Opening the library…

Home Bible Corpus Discover You

Search the Bible

On the Veiling of Virgins

Tertullian

Chapter 8

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter VIII.—The Argument E Contrario.

The contraries, at all events, of all these (

‹ Chapter 7 Chapter 9 ›

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

.

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

:

“

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

.

”

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

.

Notes

1
1 Cor. xi. 3.
2
See Gen. ii. 23.
3
1 Cor. xi. 16.