Chapter 1—Truth is to Be Appealed to Rather Than Custom, and Truth is Progressive in Its Developments.

Having already undergone the trouble to explain my particular opinion, I will show in Latin also that it is proper for our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have reached puberty. This practice is demanded by truth, which no one can alter—not the span of time, the support of people or the privilege of regions.

For these things, for the most part, are the sources from which, either from ignorance or simplicity, customs find their beginning. From this they come into common usage, and thus are maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has named Himself Truth, not Custom. If Christ is eternal and prior to all then equally truth is a thing everlasting and ancient. Therefore, let those who believe that what is by its nature old to be new, pay attention. It is not so much novelty as truth which reveals heresies. Whatever stands in opposition to truth, this will be heresy, even if it is an ancient custom.

On the other hand, if anyone is ignorant of anything, this ignorance is his own fault. For, whatever one is ignorant of ought to have been carefully asked about just as whatever is understood should be received.

The rule of faith is indeed altogether one. It alone is permanent and unchangeable. The rule is that of believing in one and 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 the living and the dead through the resurrection of the flesh as well as of the spirit.

This law of faith is unchanging but the other points that followed concerning teaching and discipline allow for new ideas to bring correction. The grace of God is still operating and advancing even to the end. For what kind of argument is it that while the devil is always operating and adding daily to the creative forms of wickedness, the work of God should either have stopped altogether, or else has ceased from advancing? The reason why the Lord sent the Helper was that since human weakness was unable to take in all things at once, instruction should, little by little be given, established, and carried on to perfection, and this by that Representative of the Lord, the Holy Spirit.

“Still,” Jesus said, “I have many things to say to you, but you are not yet able to bear them: when that Spirit of truth shall have come, He will lead you into all truth, and will declare to you the things that are to come.” By this He made a declaration concerning this His work. What then is the Helper’s administrative office but this: the direction of instruction, the revelation of the Scriptures, the renewing of the mind, and the advancement toward the “better things?”

Nothing is without stages of growth: all things await their season. In short, the preacher says, “A time to everything.” Look how creation itself advances little by little to bring forth fruit. 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 bud, and from the bud bursts the flower, and from the flower the fruit opens. That fruit itself, immature for a while, and unshapely, little by little, continues in its development and matures to its perfect flavour.

So it is with righteousness, for the God of righteousness and of creation is the same. Righteousness was first in an immature state, having a natural fear of God. From that stage it advanced, through the Law and the Prophets, to infancy. From there it passed, through the Gospel, to the zeal of youth. Now, through the Helper, it is settling into maturity. He will be, after Christ, the only one to be called and revered as Master because He speaks not from Himself, but what is commanded by Christ. He is the only instructor, because He alone follows Christ. They who have received Him set truth before custom. They who have heard Him prophesying even to the present time, not just of old, call for virgins to be wholly covered.

Chapter 2—Before Proceeding Farther, Let the Question of Custom Itself Be Considered.

But I will not for now declare this to be Truth. But for the moment I will treat it as a custom so that by custom I may likewise oppose custom.

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. In case anyone would ascribe this custom to the Greeks or Barbarians, let it be known that there are places too, beneath this sky², where this is practised.

But I have proposed as models those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men; and thus also, I think, certain others that came earlier. These Churches therefore, as well as others, have the same authority to appeal to custom; in opposition to the later Churches they span more time and have more teachers.

What shall we practice? What shall we choose? We cannot contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot condemn simply by calling it “strange,” since it is not among “strangers” that we find it. But, rather, it is among those 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. 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 the two so different customs was the most compatible with the instruction of God. And, of course, the custom that keeps virgins veiled ought to be chosen, and so they may be known to God alone. These virgins (besides the fact that glory must be sought from God, not from men) ought to blush at the privilege. You embarrass a virgin more by praising her than by blaming her; because sin produces a hardened face, learning shamelessness both from, and in, the sin itself.

For that custom which refuses 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 just as the virgin who has wished to be seen. The same kinds of eyes crave each other. Seeing and being seen are the same lust. To blush if he sees a virgin is as much a mark of a pure man, as of a pure virgin if seen by a man.

Chapter 3—Gradual Development of Custom, and Its Results. A Passionate Appeal to Truth.

