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a
virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not
consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is
similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised
too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a
stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a
woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let
identity of virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not
compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we
partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard
to "every man," without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not
withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute
with regard to "every woman?" "If any," he says, "is contentious, we have
not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God."(1) He shows that there had
been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses
the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one
hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and,
on the other hand, naming "every woman," whereas he would have named the
virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the
Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians
do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.
CHAP. IX.--VEILING CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER RULES OF DISCIPLINE OBSERVED
BY VIRGINS AND WOMEN IN GENERAL.
Let is now see whether, as we have shown the arguments drawn from
nature and the matter itself to be applicable to the virgin as well (as to
other females), so likewise the precepts of ecclesiastical discipline
concerning women have an eye to the virgin.
It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church;(2) but neither
(is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim
to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal
office. Let us inquire whether any of these be lawful to a virgin. If it is
not lawful to a virgin, but she is subjected on the self-same terms (as the
woman), and the necessity for humility is assigned her together with the
woman, whence will this one thing be lawful to her which is not lawful to
any and every female? If any is a virgin, and has proposed to sanctify her
flesh, what prerogative does she (thereby) earn adverse to her own
condition? Is the reason why it is granted her to dispense with the veil,
that she may be notable and marked as she enters the church? that she may
display the honour of sanctity in the liberty of her head? More worthy
distinction could have been conferred on her by according her some
prerogative of manly rank or office! I know plainly, that in a certain
place a virgin of less than twenty years of age has been placed in the
order of widows! whereas if the bishop had been bound to accord her any
relief, he might, of course, have done it in some other way without
detriment to the respect due to discipline; that such a miracle, not to say
monster, should not be pointed at in the church, a virgin-widow! the more
portentous indeed, that not even as a widow did she veil her head; denying
herself either way; both as virgin, in that she is counted a widow, and as
widow, in that she is styled a virgin. But the authority which licenses her
sitting in that seat uncovered is the same which allows her to sit there as
a virgin: a seat to which (besides the "sixty years"(3) not merely "single-
husbanded "(women)--that is, married women--are at length elected, but
"mothers" to boot, yes, and "educators of children;" in order, forsooth,
that their experimental training in all the affections may, on the one
hand, have rendered them capable of readily aiding all others with counsel
and comfort, and that, on the other, they may none the less have travelled
down the whole course of probation whereby a female can he tested. So true
is; it, that, on the ground of her position, nothing in the way of public
honour is permitted to a virgin.
CHAP. X.--IF THE FEMALE VIRGINS ARE TO BE THUS CONSPICUOUS, WHY NOT THE
MALE AS WELL?
Nor, similarly, (is it permitted) on the ground of any distinctions
whatever. Otherwise, it were sufficiently discourteous, that while females,
subjected as they are throughout to men, bear in their front an honourable
mark of their virginity, whereby they may be looked up to and gazed at on
all sides and magnified by the brethren, so many men-virgins, so many
voluntary eunuchs, should carry their glory in secret, carrying no token
to make them, too, illustrious. For they, too, will be bound to claim some
distinctions for themselves--either the feathers of the Garamantes, or else
the fillets of the barbarians, or else the cicadas of the Athenians, or
else the curls of the Germans, or else the tattoo-marks of the Britons; or
else let the opposite course be taken, and let them lurk in the churches
with head veiled. Sure we are that the Holy Spirit could rather have made
some such concession to males, if He had made it to females; forasmuch as,
besides the authority of sex, it would have been more becoming that males
should have been honoured on the ground of continency itself likewise. The
more their sex is eager and warm toward females, so much the more toil does
the continence of (this) greater ardour involve; and therefore the worthier
is it of all ostentation, if ostentation of virginity is dignity. For is
not continence withal superior to virginity, whether it be the continence
of the widowed, or of those who, by consent, have already renounced the
common disgrace (which matrimony involves)?(4) For constancy of virginity
is maintained by grace; of continence, by virtue. For great is the struggle
to overcome concupiscence when you have become accustomed to such
concupiscence; whereas a concupiscence the enjoyment whereof you have never
known you will subdue easily, not having an adversary (in the shape of) the
concupiscence of enjoyment.(1) How, then, would God have failed to make any
such concession to men more (than to women), whether on the ground of
nearer intimacy, as being "His own image," or on the ground of harder toil?
But if nothing (has been thus conceded) to the male, much more to the
female.
CHAP. XI.--THE RULE OF VEILING NOT APPLICABLE TO CHILDREN.
But what we intermitted above for the sake of the subsequent
discussion--not to dissipate its coherence--we will now discharge by an
answer. For when we joined issue about the apostle's absolute definition,
that "every woman" must be understood (as meaning woman) of even every age,
it might be replied by the opposite side, that in that case it behoved the
virgin to be veiled from her nativity, and from the first entry of her age
(upon the roll of time).
