{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/003/0030766.htm","path":"chr/ecf/003/0030766.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030766.htm","text":"Chapter XXII.\u2014Answer to the Foregoing Arguments.\nThey who make this concession 8874 ought to reflect on the nature of the word itself\u2014what is the meaning of \u201cwoman\u201d from the very first records of the sacred writings. Here they find it to be the name of the sex, not a class of the sex: if, that is, God gave to Eve, when she had not yet known a man, the surname \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d 8875 \u2014(\u201cfemale,\u201d whereby the sex generally; \u201cwoman,\u201d hereby a class of the sex, is marked). 8876 So, since at that time the as yet unwedded Eve was called by the word \u201cwoman,\u201d that word has been made common even to a virgin. 8877 Nor is it wonderful that the apostle\u2014guided, of course, by the same Spirit by whom, as all the divine Scripture, so that book Genesis, was drawn up\u2014has used the selfsame word in writing \u201cwomen,\u201d which, by the example of Eve unwedded, is applicable too to a \u201cvirgin.\u201d In fact, all the other passages are in consonance herewith. For even by this very fact, that he has not named \u201cvirgins\u201d (as he does in another place 8878 where he is teaching touching marrying), he sufficiently predicates that his remark is made touching every woman, and touching the whole sex; and that there is no distinction made between a \u201cvirgin\u201d and any other, while he does not name her at all. For he who elsewhere\u2014namely, where the difference requires\u2014remembers to make the distinction, (moreover, he makes it by designating each species by their appropriate names,) wishes, where he makes no distinction (while he does not name each), no difference to be understood. What of the fact that in the Greek speech, in which the apostle wrote his letters, it is usual to say, \u201cwomen\u201d rather than \u201cfemales;\u201d that is, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 p. 688 (gunaikas) rather than \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (theleias)? Therefore if that word, 8879 which by interpretation represents what \u201cfemale\u201d (femina) represents, 8880 is frequently used instead of the name of the sex, 8881 he has named the sex in saying \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1; but in the sex even the virgin is embraced. But, withal, the declaration is plain: \u201cEvery woman,\u201d saith he, \u201cpraying and prophesying with head uncovered, 8882 dishonoureth her own head.\u201d 8883 What is \u201cevery woman,\u201d but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying \u201cevery\u201d he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, \u201cEvery man.\u201d 8884 As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of \u201cman\u201d even the \u201cyouth\u201d is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of \u201cwoman,\u201d even the \u201cvirgin\u201d is bidden to be veiled. Equally in each sex let the younger age follow the discipline of the elder; or else let the male \u201cvirgins,\u201d 8885 too, be veiled, if the female virgins withal are not veiled, because they are not mentioned by name. Let \u201cman\u201d and \u201cyouth\u201d be different, if \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cvirgin\u201d are different. For indeed it is \u201con account of the angels\u201d 8886 that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of \u201cthe daughters of men\u201d angels revolted from God. 8887 Who then, would contend that \u201cwomen\u201d alone\u2014that is, 8888 such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity\u2014were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless \u201cvirgins\u201d are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Nay, let us see whether it were not virgins alone whom they lusted after; since Scriptures saith \u201cthe daughters of men;\u201d 8889 inasmuch as it might have named \u201cwives of men,\u201d or \u201cfemales,\u201d indifferently. 8890 Likewise, in that it saith, \u201cAnd they took them to themselves for wives,\u201d 8891 it does so on this ground, that, of course, such are \u201creceived for wives\u201d as are devoid of that title. But it would have expressed itself differently concerning such as were not thus devoid. And so (they who are named) are devoid as much of widowhood as of virginity. So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled \u201cdaughters\u201d and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that \u201cnature herself,\u201d 8892 which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, \u201cteaches that veiling is the duty of females,\u201d has not the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins? If \u201cit is shameful\u201d for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too. From them, then, to whom is assigned one and the same law of the head, 8893 one and the same discipline 8894 of the head is exacted,\u2014(which extends) even unto those virgins whom their childhood defends, 8895 for from the first 8896 a virgin was named \u201cfemale.\u201d This custom, 8897 in short, even Israel observes; but if Israel did not observe it, our Law, 8898 amplified and supplemented, would vindicate the addition for itself; let it be excused for imposing the veil on virgins also. Under our dispensation, let that age which is ignorant of its sex 8899 retain the privilege of simplicity. For both Eve and Adam, when it befell them to be \u201cwise,\u201d 8900 forthwith veiled what they had learnt to know. 8901 At all events, with regard to those in whom girlhood has changed (into maturity), their age ought to remember its duties as to nature, so also, to discipline; for they are being transferred to the rank of \u201cwomen\u201d both in their persons and in their functions. No one is a \u201cvirgin\u201d from the time when she is capable of marriage; seeing that, in her, age has by that time been wedded to its own husband, that is, to time. 8902 \u201cBut some particular virgin has devoted herself to God. From that very moment she both changes the fashion of her hair, and converts all her garb into that of a \u2018woman.