But even the most pure teachers have not chosen to discern between the customs. Until very recently, among us, either custom was admitted into communion, without much controversy. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as it is with marrying, which 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 as discernment grew, the freedom to choose between either custom revealed which was better. Immediately the great adversary of good things—and much more of good practices—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 hasty boldness. Those who are merely considered virgins have the power of asking things of men. They make the following request that their rivals, who are all the more free than they are as handmaidens of Christ alone, may be surrendered to them. “We are scandalized,” they say, “because others walk differently than we do.” They prefer being “scandalized” to being provoked to modesty. A “scandal,” if I’m not mistaken, is an example not of a good thing, but of a bad thing and tends to build up evil. Good things scandalize none but the one with an evil mind. If modesty, if bashfulness, if disdain for beauty, and anxiety to please God alone, are good things, let women who are “scandalized” by such good learn to acknowledge their own evil. For what if those lacking self-control say they are “scandalized” by those with self-control? Is self-control to be done away with? And, for fear the polygamists be “scandalized,” is monogamy to be rejected? Why should not the veiled virgins complain that the arrogant, brazen, showy virginity is a “scandal” to them?

Are, therefore, pure virgins to be, for the sake of these creatures who are available for sale, dragged into the church, blushing at being recognized in public, quaking at being unveiled, as if they had been invited to be raped? They are more willing to suffer even this. Every public exposure of an honourable virgin is to her a suffering of rape and yet the suffering of physical violence is the less offence because it is against the flesh. But when the very spirit itself is violated in a virgin by the removal of her covering on her own accord, she has learned to lose what she used to keep.

O unrighteous hands, which have had the boldness to drag off clothing 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 unclothed a maiden in regard to her head, and consequently she wholly ceases to be a virgin within herself; she has undergone a change!

Arise, therefore, Truth; arise, and burst forth from your patience! No custom do I wish you to defend; for by this time even that custom under which you once enjoyed your own liberty is being stormed! Demonstrate that it is yourself who covers virgins. Interpret in person your own Scriptures, which Custom does not understand; for, if she had, she never would have had an existence.

Chapter 4—An Argument Drawn from 1 Cor. 11:5–16.

But as it is the custom to argue even from the Scriptures in opposition to truth, it is immediately brought against us the fact that “no mention of virgins is made by the apostle where he is giving instructions about the veil, but that only women are mentioned. If he had wanted virgins as well to be covered, he would have mentioned ‘virgins’ when he mentioned ‘women’. Just as,” says our opponent, “in that passage where he is addressing marriage, he similarly declares what rules the virgins are to follow.” And accordingly it is argued that “virgins are not included in the law of veiling the head, since they are not mentioned in this law. In fact, this is the origin of them being unveiled. Because they are not mentioned they are not commanded.”

But we respond with the same line of argument. For he knew elsewhere how to distinguish between virgins and non-virgins. But in these passages, in which he does not mention a virgin he points out, by not making the distinction, that they are included in the definition of woman. 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.”³ Therefore, those whom he has passed over in silence, he has not divided. He has included them in the other category.

Neither, as some would have it, should “divided is both woman and virgin” be used as an argument to suggest that the terms woman and virgin should here also be divided. For how many things, said on another occasion, have no significance in other situations where they are not said. Unless, of course, the subject matter is the same as on the other occasion, so that the one utterance is enough! But the former reference to virgin and woman is widely “divided” from the present question.

“Divided,” he says, “is the woman and the virgin.” Why? Because 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 non-virgin, “is anxious how she may please her husband.” This is the interpretation of that “division,” and has no place in the passage now under consideration. For in it nothing is said about marriage, nor about the mind and the thoughts of women or virgins, but about the veiling of the head. Concerning veiling, the Holy Spirit, desiring that there should be no difference between woman and virgin, chose that by the one name of woman, virgin should also be understood because he did not specifically name her. He has not separated the virgin from the woman. By not separating the two he has merged the woman with the virgin.

Is it now a new thing to use the universal word, and still have the other subordinate words understood in that word when there is no need to individually distinguish the various subordinate words from the universal word? Naturally, a concise style of speech is both pleasing and necessary; just as verbose speech is both tiresome and pointless. We too are content with simple words, which contain in themselves the understanding of the subordinate words. Let us proceed to the word itself. The word expressing the distinction in nature is female. From the natural word, the general word woman is derived. From the general word, again, the subordinate words are virgin, or wife, or widow, or whatever other names, even words for the various stages of life, are derived. Therefore, subject the subordinate words to the general words because the general is prior. Subject that which proceeds forth to its source. And subject the part to the whole. Each is implied in the word that it is subject to and is given meaning by it, because it is contained in it. Neither hand, nor foot, nor any one of the body parts, needs to be mentioned when the body is named. And if you say the universe, within it 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 what all is made of. So, too, by naming woman, he has named whatever is woman’s.