But it is not so; but from the time when she begins to be self-
conscious, and to awake to the sense of her own nature, and to emerge from
the virgin's (sense), and to experience that novel (sensation) which
belongs to the succeeding age. For withal the founders of the race, Adam
and Eve, so long as they were without intelligence, went "naked;" but after
they tasted of "the tree of recognition," they were first sensible of
nothing more than of their cause for shame. Thus they each marked their
intelligence of their own sex by a covering.(2) But even if it is "on
account of the angels" that she is to be veiled,(3) doubtless the age from
which the law of the veil will come into operation will be that from which
"the daughters of men" were able to invite concupiscence of their persons,
and to experience marriage. For a virgin ceases to be a virgin from the
time that it becomes possible for her not to be one. And accordingly, among
Israel, it is unlawful to deliver one to a husband except after the
attestation by blood of her maturity;(4) thus, before this indication, the
nature is unripe. Therefore if she is a virgin so long as she is unripe,
she ceases to be a virgin when she is perceived to be ripe; and, as not-
virgin, is now subject to the law, just as she is to marriage. And the
betrothed indeed have the example of Rebecca, who, when she was being
conducted--herself still unknown--to an unknown betrothed, as soon as she
learned that he whom she had sighted from afar was the man, awaited not the
grasp of the hand, nor the meeting of the kiss, nor the interchange of
salutation; but confessing what she had felt--namely, that she had been
(already) wedded in spirit--denied herself to be a virgin by then and there
veiling herself.(5) Oh woman already belonging to Christ's discipline! For
she showed that marriage likewise, as fornication is, is transacted by gaze
and mind; only that a Rebecca likewise some do still veil. With regard to
the rest, however (that is, those who are not betrothed), let the
procrastination of their parents, arising from straitened means or
scrupulosity, look (to them); let the vow of continence itself look (to
them). In no respect does (such procrastination) pertain to an age which is
already running its own assigned course, and paying its own dues to
maturity. Another secret mother, Nature, and another hidden father, Time,
have wedded their daughter to their own laws. Behold that virgin-daughter
of yours already wedded--her soul by expectancy, her flesh by
transformation--for whom you are preparing a second husband! Already her
voice is changed, her limbs fully formed, her "shame" everywhere clothing
itself, the months paying their tributes; and do you deny her tO be a woman
whom you assert to be undergoing womanly experiences? If the contact of a
man makes a woman, let there be no covering except after actual experience
of marriage. Nay, but even among the heathens (the betrothed) are led
veiled to the husband. But if it is at betrothal that they are veiled,
because (then) both in body and in spirit they have mingled with a male,
through the kiss and the fight hands, through which means they first in
spirit unsealed their modesty, through the common pledge of conscience
whereby they mutually plighted their whole confusion; how much more will
time veil them?--(time) without which espoused they cannot be; and by whose
urgency, without espousals, they cease to be virgins. Time even the
heathens observe, that, in obedience to the law of nature, they may render
their own fights to the (different) ages. For their females they despatch
to their businesses from (the age of) twelve years, but the male from two
years later; decreeing puberty (to consist) in years, not in espousals or
nuptials. "Housewife" one is called, albeit a virgin, and "house-father,"
albeit a stripling. By us not even natural laws are observed; as if the God
of nature were some other than ours!
CHAP. XII.--WOMANHOOD SELF-EVIDENT, AND NOT TO BE CONCEALED BY JUST LEAVING
THE HEAD BARE.
Recognise the woman, ay, recognise the wedded woman, by the testimonies
both of body and of spirit, which she experiences both in conscience and in
flesh. These are the earlier tablets of natural espousals and nuptials.
Impose a veil externally upon her who has (already) a covering internally.
Let her whose lower parts are not bare have her upper likewise covered.
Would you know what is the authority which age carries? Set before yourself
each (of these two); one prematurely[1] compressed in woman's garb, and one
who, though advanced in maturity, persists in virginity with its
appropriate garb: the former will more easily be denied to be a woman than
the latter believed a virgin. Such is, then, the honesty of age, that there
is no overpowering it even by garb. What of the fact that these (virgins)
of ours confess their change of age even by their garb; and, as soon as
they have understood themselves to be women, withdraw themselves from
virgins, laying aside (beginning with their head itself) their former
selves: dye[2] their hair; and fasten their hair with more wanton pin;
professing manifest womanhood with their hair parted from the front. The
next thing is, they consult the looking-glass to aid their beauty, and thin
down their over-exacting face with washing, perhaps withal vamp it up with
cosmetics, toss their mantle about them with an air, fit tightly the
multiform shoe, carry down more ample appliances to the baths. Why should I
pursue particulars? But their manifest appliances alone[3] exhibit their
perfect womanhood: yet they wish to play the virgin by the sole fact of
leaving their head bare--denying by one single feature what they profess by
their entire deportment.