\u2019\u201d Let her, then, maintain the character wholly, and perform the whole function of a \u201cvirgin:\u201d what she conceals 8903 for the sake of God, let her cover quite over. 8904 It is our business to entrust to the knowledge of God alone that which the grace of God effects in us, lest we receive from man the reward we hope for from God. 8905 Why do you denude before God 8906 what you cover p. 689 before men? 8907 Will you be more modest in public than in the church? If your self-devotion is a grace of God, and you have received it, \u201cwhy do you boast,\u201d saith he, \u201cas if you have not received it?\u201d 8908 Why, by your ostentation of yourself, do you judge others? Is it that, by your boasting, you invite others unto good? Nay, but even you yourself run the risk of losing, if you boast; and you drive others unto the same perils! What is assumed from love of boasting is easily destroyed. Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood. 8909 You do well in falsely assuming the married character, if you veil your head; nay, you do not seem to assume it falsely, for you are wedded to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your body; act as becomes your Husband\u2019s discipline. If He bids the brides of others to be veiled, His own, of course, much more. \u201cBut each individual man 8910 is not to think that the institution of his predecessor is to be overturned.\u201d Many yield up their own judgment, and its consistency, to the custom of others. Granted that virgins be not compelled to be veiled, at all events such as voluntarily are so should not be prohibited; who, likewise, cannot deny themselves to be virgins, 8911 content, in the security of a good conscience before God, to damage their own fame. 8912 Touching such, however, as are betrothed, I can with constancy \u201cabove my small measure\u201d 8913 pronounce and attest that they are to be veiled from that day forth on which they shuddered at the first bodily touch of a man by kiss and hand. For in them everything has been forewedded: their age, through maturity; their flesh, through age; their spirit, through consciousness; their modesty, through the experience of the kiss their hope, through expectation; their mind through volition. And Rebecca is example enough for us, who, when her betrothed had been pointed out, veiled herself for marriage merely on recognition of him. 8914\nAs to the distinction between \u201cwomen\u201d and \u201cvirgins.\u201d\n687:8875\nGen. ii. 23. In the LXX. and in the Eng. ver. there is but the one word \u201cwoman.\u201d\n687:8876\nThese words are regarded by Dr. Routh as spurious, and not without reason. Mr. Dodgson likewise omits them, and refers to de Virg. Vel. cc. 4 and 5.\n687:8877\nIn de Virg. Vel. 5, Tertullian speaks even more strongly: \u201cAnd so you have the name, I say not now common, but proper to a virgin; a name which from the beginning a virgin received.\u201d\n687:8878\n1 Cor. vii. 34 et seq.\n688:8879 688:8880\nMr. Dodgson appears to think that there is some transposition here; and at first sight it may appear so. But when we look more closely, perhaps there is no need to make any difficulty: the stress is rather on the words \u201cby interpretation,\u201d which, of course, is a different thing from \u201cusage;\u201d and by interpretation \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae appears to come nearer to \u201cfemina\u201d than to \u201cmulier.\u201d\n688:8881 688:8882 688:8883 688:8884 688:8885\nFor a similar use of the word \u201cvirgin,\u201d see Rev. xiv. 4.\n688:8886 688:8887\nSee Gen. vi. 2 in the LXX., with the v. l. ed. Tisch. 1860; and compare Tertullian, de Idol. c. 9, and the note there. Mr. Dodgson refers, too, to de Virg. Vel. c. 7, where this curious subject is more fully entered into.\n688:8888\ni.e. according to their definition, whom Tertullian is refuting.\n688:8889 688:8890\ni.e. If married women had been meant, either word, \u201cuxores\u201d or \u201cfemin\u00e6,\u201d could have been used indifferently.\n688:8891 688:8892 688:8893 688:8894 688:8895 688:8896 688:8897\nOf the \u201cuniversal veiling of women.\u201d\n688:8898\ni.e. as above, the Sermon on the Mount.\n688:8899 688:8900 688:8901 688:8902\nRouth refers us to de Virg. Vel. c. 11.\n688:8903\ni.e. the redundance of her hair.\n688:8904 688:8905\ni.e. says Oehler, \u201clest we postpone the eternal favour of God, which we hope for, to the temporal veneration of men; a risk which those virgins seemed likely to run who, when devoted to God, used to go veiled in public, but bareheaded in the church.\u201d\n688:8906 689:8907\ni.e. in public; see note 27, supra.\n689:8908 689:8909\ni.e. as Muratori, quoted by Oehler, says, your \u201cpious\u201d (?) fraud in pretending to be married when you are a virgin; because \u201cdevoted\u201d virgins used to dress and wear veils like married women, as being regarded as \u201cwedded to Christ.\u201d\n689:8910\ni.e. each president of a church, or bishop.\n689:8911\ni.e. \u201care known to be such through the chastity of their manner and life\u201d (Oehler).\n689:8912\n\u201cBy appearing in public as married women, while in heart they are virgins\u201d (Oehler).\n689:8913\nDoes Tertullian refer to 2 Cor. x. 13? or does \u201cmodulus\u201d mean, as Oehler thinks, \u201cmy rule?\u201d [It seems to me a very plain reference to the text before mentioned, and to the Apostolic Canon of not exceeding one\u2019s Mission.]\n689:8914\nGen. 24:64, 65.","title":"Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol III: Tertullian: Part III: Answe...","type":"page"}