An enquiry into four remarkable texts of the New Testament which contain some difficulty in them, with a probable resolution of them by John Edwards ...

The Second TEXT Enquired into, viz. 1 Corinth. XI. 14.

Doth not even nature it self teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?

IN this Chapter the Apostle treats of these two things, First, of the Decent Habit of men and women in their publick meetings, from the begin∣ning to the 17th v. Secondly, of the Right Administration of the Lords Sup∣per, to the end of the Chapter. Un∣der the first head he reproves the Co∣rinthians because the Men among them covered their heads, and the Women un∣covered theirs when they prayed or pro∣phesied. And here let us see in what manner the Apostle reproves and re••utes this practise. First, before he comes directly to it, he premiseth and s••••leth

the Grand Order or Constitution which is appointed by God, viz. that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God, v. 3. That is, Christ as he is Mediatour is subordinate to God the Father, and man is next in dignity to Christ, and the woman to the man. Christ Iesus is the Head to whom the Man is immediately subject, and ought to be Govern'd by: and though Christ be the Head of the Woman also, yet it isa with the interposition of Man, who is as it were her Subordinate Head. This is the true series of the mans Su∣periority over the Woman, which S^t Paul layeth as the foundation of his Reproof in this Chapter. Christ is subject to his Father, as he is man, and as he is the Minister of mans Redemption: the Man is subject to Christ, and the Wo∣man to the Man. Upon this foundation he raises This superstructure afterwards, that a Man ought to uncover his head, and a Woman to Cover hers in the Congregation, that the former may not dishonour Christ, no•• the latter her Hus∣band: for by one the man shews his ••reedom and Dominion, by the other the Woman testifies her subjection, And

here the Apostle lays open the Disor∣der and Faultinesse of the Christian Co∣rinthians as to this particular. He com∣plains that that Divine Order before mentioned was not strictly observed by them: for whereas the Woman ought to be subordinate to the Man as her Head and Governour, they used a Custom which was contrary to it. It was This, the Women among them after the Hea∣thenish way layd aside their Veils in publick and religious Assemblies, and ap∣pear'd with their naked heads: and the men took the womens Veils, and co∣vered their heads and faces with them. The Un••itness and Unreasonableness of which practise (besides that it was a Pagan usage, especially among the Priests and Pr••estesses) the Apostle de∣clares in those words, (v. 4) Every man praying or prophesying with his head cover'd dishonours his head, i. e. he dis∣honours Christ. He acknowledgeth by this Covering that Christ is not set by God over him as Chief Govenour, that he is not Supreme on earth: and conse∣quently he detracts from his own True Worth and Eminency, and disgraces his Sex, as if not Christ but some other were his Head. To be Vncovered is a ••ign

of his Superiority, but a Covering on the head is a token of Subjection: there∣fore it is against the Dignity of his Sex and of Christ likewise, whom he should represent, as a Man, thus to be Covered. And as for the Other sex, Every wo∣man, saith the Apostle, v. 5. that pray∣eth or prophesieth with her head uncove∣red dishonoureth her head, i. e. her Hus∣band, or her Own Head by shewing it openly naked. The meaning is, she doth that which is contrary to Divine Order and Natural Modesty, for by putting on her Veil she ought to acknowledge her Inferiority and Subjection to her hus∣band; but she throwing that aside acts in opposition to it, and at the same time she appears in an Immodest guise in the place of Solemn Worship. It follows in the same verse, For that (i. e. having her head uncovered) is even all one as if she were shaven, which is most Inde∣••orous and Shamefull. Baldness or Sha∣ving is Unnatural, and therefore Hatefull in a Woman, for she should rather no••∣rish her hair; of which afterwards. This may give some Light to that in Deut. 21. 11, 12. When thou seest among the Captives a beautifull woman, and hast a desire to her, that thou ••ouldest have her

to thy wi••e, then thou shalt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 her home to thy house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, or ••ather; according to the Hebrew, make her nails, and let them grow. The Design is to make the captive Maid Deformed, that the person who was taken with her might have the heat of his affection abated towards her. In order to this she must ••ot only let her nails grow, but shave her head, which is a S••ame and Defor∣mity, contrary to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Comely Adorning of the head, of which I shall speak anon. And it is added, v. 3. She shall put off the rayment of her cap∣tivity, i. e. the Hansome Attire she was in when she was taken captive, and she must put on Mournfull Sordid Apparel a full month, as you read in the next words. All which sheweth that she was to be kept up in the mans house (who took her in war) in a Neglectfull, yea Deformed plight, and that shaving her head was part of that Deformity: and consequently that this is Uncomely and Disgracefull, yea Loathsome and Un∣sufferable in that Sex. Therefore our Apostle subjoins, v. ••. If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, i. e. for her to be without a Veil, without