Chapter 5—The Word Woman, Especially in Connection with Its Application to Eve.

But since they use the name of woman in such a way that they think that it applies only to non-virgins, we must prove the relevance of this word to the entire gender and not to a specific sub-group within the gender so that the virgins as well as others may be properly included in it.

When this second kind of human being was made by God for man’s assistance, without delay that female was named woman. She was still happy, still worthy of paradise, and still a virgin. “She shall be called,” said Adam, “Woman.” And so you have the name. While not already common to all virgins, it is appropriate. It is a name which from the beginning was given to a virgin. And that is how the name came to be.

But some ingeniously argue that it was said of the future, “She shall be called woman,” as if she were destined to become a woman when she had given up her virginity; since he also added: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and be joined to his own woman; and the two shall be one flesh.”

First, let those who hold this clever argument show us if woman was first given a name of woman as a future reference, what she was named in the meantime? For she could not have been without a name that described her present state. What kind of argument is it that one who, looking to the future, was called by a defining name, but at the present time should have no name? To all animals Adam gave names and none were based on a future condition, but based on the present purpose which each particular part of nature served. He called each by the character it had shown from the beginning. As often as she is named in the Scripture, she has the name 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 was when nothing was yet said prophetically. For when the Scripture records that “the two were naked, Adam and his woman,” neither does this forecast the future, as if it said “his woman” as a prophecy of “wife.” But because his woman was unmarried, she is nevertheless called his woman because she was formed of his own substance. “This bone,” he says, “out of my bones, and flesh out of my flesh, will be called woman.”

Hence, then, it is from the unspoken consciousness of nature that the actual divine nature of the soul has brought into the ordinary usage of common speech, without men’s conscious awareness, our habit of calling our wives our women, however improperly we nevertheless may speak in some instances. Similarly it has also brought about many other things to which we will elsewhere be able to show that the origin of their actions and words are derived from the Scriptures. The Greeks, too, who use the word woman more than we do in the sense of wife, have other words appropriate for wife.

But I prefer to consider this usage to be 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 the one whose physical nature begins to be accounted as hers by being made his wife. Thus woman is not naturally a name for wife, but wife by her specific condition is a name for woman. In conclusion, womanhood is a reality apart from wifehood; but wifehood apart from womanhood is not, because it cannot even exist.

Having therefore decided that the newly-made female’s name would be woman and having declared her name in her original state he sealed the name to her. Immediately following he turned to prophecy when he said, “On this account shall a man leave father and mother.” The name so truly has nothing to do with the prophecy, as far away as the prophecy is from the individual person herself. Of course it is not with reference to Eve herself that Adam has uttered the prophecy, but with the entire future female population in mind who he has named through the maternal source of the female race. Besides, Adam was not to leave “father and mother”—whom he did not have—for the sake of Eve. Therefore the prophecy does not apply to Eve, because it does not apply to Adam either. For the prediction was about the condition of husbands, who were destined to leave their parents for a woman’s sake. This could not happen to Eve, because it could not happen to Adam either. If this is the case, it is apparent that she was not given the name woman on account of a future circumstance, because that future circumstance did not apply to her.

To this is added, that Adam himself announced the reason for the name. For, after saying, “She shall be called woman,” he said, “since she has been taken out of man.” This was said while the man himself was still a virgin. But we will also speak about the name of man in its own place.

Therefore, let no one interpret as prophecy a name which was chosen for another meaning of the word. It is especially obvious when she did receive a name founded upon a future circumstance, that is, where she is given a second name “Eve.” It was a personal name now, because the one based on her nature had gone before. For if “Eve” means “the mother of the living,” behold, she is given a second name from a future circumstance! Behold, she is predicted to be a wife, and not a virgin! This will be the name of one who is about to marry; for from 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, because shortly after she was to receive the name that would properly describe her future condition.

Sufficient explanation has been made of this part of the question.

Chapter 6—The Parallel Case of Mary Considered.

Let us now see whether the apostle also followed Genesis in the use of this name, attributing it to the gender, by 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,” who, of course, is admitted to have been a virgin, although Hebion resists that doctrine. I recognize, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to “a virgin.” But when he is blessing her, it is “among women,” not among virgins, that he places her: “Blessed be you among women.” The angel also 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. It is argued that because Mary was “engaged,” this is why both angel and apostle pronounce her to be a woman. For an “engaged” woman is in some sense a “bride.”