CHAP. XIII.--IF UNVEILING BE PROPER, WHY NOT PRACTISE IT ALWAYS, OUT OF THE
CHURCH AS WELL AS IN IT?
If on account of men[4] they adopt a false garb, let them carry out
that garb fully even for that end;[5] and as they veil their head in
presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their
virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let
them stand in awe of the brethren too; or else let them have the consistent
hardihood to appear as virgins in the streets as well, as they have the
hardihood to do in the churches. I will praise their vigour, if they
succeed in selling aught of virginity among the heathens withal.[6]
Identity of nature abroad as at home, identity of custom in the presence of
men as of the Lord, consists in identity of liberty. To what purpose, then,
do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the
church? I demand a reason. Is it to please the brethren, or God Himself? If
God Himself, He is as capable of beholding whatever is done in secret, as
He is just to remunerate what is done for His sole honour. In fine, He
enjoins us not to trumpet forth[7] any one of those things which will merit
reward in His sight, nor get compensation for them from men. But if we are
prohibited from letting "our left hand know" when we bestow the gift of a
single halfpenny, or any eleemosynary bounty whatever, how deep should be
the darkness in which we ought to enshroud ourselves when we are offering
God so great an oblation of our very body and our very spirit--when we are
consecrating to Him our very nature! It follows, therefore, that what
cannot appear to be done for God's sake (because God wills not that it be
done in such a way) is done for the sake of men,--a thing, of course,
primarily unlawful, as betraying a lust of glory. For glory is a thing
unlawful to those whose probation consists in humiliation of every kind.
And if it is by God that the virtue of continence is conferred, "why
gloriest thou, as if thou have not received?"[8] If, however, you have not
received it, "what hast thou which has not been given thee?" But by this
very fact it is plain that it has not been given you by God--that it is not
to God alone that you offer it. Let us see, then, whether what is human be
firm and true.
CHAP. XIV.--PERILS TO THE VIRGINS THEMSELVES ATTENDANT UPON NOT-VEILING
They report a saying uttered at one time by some one when first this
question was mooted, "And how shall we invite the other (virgins) to
similar conduct?" Forsooth, it is their numbers that will make us happy,
and not the grace of God and the merits of each individual! Is it virgins
who (adorn or commend) the Church in the sight of God, or the Church which
adorns or commends virgins? (Our objector) has therefore confessed that
"glory" lies at the root of the matter. Well, where glory is, there is
solicitation; where solicitation, there compulsion; where compulsion, there
necessity; where necessity, there infirmity. Deservedly, therefore, while
they do not cover their head, in order that they may be solicited for the
sake of glory, they are forced to cover their bellies by the ruin resulting
from infirmity. For it is emulation, not religion, which impels them.
Sometimes it is that god-their belly[1]--himself; because the brotherhood
readily undertakes the maintenance of virgins. But, moreover, it is not
merely that they are ruined, but they draw after them "a long rope of
sins."[2] For, after being brought forth into the midst (of the church),
and elated by the public appropriation of their property,[3] and laden by
the brethren with every honour and charitable bounty, so long as they do
not fall,-when any sin has been committed, they meditate a deed as
disgraceful as the honour was high which they had. (It is this.) If an
uncovered head is a recognised mark of virginity, (then) if any virgin
falls from the grace of virginity, she remains permanently with head
uncovered for fear of discovery, and walks about in a garb which then
indeed is another's. Conscious of a now undoubted womanhood, they have the
audacity to draw near to God with head bare. But the "jealous God and
Lord," who has said, "Nothing covered which shall not be revealed,"[4]
brings such in general before the public gaze; for confess they will not,
unless betrayed by the cries of their infants themselves. But, in so far as
they are "more numerous," will you not just have them suspected of the more
crimes? I will say (albeit I would rather not) it is a difficult thing for
one to turn woman once for all who fears to do so, and who, when already so
turned (in secret), has the power of (still) falsely pretending to be a
virgin under the eye of God. What audacities, again, will (such an one)
venture on with regard to her womb, for fear of being detected in being a
mother as well! God knows how many infants He has helped to perfection and
through gestation till they were born sound and whole, after being long
fought against by their mothers! Such virgins ever conceive with the
readiest facility, and have the happiest deliveries, and children indeed
most like to their fathers!
These crimes does a forced and unwilling virginity incur. The very
concupiscence of non-concealment is not modest: it experiences somewhat
which is no mark of a virgin,--the study of pleasing, of course, ay, and
(of pleasing) men. Let her strive as much as you please with an honest
mind; she must necessarily be imperilled by the public exhibition s of
herself, while she is penetrated by the gaze of untrustworthy and
multitudinous' eyes, while she is tickled by pointing fingers, while she is
too well loved, while she feels a warmth creep over her amid assiduous
embraces and kisses. Thus the forehead hardens; thus the sense of shame
wears away; thus it relaxes; thus is learned the desire of pleasing in
another way!