a Covering on her head, is no less Un∣seemly, yea Detestable, then if she were shorn: she may as well be without any hair at all. But (as he goes on in the same verse) if it be a shame to be shorn or shaven (as most certain it is, seeing the having of long hair is her Glory, as you read afterwards) let her be co∣vered. Thus much for the Woman. As for the Man, he ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the Image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man; v. 7. Which is an∣other Argument to prove the aforesaid Order or Constitution, viz. that Man is more immediately and properly the Image of God, the representation of the Di∣vine Excellency, and therefore must be Uncovered. In comparison of the Wo∣man he is the Glory of God, and that primarily, but the Woman is but the Image and Glory of the Man. Again, the Apostle argues from the O••iginal of Man, v. 8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, i. e. Man hath this Prerogative to be immediately from God, but the Wo∣man was from Man. He argues also from the End as well as the Origine of Man, v. 9. Neither was the man

created for the woman, but the woman for the man; as much as to say, the woman was made to be a Meet Help, to be Administring and Subservient to Man: consequently she is not superiour to him, but she is to behave her self Submissively, and therefore to cover her head, which is a sign of that Submission. The Apostle pleads for this behaviour as due also in respect of the Angels, v. 10. For this cause the woman ought to have power on her head because of the Angels; the explication of which I shall remit to another place. But although this was the rate of S^t Pauls Divinity, yet in the two next verses he doth a little moderate his discourse, and qua∣lifie what he had said in the 8^th and 9^th verses, to which this ought to be an∣nexed. Because he might seem to have been somewhat too Harsh to the Women, he prudently and cautiously mitigates and tempers his former Argument here, that it may not redound to the dispa∣ragement of the Sex. Nevertheless (saith he,) neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the wo∣man is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman: but all things of God,

v. 11, 12. Having thus salv'd his harsh doctrine, he proceeds to a new Topick, namely the Natural Congruity and De∣cency of the thing it self which he had been urging. And here he appeals to Themselves, and their Own Judgement concerning the matter he is speaking of, and reproving them for, viz. Mens praying with their heads covered, and Women, with theirs uncovered. Iudge in your selves (faith he:) Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? v. 13. It is so Reasonable a thing which I speak of, and now require of you, that I submit it to the Natural sentiments and decision of your own minds. And here the words of the Text are brought in, Doth not Nature it self teach you that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him? But (on the contrary, v. 15.) if a woman have long hair, it is a glo∣ry to her.

By this short Descant on this part of the Chapter you may perceive the De∣sign and Scope of the words which I am now to treat of, Concerning men or womens wearing their Hair. Expo••itors have exceedingly varied in their indea∣vours to Joyn these words with the for∣mer: many things very much Strained

and Misapplied are said by them; But up∣on a deliberate view of the whole, I take This to be the True and Natural Cohe∣rence of the words; They are brought in here by the Apostle as a Reason of the Precept he gave them, viz. that Women must be Ve••led or Covered, and Men Uncovered when they pray. To perswade and convince them of the Reasonableness of this Command he ap∣peals to Nature, and tells them that This teacheth them that very thing which he enjoyns them: and This disalloweth of that which he forbids them. As if he had said, your selves may in your own minds and consciences judge of the De∣cency of Mens uncovering their heads when they pray, and of the contrary In∣decency of this practise in Women. I have shewed you that these are founded on the Appointment of Heaven, the Or∣der of our Universal Governour, the Principles of Nature, the Law of Rea∣son, and the Distinction which ought to be between the Sexes. This is no ••nfrequent thing that your duty is com∣mended to you even by the dictates of your Reasonable Nature. Several things which may be urged upon you are of this fort, the very Natural Light which

you are indued with, suggests the obser∣vance of them. As now, because I am speaking of Covering or Vncovering the head, I will instance in a thing which is nearly related to it, viz. the Manner of wearing the hair of the head, What is commendable in Men, and what in Women as to this matter▪ Here the very Light of Nature shines upon you, and directs you what to do. If you will consult your selves, and the Natural suggestions of your minds, you shall plain∣ly discover what is your duty. Even na∣ture it self teacheth you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him: but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her.

But all persons that have Commented and Treated on these words doe not so easily agree about the meaning of them: Yea, there is a very great Disagreement among them. And the reason is, because they give different senses of these two Principal words, [Nature] and that o∣ther which we translate [to have long hair.] The only Difficulty therefore lying in these two words, I will enquire 1. What is meant by Nature. 2. What is meant by having long hair, or rather what the Greek word, which is here so rendred, truly signifies.

First, let us enquire what is meant by Nature. Nature here teacheth us something, but we cannot tell what that is which it teacheth, unless we know what Nature is. And in order to that, we must acquaint our selves how this word [Nature] is taken. It sometimes signi∣fies the Natural and Inbred Corruption of mankind. Thus we are said to be by Nature the Children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. i. e. by our Common Degeneracy and Apostacy in Adam we are liable to the wrath of God. And so generally in the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers the word is taken, it denotes the Cor∣rupt Nature of man, the original De∣pravation of the sons of men. But see∣ing the Apostle here speaks of some∣thing which is Good and Laudable that Nature teacheth, thence we may infer that This is not, and cannot be the meaning of the word in this place. There are Three other significations of it, and one or more of them must undeniably be understood here.