Still, the difference between “in some sense” and “truth” is enough, at least in this situation. Elsewhere we acknowledge the truth in this. Now, however, it is not because she is already married that they have called Mary a woman but because she was a female. It had nothing to do with the fact that she was engaged. It was what women were called from the beginning. This must have an influence on how woman is to be understood. Otherwise, as far as relates to the present passage, if Mary is here put on a level with an “engaged woman,” so that she is called a woman not because she is female, but because she is about to belong to a husband, it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a virgin, because he is born of one “engaged,” who by this fact will have ceased to be considered a virgin. Whereas, if He was born of a virgin—despite her being “engaged,” yet still intact—then it should be acknowledged that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman.

Here, regardless, there can be no appearance 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 later woman, one who did not birth Christ. That is, he was not referring to one who had known a man. But rather, he was referring to she who was then present, who was a virgin and was nonetheless called a woman because of the appropriateness of this name⁴. This is all in accordance with the original meaning, since it here is belonging to a virgin, thus it belongs to all women.

Chapter 7—Of the Reasons Assigned by the Apostle for Urging Women to Be Veiled.

Next we turn to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, to see whether the same reasons apply to virgins as well. From this we will see that the shared name between virgins and non-virgins is legitimate, since the same reasons that make the veil necessary are found to exist in each case.

If “the man is head of the woman,” of course he is of the virgin too, for from the virgin 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 cut short,” of course it is so for a virgin. Therefore let the world, the rival of God, see that it is equally wrong to assert that close-cut hair is graceful for a virgin as it is for a boy to have flowing hair. To her, then, to whom it is equally inappropriate to be shaven or cut short, it is equally appropriate to be covered. If “the woman is the glory of the man,” how much more the virgin, who is a glory to herself! If “the woman is of the man,” and “for the sake of the man,” that rib of Adam was first a virgin.

If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, because her very nature has to do all the more with the reason given for this instruction. For if it is on account of the angels—those, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of their lust after females⁵—who would guess that it was bodies already used, and the remains of human lust, which such angels yearned after, instead of having been inflamed for virgins, whose youthful beauty is similarly an excuse for human lust?

For thus does Scripture suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them that the sons of God, having noticed the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.” For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense “wives,” because mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says “the daughters of men,” it obviously refers to virgins, who would still be considered to belong to their parents, for wedded women belong to husbands. It could have instead said “the wives of men.” In like manner it does not call the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unmarried “daughters of men,” who it has above said were “born,” thus also signifying their virginity. First they were born but here they are married to angels. I do not know anything else that they were except “born” and subsequently married.

So dangerous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven. When standing in the presence of God, at whose judgment seat this face stands accused of the driving of the angels from their original dwellings, it should blush before the other angels as well and repress that former evil freedom of its own head,—a freedom to not be displayed even before human eyes now. But even if they were already contaminated females 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. This would be the case as it would have been even more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning.

Moreover, if the apostle further adds the precedent of nature, that extra hair is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all for a virgin that this is a mark of honour. This is because their very adornment properly consists of this, by being massed together upon the crown, the hair wholly covers the very pinnacle of the head with an encirclement of hair.

Chapter 8—The Argument from the Contrary.

Certainly, the complimentary effect of these considerations is that a man is not to cover his head. This is because he has not by nature been gifted with extra hair; because to have his hair shaved or cut short is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels sinned, and because his head is Christ.

Accordingly, since the apostle is writing about man and woman—why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not—it is obvious why he has not mentioned the virgin. Namely, he has allowed virgin to be understood in the word woman for the same reason why he refrained from naming the boy that was implied in the word man. He embraced the whole of both genders in the names woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still a virgin himself, is named in Genesis man for it says “She shall be called woman, because she has been taken from her own man.” Thus was Adam a man before marital intercourse, in the same manner as Eve was named a woman before marital intercourse.

On either side the apostle has made his declaration apply with sufficient plainness to the universal category of each gender. Briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, “every woman.” What does “every” mean except every class, every order, every condition, every status, every age since as is the case, “every” means total and entire, and none of its parts are excluded. The virgin is nevertheless a part of the woman. Equally, too, he says “every” with regard to not veiling the man. Behold two different names, man and woman. It is “every one” in each case. There are two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand a law of veiling, on the other a law forbidding.