CHAP. XV.--OF FASCINATION.
Nay, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than
itself. Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes itself
has. It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet,
as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows of temptations,
against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and emulation;
(against) envy also itself. For there is a something even among the
heathens to be apprehended, which they call Fascination, the too unhappy
result of excessive praise and glory. This we sometimes interpretatively
ascribe to the devil, for of him comes hatred of good; sometimes we
attribute it to God, for of Him comes judgment upon haughtiness, exalting,
as He does, the humble, and depressing the elated.[6] The more holy virgin,
accordingly, will fear, even under the name of fascination, on the one hand
the adversary, on the other God, the envious disposition of the former, the
censorial light of the latter; and will joy in being known to herself alone
and to God. But even if she has been recognized by any other, she is wise
to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have the
audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? a face without
feeling? a face, so to say, morose? Any evil cogitation whatsoever will be
broken by the very severity. She who conceals her virginity, by that fact
denies even her womanhood.
CHAP. XVI.--TERTULLIAN, HAVING SHOWN HIS DEFENCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
SCRIPTURE, NATURE, AND DISCIPLINE, APPEALS TO THE VIRGINS THEMSELVES.
Herein consists the defence of our opinion, in accordance with
Scripture, in accordance with Nature, in accordance with Discipline.
Scripture founds the law; Nature joins to attest it; Discipline exacts it.
Which of these (three) does a custom rounded on (mere) opinion appear in
behalf of? or what is the colour of the opposite view? God's is Scripture;
God's is Nature; God's is Discipline. Whatever is contrary to these is not
God's. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning
Nature's testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain? If there is a doubt about
Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. For nothing
is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than modesty;
nothing more offensive than "glory" and the study of men-pleasing. Let
that, accordingly, be to you Scripture, and Nature, and Discipline, which
you shall find to have been sanctioned by God; just as you are bidden to
"examine all things, and diligently follow whatever is better."[1]
It remains likewise that we turn to (the virgins) themselves, to induce
them to accept these (suggestions) the more willingly. I pray you, be you
mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter--let me address you according to the
names proper to your years--veil your head: if a mother, for your sons'
sakes; if a sister, for your brethren's sakes; if a daughter for your
fathers' sakes. All ages are perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of
modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart
for your sex, which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to
other people's. Wear the full garb of woman, to preserve the standing of
virgin. Belie somewhat of your inward consciousness, in order to exhibit
the truth to God alone. And yet you do not belie yourself in appearing as a
bride. For wedded you are to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your
flesh; to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with the
will of your Espoused. Christ is He who bids the espoused and wives of
others Veil themselves;[2] (and,) of course, ranch more His own.
CHAP. XVII.--AN APPEAL TO THE MARRIED WOMEN.
But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who
have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil,
not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take
some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For
some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but
bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies,
bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain
with linen coifs of small dimensions--I suppose for fear of pressing the
head--and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their
hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them
know that the whole head constitutes "the woman."[3] Its limits and
boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of
the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound;
in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be
subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the
veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover
not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content,
with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the
entire face. A female would rather see than be seen. And for this reason a
certain Roman queen said that they were most unhappy, in that they could
more easily fall in love than be fallen in love with; whereas thay are
rather happy, in their immunity from that second (and indeed more frequent)
infelicity, that females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to
fall in love. And the modesty of heathen discipline, indeed, is more
simple, and, so to say, more barbaric. To us the Lord has, even by
revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain
sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in
applause: "Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! it is well for thee to unveil
thyself from the head fight down to the loins, lest withal this freedom of
thy neck profit thee not!" And, of course, what you have said to one you
have said to all. But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve,
who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of (the name of)
God, continue uncovered; (who) even when about to spend time in prayer
itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread
whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be
covered? Of so small extent do they falsely imagine their head to be!
Others, who think the palm of their hand plainly greater than any fringe or
thread, misuse their head no less; like a certain (creature), more beast
than bird, albeit winged, with small head, long legs, and moreover of erect
carriage. She, they say, when she has to hide, thrusts away into a thicket
her head alone--plainly the whole of it, (though)--leaving all the rest of
herself exposed. Thus, while she is secure in head, (but) bare in her
larger pans, she is taken wholly, head and all. Such will be their plight
withal, covered as they are less than is useful.
It is incumbent, then, at all times and in every place, to walk mindful
of the law, prepared and equipped in readiness to meet every mention of
God; who, if He be in the heart, will be recognised as well in the head of
females. To such as read these (exhortations) with good will, to such as
prefer Utility to Custom, may peace and grace from our Lord Jesus Christ
redound: as likewise to Septimius Tertullianus, whose this tractate is.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in
1867. (ANF 4, Roberts and Donaldson). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