First, it is taken for the Law of Nature in General, Natural Light or Knowledge, the Inward dictates of Rea∣son in a mans breast. Thus the Gen∣tiles doe by nature the things contain'd

in the Law, Rom. 2. 14. i. e. they have a Rational Principle in them which prompts them to do those things. This hath its name both in Greek and Latin from itsb being born with a man, it is the Innate and Congenite property of the Rational soul of man. And because God is the God of Nature, and it is He that hath planted in our minds Rea∣sons of Good and Evil, therefore this becomes a Divine Law, and is set up in mens hearts as such. What is dictated by Right Reason or the Law of Nature may be said to be dictated by God Him∣self. Therefore S^t Chrysostom on this place faith, thatc when Nature is said to teach us, the Apostle doth as good as say, God teacheth for it is He that hath contrived and framed Nature.

Secondly, It is taken for that Parti∣cular Law or Dictate of Nature which teacheth a Difference of Sexes: as in Rom. 1. 26, 27. Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: likewise the men left the natural use of the women. Here it is evident that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie the Discrimina∣tion of the Sex, and what is suitable or disagreeable to this Discrimination. Na∣ture

here must needs signifie the Distincti∣on of Sex, i. e. the Particular Law of Nature concerning that Distinction, and not the Law of Nature in General; for though other sins, as Fornication and Adultery, are against the Laws of Na∣ture and Reason as well as This, yet This is against the Law of the Sex, and the Distinction of man and woman, which is a Particular and Individual Law of Na∣ture, and wholly different from those others. You will also find This to be the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Lexicons and Glossaries from very Good Authors, as Thacydides, Iosephus, Philo, &c. Salmasius proves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be Sexus: and answerably to this meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are un∣derstood in Diodorus Siculus, Iosephus and others.

Thirdly, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be ren∣dered Castom: and this unquestionably is sometimes the meaning of the word in Good Greek Authors. The Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as solet, and thence the Verbal Nown 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is derived thence, signifies Custom. But this is not the proper and genuine signification, but is only a Derivative sense, because what is Natural is usual and common;

and again, what we Use our selves to doth as it were become Natural to us; thence Custom is said to be a second Nature, yea, ad Long and Inveterate Custom is stronger then Nature it self. So that ac∣cording to this threefold acception of the word, there is a threefold Opinion concer∣ning the meaning of the Text. 1. Some hold that it is a Law of Natural Rea∣son that a man should not have Long Hair, i. e such hair as women have. So Vorstius and Poimenander (two Bel∣gick Divines) understand the words, and their Countryman Grotius is not wholly averse to it, for he is willing to grant that it is a Custom founded on Natu∣ral dictates. Doth not Nature it self teach you, that &c. i. e. Doth not the Jnbred and Natural Light in your minds dictate this to you? 2. Others say the Text speaks of that Particular Law of Nature which teacheth there must be a Difference between Sexes. So Sa••ma∣sius and Revius interpret the place. Doth not Nature it self teach you, that &c. i. e. the Sex, the Difference of Sex, the Distinction of man and woman teacheth you this, it being the Law of Nature to put difference between man and woman as to Clothes, and Wearing

the hair. 3. Some hold that it is Custom only which teacheth this. Thus Cal∣vin, Grotius, Hammond understand the words: but it is not well agreed among them whether it was a Particular or a General Custom, whether it was a Cu∣stom among all Nations, or some only. Thus far we have considered the First Principal word in the Text.

The Other word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which is rendred here [to have long hair] is variously taken also: which is the other reason why this place is so difficult to be understood. The word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is as much as [gloriari, superbire] in very sufficient Authors; but because it is evident that That cannot be the mean∣ning here, I will pass it by. The other two significations of the word are per∣tinent in this place. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies either barely to Nourish the hair, and let it grow at length, or to Bind it up in a neat manner, to dress, trim and a∣dorn it. These are the two noted sig∣nifications of this Greek word. Accor∣dingly I will consider the Apostles words 1. as they may be meant of Long Hair: 2. as they may be understood of Hair that is Tied up, Trimmed and Adorned.

First, taking [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] for [having

long hair,] let us enquire in the First place whether C••stom teacheth us that we ought not to wear such hair; Se∣condly, let us see whether Natural Rea∣son teacheth this: and Thirdly, what the Distinction of Sexes dictates in this case.

I. If Custom be meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, let us examine what Custom there is for Long Hair, and that first among the Iews, secondly among the Gentiles. First, what was the Custom of the Iews? Among them the Divine Law forbad the Priests toc shave either head or beard. But though they were not to do this, yet they were not to wear their hair Long, but a middle way was prescribed them, that is, a Moderate cutting of the hair, as we read in Ezek. 44. 20. They shall not shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long, they shall only poll their heads. Neither Baldness nor too Long hair were to be used, both these Extremes were to be shunn'd in opposition to the Heathens (as you shall hea•• afterwards) who sometimes cut off all their hair, at other times let it grow Neglected and Long. But a Decency and Moderation are here enjoyn'd the Priests, and they were to be Examples