Therefore, if the fact that it is said “every man” makes it plain that the name of man is even shared by him who is not yet a man, that is a virgin male; if, also, since the name is shared because of nature, then the law of not veiling the men who are virgins is also shared because of church teaching: why is it that it does not consequently follow that since woman is also named that every woman virgin similarly shares in the fellowship of the name and thus that they too may share the law?

If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a male virgin a man. If the virgin is not veiled on the argument that she is not a woman, let the male virgin be veiled on the argument that he is not a man. Let those who identify as virgins share equal rights to indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be required to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man,” without entering upon investigations as to why he has not also mentioned the boy but rather partly evade the topic, 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. To extinguish this he summarizes. He does not specifically mention the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling. On the other hand, he names “every woman,” whereas he would have mentioned the virgin had the question been solely about her. So, too, the Corinthians themselves understood him. In fact, today the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples demonstrate.

Chapter 9—Veiling Consistent with the Other Rules of Conduct Observed by Virgins and Women in General.

As we have shown the arguments drawn from nature and reason itself to be applicable to the virgin as well as to other females, let us now see whether the rules of church discipline concerning women apply to virgins as well.

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church; neither is it permitted for her to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer communion, nor to claim to herself a place in any manly role, not to mention taking a priestly position. Let us inquire whether any of these are lawful for a virgin. If it is not lawful to a virgin, but she is under the same laws as the woman, and the necessity for humility is assigned to her just as the woman, why will this one thing (unveiling) be lawful to her which is not lawful to any and every other female?

If any is a virgin, and has decided to make her flesh holy, what privilege does she thereby earn that is contrary to her current state? Is the reason why it is granted her to dispose of the veil, that she may be notable and marked as she enters the church or is it that she may display the honour of her holiness by the freeing of her head? More worthy honour could have been given to her by allowing her some privilege 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! If the overseer had needed to provide her any relief, he might, of course, have done it in some other way without harm to the respect owed to church order. That such a miracle, not to say monster, should not be pointed at in the church—a virgin-widow!⁶ The more troublesome indeed was that not even as a widow did she veil her head. She is denying herself either way. As a virgin she is counted as a widow and as a widow she is styled as 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. It is a seat which is appointed not only to those who are over “sixty years” and were “single-husbanded” women—that is, married women—but to “mothers” as well, yes, and “educators of children.” This is in order, in truth, that their experiential training in all the loving duties may, on the one hand, have rendered them capable of readily helping all others with counsel and comfort, and that, on the other hand, they may also have gone through all the trials by which a female can be tested. So it is true that, on the ground of a virgin’s position, nothing in the way of public honour is permitted to her.

Chapter 10—If the Female Virgins are to Be Noticeable, Why Not the Male Virgins as Well?

Nor, similarly, is it permitted on the ground of any reason that would set her apart whatsoever. Otherwise, it would be very inconsiderate, that while females, who are of lower rank than men in everything, bear openly an honourable mark of their virginity, that they may be looked up to and gazed at on all sides and magnified by the brethren. So many men-virgins and so many voluntary eunuchs, must carry their glory in secret, carrying no symbol to make them, too, prominent. For they, too, will undoubtedly claim some distinctions for themselves—either the feathers of the Garamantes⁷, or else the decorative headbands of the barbarians, or else the cicadas of the Athenians⁸, 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 heads veiled.

We are sure that the Holy Spirit would rather have made some such allowance to males, if He had made it to females, because, besides the authority given to the gender, it would have been more appropriate that males should have been honoured on the ground of self-control itself. The more their gender is eager and warm toward females, so much the more strain does the self-control of this greater passion involve; and therefore the worthier is it of all boasting, if boasting of virginity is a dignified thing.

Besides, is not self-control superior to virginity, whether it be the self-control of the widowed, or of those who willingly have already renounced the common hardship which marriage involves? For continuing in virginity is maintained by grace; while self-control, by virtue. For great is the struggle to overcome desire when you have become accustomed to such desire; whereas when the desire of an enjoyment that has never been known, will be subdued easily because it does not have an enemy which is the desire for the once known enjoyment. How, then, would God have failed to make any such allowance for men more, whether on the ground of their more intimate relationship, as being “His own image,” or on the ground of their harder struggle to maintain virginity? But if no such privilege has been thus granted to the male, to a greater extent has no allowance been given to the female.

