Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Argument E Contrario.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
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.304
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:305
“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.”306
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.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