to the People. And it is likely the peo∣ple did follow this Pattern at first, and wore their hair of a moderate length, although in this as well as in other things they afterwards swerved from the Rule, and were dispensed with because of the hardness of their hearts. Thus some of the Iewish people had very long hair, and the Pictures which we have of them represent them oftentimes so. But from the beginning it was not so, for it is probable that the same Law obliged the People and Priests, i. e. that they should neither shave their heads, nor wear their hair long. But it will be asked, where is this Prohibition? I answer, one part of it is expressly set down, and the o∣ther is implied. All persons among them were forbid to shave, or cut close their hair, lev. 19. 27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. They are forbid here the Circular Cut of their hair, i. e. to cut the hair of their heads or beards after the superstitious manner of the Pagans, who used▪ (as several Learnedf Writers inform us) to round the hair of their heads, that is, to cut it off all on the sides, and to leave on∣ly a Lock behind, or a Tust at top,

which they devoted to some God or Goddess. This particular way of Cut∣ting the hair was used in the time of Mourning for the dead, as I gather from the next verse, where the making any cutting in the flesh for the dead is for∣bid. Their Cutting themselves was a sign of their Excessive Lamentation for the deceased: and so this rounding the corners of the head (i. e. cutting the hair off on all sides) being joyned with it, is to be interpreted (I conceive) of Immoderate Mourning for the dead, La∣menting as the Heathens used to lament their departed friends. And to confirm this Interpretation, you will find these two joyned together again in Deut. 14. 1. and in Ier. 16. 6. For otherwise you may remember that they made them∣selves Bald at Funerals, and they did not offend in so doing. We read that this was the practise of the best among them. And they were invited to it by the Prophets, or rather by God himself. The Lord in that day called for Baldness, Isa. 7. 15. and so in Isai. 22. 12. Ier. 7. 29. Mic. 7. 18. They would not have been call'd upon to Lament after this manner, if it had been sinful. So then, this Baldness or Tonsure at

Funerals and other Sad Occasions was not unlawfull among the Iews, only so far as it was Superstitious, and in imi∣tation of the Idolatrous Gentiles. There∣fore that Law in Leviticus chiefly re∣spects the Idolatrous Custom of throw∣ing thei•• Hair into the Sepulchres of the dead, and devoting them to the de∣parted souls, and such like practises a∣mong the Pagans. But now from this particular Custom of cutting off their hair, or Shaving in case of Great Mourning, we may gather that at Other times they did not cut so close, for it is clear that if they did, they would have left no∣thing to cut when the Mourning-Time came. It is reasonable therefore to con∣clude that they generally wore their hair of a Moderate Dimension, and as they cut not close, or in that Spherical way before spoken of, so they ran not into the Other Ex••••eam, viz. of indulging Uncut and Long Hair. And This is as evident as the other, for the pra∣ctise of the Nazarites is a demonstration of it. These were a peculiar sort of De∣votionists among the Iews who suffered their hair to grow, and wore it Long, and put it in fillets, or knots and locks, as the women then did. Samson was

such a Nazarite. A razor shall not come upon his head, saith the Angel to Ma∣no••h's wife. And God promised him that as long as he continued a Nazarite, and cut not his Hair, but let it grow; this should be a token to him of that Strength which God extraordinarily 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him with ▪but he broke the Vow of Na∣zarism and suffered his hair to be cut off. Some distinguish between Perpetu∣al and Temporary Nazarites: among the former they reckon this Samson, Sa∣muel, and John the Baptist, among the latter Absalom (who cut his hair the thirtieth day of his Vow,) and S^t Paul, who had made a Vow not to shave for a time; but this being expired he cut his hair after a solemn manner, as was the Custom, and is expressed in Acts 18. 18. Having shorn his head in Cen∣chrea, for he had a vow. (Though it is thought by some that this refers to A∣quila just before mentioned, and not to S^t Paul.) And such were the Nazarites spoken of in Acts 21. 23, 24. Yea D^r Lightfoot is of opinion that these Corin∣thians, some of them at least, in a su∣perstitious humour affected Nazaritism, and that this was the occasion of the Apostle's reproving them for their Long

Hair. But though it be the received opinion that there were some Perpetual, and others Temporary Nazarites, yet I am not satisfied about it; I rather think that they were All left to their liberty to vow as they pleased, and that some observed the Vow a longer, and others a shorter time. He that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Num. 6. (which Chapter is wholly spent in setting down the Law of Nazarites) will be perswaded to think so, especially if he well weigh the 17, & 18. v. Thence it will appear that it is a mistake that some Nazarites never cut their hair: From this place it is clear that none of them (for This is an Universal Law con∣cerning Nazarites) nourished their hair Continually, but that after such a cer∣tain time they cut it off, and devoted it to God. All Nazarites might after a set season dispose of their Hair. But that which I infer from the premises is this, that the Law of Nazaritism con∣cerning Long and Uncut Hair (thoug•• but for a time) proves that the wea∣ring of Long Hair was not the common us••ge of the Jewish people. If it was peculiar to few, and that by Vow, then it was not the practise of the general body of the Nation. The Nazarites

abstain'd from cutting their hair: there∣fore others (who were not obliged by the Law of Nazaritism) did cut their hair, and suffered it not to grow Long. Nazarites by Vow wore Long Hair, therefore those who were not tied by that Vow (as the Generallity of the Jewish people) took up another usage. Long Hair was a thing Unusual and Ex∣traordinary in those Religious and Sepa∣rate persons: therefore it was the Usual Custom not to have long hair. These I take to be very Rational Inferences. This was the first thing I undertook, to acquaint you what was the Custom of the Iews. And here there is some∣thing more to be seen and gathered then among Other People of the world, be∣cause besides the Law of Nature, they had the Law of God to direct them in this as well as in other things.