Chapter 11—The Rule of Veiling is Not Applicable to Children.

What we interrupted above for the sake of the discussion that followed we will now bring to a conclusion so as not to break the logical flow of the argument. When we debated about the apostle’s absolute definition, that “every woman” must be understood as meaning woman of every age, it might be argued by the opposite side, that in that case it is appropriate for the virgin to be veiled from her birth, from the very moment she entered upon the roll of time.

But it is not so. Rather, it is so 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 new sensation which belongs to the following stage of life. Consider the founders of the race, Adam and Eve, so long as they were without knowledge they went around “naked;” but after they tasted of “the tree of recognition,” they were first aware of nothing more than of their cause for shame. And so they each made known their awareness of their own gender by a covering.

But even though it is “on account of the angels” that she is to be veiled, undoubtedly the age from which the law to veil will come into effect will be the age from which “the daughters of men” were able to invite lust for themselves, 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 give one to a husband except after evidence of the blood of her maturity. Thus, before this evidence, her condition is immature. Therefore if she is a virgin so long as she is immature, she ceases to be a virgin when she is perceived to be mature. And, as a not-virgin, is now subject to the law, just as she is to marriage.

And the betrothed certainly have the example of Rebecca. When she was being escorted—before she was known—to an unknown fiancé, as soon as she learned that he whom she had sighted from afar was the man, she did not wait for the grasp of his hand, nor the meeting of the kiss, nor the exchange of greetings; but showed what she had felt—that is, that she was already married in spirit. She declared herself to not be a virgin by then and there veiling herself. Oh woman already belonging to Christ’s order! For she showed that marriage occurs by gaze and thought, just like sexual immorality. Some still veil those that are like Rebecca was.

With regard to the rest, however (that is, those who are not engaged), let the procrastination of their parents which arises from a lack of strict morality, look to the example of Rebecca; let the vow of self-control itself look to her as well. In no way does such procrastination have anything to do with a stage of development which is already running its own assigned course, and paying its own debts to maturity. Another secret mother, Nature, and another hidden father, Time, have married their daughter by their own laws. Behold that virgin-daughter of yours is already married—her soul by its expectation, her flesh by transformation. This is the very daughter for whom you are preparing a second husband! Already her voice is changed, her limbs fully formed, her nakedness everywhere clothing itself, the months paying their tributes⁹. Do you deny that she is a woman whom you declare to be undergoing womanly experiences?

If contact with a man makes a woman, let there be no covering except after the actual experience of marriage. No, but even among the unbelievers the engaged are led veiled to their husband. But if it is at engagement that they are to be veiled, because then both in body and in spirit they have mingled with a male, through the kiss and the joining of their right hands, through which means they first in spirit unsealed their modesty, through the common pledge of self-disclosure whereby they mutually promised their whole nakedness; how much more will time veil them? For without time they cannot be married; and by time’s insistence, even without marriage, they cease to be virgins.

Even the heathens obey time by their obedience to the law of nature, by giving rights to the different ages. Their females they give to marriage from the age of twelve years, and the male two years later. Through this they demonstrate that puberty is marked by years, not in engagements or wedding vows. One is called a “housewife” even though she is a virgin, and “house-father” even though he is a male virgin. But we do not even obey what nature teaches; as if there was a God of nature other than ours!

Chapter 12—Womanhood is Obvious, and Not to Be Concealed by Just Leaving the Head Bare.

Recognise the woman, yes, recognise the married woman, by the testimonies both of body and of spirit, which she experiences both in mind and in flesh. These are the documentations of natural engagements and wedding vows. Require a veil externally upon her who already has a covering internally. Let her whose lower parts are not bare have her upper similarly covered. Would you like to know the authority that age has? Set before yourself each of these two. If a girl is prematurely squeezed into woman’s clothing and the woman, who though advanced in maturity is still a virgin, into a virgin’s clothing, the girl will less easily be believed to be a woman than the woman will be believed to be a virgin. Such is, then, the honesty of age, that there is no overpowering it even by clothing.

Besides these virgins of ours confess their change of age even by their clothing. As soon as they have understood themselves to be women they withdraw themselves from virgins, laying aside, beginning with their head itself, their former selves. They dye their hair and fasten it with vain hairpins. They profess obvious womanhood with their hair parted from the front. The next thing is, they consult the mirror to aid their beauty, and scrub their overly fussy face with washing and perhaps do it up with cosmetics. Then they toss their cloak about them with an air, fit tightly the multiform shoe, and carry down more abundant tools to the baths. Why should I go into more details? But their manifest tools alone exhibit their perfect womanhood. Yet they wish to play the virgin simply by leaving their head bare, denying by one single feature what they profess by the entire way they conduct themselves.

