Page:Life and death of the Irish parliament.djvu/11

11 Because we know, whatever may have been the custom in the east, that in the west, and especially in the north, it was not usual for females to be veiled in the fifth century, | am certain it was not usual for the Irish females to be veiled. If it were in a Church merely, or on some solemn occasion, that the woman was ordered to be veiled, there may be room for discussion. But when in her ordinary actions, in her hours of recreation, she was to appear with the head veiled, and when it was not customary, does it not afford the presumption that it was not a mere civil unspiritual action? And then, when we consider that the neglect of wearing the veil led to her being cut off from the Church, can we doubt that it was deemed a grievous transgression? If Mr. Whiteside be not able to object, you, gentle reader, may ask, was not the ceremony of the veil in the profession of a nun introduced in the course of time by the Church, and perhaps not in use at the time spoken of? Well, from the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century its use was quite common. In 352, just a hundred years before the so-named canon of St. Patrick, Marcellina, sister of St. Ambrose, received on Christmas Day the veil from Pope Liberius. St. Ambrose, speaking of virgins, says: “I donot deny that much caution should be used by the Church before a girl be rashly veiled”—Temere veletur. Optatus blames the Donatists for making the virgins throw off their veils. He says: “Now it is very foolish and vain to make the virgins change from their heads the veils, marks of a vow long since made, in order to make them do penance”. Then, too, we have the Pontiffs, Innocent and Gelasius, use the phrase, “covered with the veil”, as synonymous with a religious profession. They say: “These who are not as yet