In the second place let us see the practise of the Gentiles. The Arabians, among whom I••b lived, used to shave their heads in time of Mourning and La∣mentation, as you may gather from his practice, Iob 1. 20. And this was so notorious thath Herodotus testifies of them that they were clipp'd as Apollo was, in a round figure, they cut off all

the angles about their temples. These are thought by some to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ier. 9. 26. & 25. 23. pr••cisi an∣gulo, those that are cut off in the cor∣ners, i. e. those that cut their hair round, and left no corners, viz. when they had a solemn occasion of Lamenting. From Arabia if you pass into Egypt, you may gather from their custom of letting their hair grow Long in time of Calamity and Sorrow, that they did not nourish Long Hair at other times. Thusi Herodo∣tus acquaints us that the Egyptians (con∣trary to the Iews) in the days of Mour∣ning let their hair grow Long on their heads. The truth of which is confir∣med to us byk the Sacred Records, which tell us that Ioseph cut his hair when he was released from Prison, and was to goe into King Pharaohs presence. But Herodotus in the same place adds that the Egyptians used to shave their beards in time of Sorrow, though they let the hair of their heads grow. And therefore in the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks, where Hair cut off signifies Grief and Bondage, it must be understood of the Hair of the beard, not of the head. And as the people indulged not them∣selves in an Excessive Length of hair▪

so neither did their Priests; for the ••ore said Author relates that they were so far from this, that they were all of them Shaven, But the Grecians make the greatest figure here, and therefore I will in the next place shew what their Cu∣stom and Practice was as to the wearing of their Hair. That these people of old were used to wear their hair Long we learn from their constant Epithet in Homer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Though it is certain that at first the Grecians were of another fashion. Short or Moderate∣ly-grown hair was thought by them to be best, and accordingly they used them∣selves to it: the Lacedaemonians especi∣ally were noted for this. But if you would know how they came to alter their primitive usage, I am able to sa∣tisfie you by offering. These following things to your thoughts. 1. It was a Philosophick humour to wear the hair long: which though it began at first with their Beards, yet afterwards it pro∣ceeded higher, to the hair of their Heads. The reason was, because Gravity and Majesty were thought to be in this sort of Hair. And yet these very men, who of all others one would think should not be sickle and inconstant, ran from

one Excess to a contrary one. Hence it is that in Aristophanes sometimes the Philosophers are laughed at as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at other times for being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; one while they appeared with long Locks flowing loosly on their shoulders, another while they were shorn to the very Skin: and both these Extreams were the effects of Sordin••ess and Co∣veteousness, and because they had a mind to spare Charges. Some of the Philo∣sophers wore short hair on their Heads, but Long Beards. But the Cynicks and Stoicks were all shaved close. 2. It may be the Poets had some influence here as well as the Philosophers: They general∣ly described their Gods (excepting Apol∣lo) with Long hair, and so the Limners drew ••em; wherefore it is no wonde•• th•••• Mortals were induced to imitate the Gods. 3. They indulged a great Length of hair because they thougt it Beautifull. This is a reason Eustathius gives of the Epithet in Homer before mentioned. It seems the Greeks very much affected Comliness and Beauty, and they perswaded themselves that these were augmented by their Dangling Locks; hereupon they were very solicitous to nourish them. 4. Another Reason

(which may be thought to be almost in∣consistent with the former) was this, they did it to strike Terrour into thei•• Enemies. Thus particularly of the La∣cedaemonians,l Herodotus reports that they began to wear Long hair and Beards when they turned Warriors, and he tells the particular Time, viz. when they began the war against the Argives. Nay, Xenophon relates that Lycurg••s▪ their fa∣mous Lawgiver and Governor, would have them wear their hair long and dis∣sheveld, to fright their Enemies. Hence the forenamed Commentator on Homer, when he gives an account why the Gre∣cian souldiers tricked up themselves, and wore Long Hair, saith it was not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not on∣ly to make them look Beautifully but Formidably, to please their own eyes, and to affright their Enemies, to shew at once the Lustre and Terrour, the Bravery and Dreadfulness of War. But however the Grecians thought and acted in, those ages when they became Cor∣••upted, yet it is not to be questioned that the Thoughts and Actions of the Wisest among them were of a different kind. The Scholiast on Aristophanes re∣cites it as an Athenian Law, thatm the