Chapter 13—If Unveiling Be Proper, Why Not Practise It Always, Out of the Church as Well as in It?

If on account of men they adopt a false style of dress, let them be fully consistent in that dress, even for the very same reason. As they veil their head in the presence of heathens, let them at all times 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 courage to appear as virgins in the streets as well just as they have the courage to do in the churches. I will praise their efforts, if they succeed in passing themselves off as virgins among the heathens¹⁰.

To be able to reveal one’s true nature in public as at home, to be able to practice a custom in the presence of men just as one would before God, demonstrates a true freedom. For what purpose, then, do they thrust their beauty out of sight in public, 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 reward what is done for His honour alone. In fact, He orders us not to trumpet forth any one of those things which will deserve reward in His sight, nor get compensation for them from men. But if we are prohibited from letting “our left hand know” when we give the gift of a single penny, or any charitable gift whatsoever, how deep should be the darkness in which we ought to hide ourselves when we are offering God so great an offering of our very body and our very spirit—when we are dedicating to Him our very nature!

It follows, therefore, that what cannot appear to be done for God’s sake, because God does not will that it be done in such a way, is done for the sake of men which, of course, is fundamentally unlawful as it reveals a desire for glory. For glory is a thing unlawful to those whose testing requires humility of every kind. And if it is by God that the virtue of virginity is given, “why do you take glory, as if you have not received?”¹¹ If, however, you have not received it, “what do you have which has not been given to you?”¹² But by this very fact it is plain that it has not been given to you by God because it is not to God alone that you offer it. Let us see, then, whether what is human is lasting and true.

Chapter 14—Dangers to the Virgins Themselves Who Are Set Upon Not Veiling.

They report a saying uttered at one time by someone when this question was first debated, “And how shall we invite the other virgins to similar conduct?” Indeed! 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 “self-glory” lies at the root of the matter. Well, where self-glory is, there is soliciting for attention; where solicitation, there is persuasion; where persuasion, there is compulsion; where compulsion, there is weakness.

Deservedly, therefore, while they do not cover their heads, in order that they may be seduced for the sake of self-glory, they are forced to cover their bellies by the ruin resulting from weakness¹³. For it is rivalry, not religion, which drives them, sometimes it is that god—their belly—himself because the brotherhood readily undertakes to care for the virgins. But, also, it is not merely that they have fallen, but they draw after them “a long rope of sins.” For, after being brought forth into the midst of the church, and made happy by their goodness being made public, and laden by the brethren with every honour and charitable gift, so long as they do not fall,—when any sin has been committed, they think of a deed which is as disgraceful¹⁴ as the honour which they had been given was great.

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 clothing which then ought to belong to another. Conscious of a now undebatable womanhood, they have the audacity to draw near to God with head bare. But, generally speaking, the “jealous God and Lord,” who has said, “Nothing is covered which shall not be revealed,” brings women such as these to the public’s awareness; for they will not confess, unless betrayed by the cries of their infants themselves. But, as they become more numerous, will you not have to suspect them of more crimes? I will say, although I would rather not, it is a difficult thing for one to become a woman once and for all when she fears to do so. This is especially so when she has already become a woman in secret, if she has the power of still falsely pretending to be a virgin under the eye of God. What atrocities, again, will such a one dare to commit with regard to her womb, for fear of being detected in being a mother as well!¹⁵ God knows how many infants He has helped to completion and through gestation till they were born sound and whole, after being long fought against by their mothers! Such virgins always conceive with the most ease, and have the happiest deliveries, and children indeed most like to their fathers!

These crimes are the result of a forced and unwilling virginity. The very desire to be unconcealed is not modest. It is an experience that is no mark of a virgin,—the study of pleasing others, especially men. Let her strive as much as you like with an honest mind; she most certainly will be harmed by the public exhibition of herself, while she is penetrated by the gaze of many and untrustworthy eyes, while she is tickled by pointing fingers, while she is too well loved, while she feels a warmth creep over her amid persistent 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!

Chapter 15—Of Enchantment.

No, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself. Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. It has other eyes. It flees 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 darts of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and jealousy; against envy also itself.