Souldiers must not pamper themselves, neither wear hair long. And as for That Pretence of theirs for letting their hair grow to an exceeding great Length, viz. that they might thereby Affright their Enemies, it was afterwards found weak and insufficient, and the Grecians thought good to alter this custom; which was done upon occasion of the Abantes, a war∣like people, and Skilful in arms, who be∣cause they used to fight close, cut off the hair of their heads before, that their enemies might not take them by it when they fought. These men let their hair grow only behind, and therefore are cal∣led n 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This was partly put in practise afterwards by Alexander the Great's Army in their Asian Expedition, that they might grapple with the Foe with the greater freedom. And for this reason all the Macedonian Souldiers sha∣ved their heads, saitho Plutarch, that their enemies might have no hold of them in that part. 5. They were plea∣sed to make the Difference of Wearing the Hair to be a mark of Difference between Freemen and Slaves. Especially among the Lacedaemonians the Freemen only did nourish their hair: whence that of Aristophanes,p 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Thou being but a servant wearest long hair, which is a very Unsitting thing in thee. Of these Spartansq Aristotle speaks, saying, It is a good and lauda∣ble thing among them to have Long Hair, for it is a Badg of Liberty, where as Servants and Slaves were shaved. Thus you see how Long Hair became Modish among the Greeks: they had one pretence or other to commend this Fashion. Yet they could not but be sensible that this was an Upstart usage▪ and that they varied herein from their pristine custom. It may be from a re∣flection upon this, and to make some amends, and to expiate as it were for this their folly, they afterwards brought up the custom of cutting their hair, and consecrating the f••••st fruits of it to some God or Goddess. This was the first Notable thing they did as soon as they were grown Men, and came to a per∣fect use of Reason. Nothing is more frequent in those Writers who give an account of the Manners and Customs of the Greeks then this, that it was a general use among them to nourish their hair till they were grown up in years, and then to poll it, and dedicate it to some Deity, as to Esculapius, or Bac∣c••us,

or Hercules, o•• to the Nymphs, or the country Rivers where they were born, asr Achilles did. Others consecrated their hair to Diana, but most persons dedicated it to Apollo, and laid it up in his Temple at Delphos, ass Theseus did. Pindar, Aeschilus, and others give testi∣mony concerning this Consecrating their hair: which I conceive was an Expia∣ting for their former wearing of it so long. But, alas! after these first-fruits of their hair (which they call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) were thus dedicated by them, and when they came to mens estate, they thought they might take liberty for the future, and indulge the Length of their locks, as they had done before. But then at certain times, as if they were conscious to themselves of their faultiness in wearing their hair after too Luxurious a manner, they corrected themselves for it when they grew more Sober, and had Occasion to Mourn and Lament. Then off went their Shaggy Locks; and their Bald Pates appeared: they seemed now by their Baldness to repent of the Con∣trary Folly, and to bewail it by this Symbal of Grief. But behold again the ••ickle humour of these men! They testi∣fi'd their Mourning not only by Bald∣ness,

but by letting their hair grow Long. They imitated the contrary Cu∣stoms of the Iews and Egyptians; the former of which shaved close in time of Mourning, the latter went with Neg∣lected hair and Uncut. That the Gre∣cians practised this latter, is expresly witnessed by Plutarch, who saith that t if any Calamity happen'd among them, though the women were shorn, yet the men cut not their hair all the time. And as for the former, but Contrary usage,u Herodotus assures us that in his days the Argives (the Antientest Gre∣cians) expressed their Sorrow and Mour∣ning by cutting their hair off, and sha∣ving their heads. Or, if this be questio∣ned, because it is but a single Instance, the Reader may consultx Bochart, who will supply him with a great many. Now from these Contraries and Extreams we may certainly gather what was the usual and Ordinary Custom of the Greeks as to their hair. Their running out into Excess at those extraordinary times ac∣quaints us that they were Moderate at other times. Though I must say this, there was a great Alteration as to this matter, in respect of the Age; for in one Age the Greeks were more inclined

to wear Long Hair then in another, as might be proved from their Historians. It is certain that this was not their fault at first; they then wore their hair Mo∣derately, but by degrees, and for several pretended reasons (as hath been shewed) they degenerated into the custom of Long Hair.

The practice of the Romans is next to be enquired into. They did some∣times, as the Grecians, express their Grief by cutting off their hair: especially in time of great Danger they did this. In a storm at sea, when they were affraid of Shipwrack they shaved their heads, as appears from that of Iuvenal,

Tuti stagna sinus gaudent ibi vertice raso, Garrula securi narrare pericula naut••.

Petronius Arbiter and others confirm this usage, and perhaps this is the mean∣ning of S^t Pauls words, Acts 27. 34. There shall not a hair fall from the head of any of you, i. e. the tempest at sea shall not be so great and dangerous that you shall have occasion to shave your heads, as the custom is in such cases▪ But this is certain, that the Romans were not ignorant that Hair was given by Nature for a Covering and Orna∣ment

to mankind, and consequently they look'd upon the being Deprived of it as a Penal and Shameful thing. Ac∣cordingly Shaving the head was the ••••dg of a Vile Light fellow, as Cieare saith with a quibble, Idcirce ••apite & supercilii•• semper est rasus, nè ••num pi∣lum boni viri habere dicatur. Thus he speaks of a Trisling fellow who had cut himself close, and left no hair at all. And that the hair was wont to be cut off in Mockery and Disgrace, is evident from what Domitian did to Apollonius Tyanaeus; after he clapt him up in pri∣son (saithy Philostratus) he sent a bar∣ber thither to poll his head, and cut off his Philosophick beard. Hence it is that Lucian brings in a Philosopher in one of his Dialogues, and Charon cutting off his beard. Thez damnati ad metalla were served thus, and Tacitus and others tell us that it was the custom of the Romans to shave the heads of their Ser∣vants. And I am of the opinion that it was intended to be •• Memento to the Liberti of their former Base and Low condition, that theya received the hat or cap with shaved heads, when they were made Free. Though I must con∣fess there was a huge Difference and

Variety as to this among the Gentiles, which being not taken notice of hath occasioned Mistakes among some Cri∣ticks. Criminals and Malefactors had their heads shorn sometimes: and at o∣ther times they were not permitted to cut their hair. And so it was with their Slaves; among some of the Ro∣mans, Shaving was a token of Slavery, but among others of Liberty. Yet most commonly the former prevailed, but especially among the Romans, who look'd on Hair as a great Decency and Ornament. But not withstanding this, I doe not find that the better and more knowing Romans, were Excessive in the length of their hair. I grant that before they were Civilized, and taught to govern themselves in some tolerable manner, they neglected the cutting of their hair.b Varro saith it was a great while, almost five hundred years, before Ital•• knew any such thing as a Barber. And some of the Old Statues of the Romans represent them with hair of a very great Length. But when knowledge and manners were cultivated, they lopt their locks. The Pictures of the very Emperours (even the most effe∣minate of them) present them not im∣moderate

as to the hair of their heads. But as for beards, they wore none▪ Adrian was the first who let his grow, viz. to cover his scar••s. And as for the body of the Roman people, Histo∣ry testifies that these (as well as the Grecians) let their children, till they came to be of years, nourish their hair to some considerable Length▪ and then it was the fashion to offer it to some of the Deities they most affected. When this was done, they for the most part cut their hair as often as it began to come to an immoderate length, and would not suffer it to grow to any ex∣travagant dimensions.

Thus you see what was the Custom as to mens wearing their hair in respect of length or shortness. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the signification of Custom in this place, then you know what the Apostle referr'd to▪ viz. the practise of those Nations which I have set before you. He might right∣ly say, Doth not even Custom teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? The Iews and Egyptians wore moderate hair generally. The so∣ber and gravest among the Greeks and Romans had neither very Long nor very Short hair, but of a middle size. They

were the more Barbarous Nations that offended as to this, as the Scithians, Goths and Vandals, &c. who perpetually wore their hair long: and so did the Antient and Savage Britains, as Caesar records. The like is observed of the Wild Irish by Giraldus. And concer∣ning the Picts (who were the Old Bar∣barous and Northern Britains) Vitruvi••s testifies they had hair hanging downright, and very long. The old Saxons, who at first cut the hair of their heads to the very Skin (as Sidonius relates,) af∣terwards let it grow to an excessive length, so that it came below their should∣ers, saith Witichindus a Saxon Monk quoted by Cambden in his Britannia. Strabo saith the same of the Antient Celtae, Galls, and Franks. And we read that among these Old Franks this custom prevail'd so much, that with the Antie•••• Kings of France, to be shaven was to be Deposed, or Disabled to reign. And Short Hair became Ignominious and Reproachfull, as is manifest from that French Proverb, Il a perdu ses cheveux, he hath lopt his hair, i. e. his honour. Which arose hence, saithc M^r Howel, that in the first race of French Kings there was a Law that the Nobles only

should wear Long Hair (it was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thing so prized that they ingrossed it to them∣selves,) and when any of them were found guilty of a base fact, they were punished with the loss of thei•• hai••. This law, which was called la Loy Che∣velue, was made saith the same person, by King Clodion (••he mean•• Clovi••s) the Hairy, and was continued till King Pe•••••• time, and then disa••••••••l'd as a Pa∣g•••••••• Constitution. But the people who were in any measure Masters of Civility and Hu••••anity, even among the Heathens, prac••ised otherwise, and (as Plutarch 〈◊〉〈◊〉) had hai•• generally of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 growth.