For there is something even among the heathens to be understood, the too unhappy result of excessive praise and glory. They call this Enchantment. We sometimes understand this to be from the devil, for from him comes hatred of good. Sometimes we attribute it to God, for from Him comes judgment upon pride, exalting the humble, and bringing low the proud. The more holy virgin will accordingly fear, at the thought of this1 enchantment, on the one hand the devil and on the other hand God. She will fear the envious nature of the former and the burning light of the latter. She will joy in being known to herself alone and to God. But even if she has become known by another, 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 sullen face? Any evil thought whatsoever will be broken by the very severity. She who conceals her virginity, by that fact denies even her womanhood.

Chapter 16—Tertullian, Having Shown His Defence to Be Consistent with Scripture, Nature, and Discipline, Appeals to the Virgins Themselves.

Following is the defence of our argument. It is in accordance with Scripture, in accordance with Nature, and in accordance with Church Teaching. Scripture lays the foundation of the law; Nature joins to defend it; Church Teaching puts it into practice. Which of these three can be used to defend a custom founded on mere opinion? Of what nature is the opposite view? Scripture is God’s; Nature is God’s; Church Teaching is God’s. Whatever is contrary to these is not God’s. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature brings it to light; and concerning Nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Church Teaching points out what is more permitted by God. For nothing is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than modesty; nothing more offensive than “self-glory” and the study of men-pleasing. Here you have Scripture, and Nature, and Church Teaching, which you shall find to have been established by God; just as you are instructed to “examine all things, and diligently follow whatever is better.”¹⁶

It remains for us to turn to the virgins themselves, to convince them to accept these exhortations more willingly. I plead with you, whether you are a mother, or a sister, or a virgin-daughter—let me address you according to the names proper to your age—veil your head. If you are a mother do so for your sons’ sakes. If you are a sister, for your brethrens’ sakes. If you are a daughter, for your fathers’ sakes. You are a danger to men of all ages. Put on the armour of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your gender, which must neither allow your own eyes to see out nor the eyes of other to see in. Wear all the clothing of womanhood, to preserve your virginity. To some extent, conceal your inner consciousness in order to exhibit the truth to God alone. And yet do not shy away from appearing as a bride. For you are engaged to Christ. To Him you have surrendered your flesh; to Him you have promised your maturity. Walk in accordance with the will of your Groom. It is Christ who commands the engaged and the wives of others to veil themselves; and, of course, much more His own bride.

Chapter 17—An Appeal to the Married Women.

But we admonish you, too, women of the other type of modesty, who have fallen into marriage. Do not move past the discipline of the veil, not even for a moment. Because you cannot refuse it, do not accept 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. It is indeed protected in the front, but some of the head remains bare.

Others to a certain extent cover the top of their heads with a small linen cloth, not reaching quite as far as the ears. I suppose this is for fear of pressing the head. 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.” Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the clothing begins. The region of the veil is to completely cover the space covered by the hair when it is unbound; thus the neck too should be wrapped. For it is the woman which must be subjected and for her sake “power” ought to be “on her head.” The veil is their yoke.

Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also. This is done so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, that they would rather enjoy half the light than to prostitute the entire face. These females 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. At the same time they are rather happy in their ability to avoid that second (and indeed more frequent) unhappiness, that females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to fall in love. And the modesty of heathen discipline is indeed more simple than ours, and, so to say, more barbaric.

To us the Lord has, even by revelations, defined the space for the veil to cover. For a certain sister of ours was spoken to like this by an angel, beating her neck, as if applauding: “Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! It is good for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the pelvis, otherwise the freedom that your neck has will not have been of any benefit to you at all!” And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all.

But how severe a punishment will they likewise deserve, who, during 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 whatsoever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered? What a small head they imagine themselves to have!

Others, think the palm of their hand is better than any fringe or thread. They no less misuse their head. They are like a certain creature, more beast than bird, albeit winged, with small head, long legs, and which walks upright¹⁷. She, they say, when she has to hide, thrusts her head alone into a thicket. She plainly hides the whole of her head though she leaves all the rest of herself exposed. Thus, while her head is secure her larger parts are all exposed, she is taken, head and all. Such will be their sad state, covered as they are albeit less than sufficiently. It is our obligation, 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. For if He is in the heart He will be recognised as well in the head of females.

To those who read these exhortations with good will, to those who prefer Utility to Custom, may peace and grace from our Lord Jesus Christ abound, as well as to Septimius Tertullianus, whose treatise this is.