Besides the Custom of those Nations which the Apostle had an eye to here, I might adjoyn what the usage of Others hath been since. Among the Turks all their Slaves are shaved, to shew ho•• Shameful and Vile a thing it is to be destitute of hair; but they likewise shew by their own example that they dislike Long Hair, for they wear the hair of their heads very short. Of their heads, I say: for the hair of their Bi••••ds is Long, in token, as they think, of Free∣dom. (And here it may be generally observed on the contrary, that those p••o∣ple

who suffer the hair of their heads to grow to a great length, have little of no Beards, as if the former made amends for the want of these latter. Thus the Antient Britatns (whom I mentioned before) shaved all their Beard away ex∣cept that growing on the upper ••ip. The Chin••ise have thin Beards, consisting of not above twenty of thirty hairs: and they paint a Deformed man with a thick beard. On the other side, it might be observed that there have been Extreams as to beards, as well as the hair of the head. Some have so nourirhed them as if they emulated the name of that Con∣stantine who was call'd Pogonatus, whi∣lest others have so hated them, as if they were a kin to the Apostate Iulian who ••••iled himself Misopogan.) But as the Mahometans, who are a Grave so••t of people, doe not lavishly nourish the hair of their heads, so a Different usage pre∣vails among the Rude Armenians, who generally wear their hair Uncut, and as long as it will grow, bound with laces, and hanging down to their heels. These Extreams on both hands have been care∣fully avoided by Christians, whole Cu∣stom likewise I will in some part relate, and so pass to the next General head.

The Primitive Saints of the Christian Church, who were so strict and exact in all other things, would not be defective in this. They who refused to comply with the Rites and Fashions of the Gen∣tiles (even when some of them were In∣nocent in Themselves) would not cer∣tainly conform to This which was the practise of the Lewdest Heathens. A Decent and moderate growth of the hair was thought Commendable rather then Unlawful. And such even those of Age, and of the Ministerial Function were not averse to, according to that of S^t Am∣brose, Quam reverenda caesaries in seni∣bus? quam veneranda in sacerdotibus? A Moderate head of hair was so far from being blameable in these persons, that it was Reverend and Venerable. But from this Moderation they ••ell into an Excess. Even the Retired and Con∣templative Christians, who betook them∣selves to a Monastick Life, let their hair grow in an Extravagant manner. S^t Au∣gustin calls the Monks of his time, whom he sharply inveighs against,d the Hairy Brethren: for the Old Monks in those days had their hair down to their feet▪ which was counted a sign of Mortifi∣cation and Neglect of the world. Where

by the way observe that the Antient Monk's were not Shaved, as they are at this day in the Church of Rome: for if they were so Luxuriant in their hair, it is not likely that they affected to take it away only on the top of their heads, and to shew their bald crowns. Yea, their Monks now are shaved for the same reason that heretofore they let their hair grow to that ex••essive Length, viz. be∣cause they would renounce the Ornament and Fashion of the world. Long Hair is a sign of affecting. Worldly Delight, therefore the Popish Priests shave to tell the world that they were not given to those Vanities. Even the Nuns too undergo this discipline, though it is a∣gainst the Antient Councils.e If a wo∣man under the pretence of Religion, saith the Council of Gangra▪ shear her hair, which God gave her for a remembrance of her subjection, let her be accursed, as one that hath broken the Command of subjection. And thef latter Decrees say that a woman cannot be ordain'd, or have Holy Orde••s either jure or de∣facto, and that for this reason, because she must not be Shaved. But though the Romish rite of Shaving Priests and Nuns be thus repugnane to their own

Orders and Constitutions, and contrary to the Practice before mentioned, yet it is probable it was derived from some Other practise and custom of the Church in former days. And That, as I con∣ceive, was this; the Antient Penitents (as you may read) used to cut their Hair and Beards as soon as they were received again into the Church: and hence might arise the Corrupt Custom of lopping and polling the hair of their heads, and at last it was thought suffi∣cient to shave only one part, as is in use among the Religious Orders of the Roman Church. But now I desire you to observe how the Decent and Mode∣rate wearing of the hair in men (which our Apostle aims at here) is authorized and commended by those Antient but Contrary Practises which I have mention∣ed. Since suffering the Hair to grow very Long was a mark of Mortification among the Old Monasticks, and was reckoned such by some of the Benitents, who by their Cutting their hair at their Restitu∣tion to the Church shewed that they took up the wearing of Long Hair as a Penance or Punishment; and since on the other side, Cutting the hair and even Shaving have been and are still practi∣sed

by some men as tokens of Renoun∣cing the world, and acts of Religious Se∣verity, it may be concluded from these Vnusual and Extraordinary occurrences (as I said before in the like case) what was the Vsual and Constant practice of the Christians in wearing their hair. These things which I have alledged are but Superstitious derivations from the Stated course they observed. Wherefore laying aside these Extreams, you know what was the middle way they took.

But I must add, that it was not Super∣stition and Fond Devotion only which made Long Hair fashionable among Christians at first. The Primitive Custom was alter∣ed by the irruption of the Barbarous Na∣tions, viz. when the Longobards, Gothes, and Vandals invaded the territories of the Roman Empire. Long Hair began to be worn in these European parts when those Long-haird Barbarians violently broke in upon these Countreys, and overtun them. Among other evils and mischiefs which they were the Authors of, and which they left behind them in these parts, This may justly be reckoned as one. Be∣fore this time the Christians generally wore moderately short hair. This is the True Epoche of this Custom among

Christians; and it is a sufficient Dispa∣ragement to it that it came in at the same time that Rudeness, Violence and Barbarity entred their quarters. And as it was introduced into Europe by Bar∣barous people, so ever since, those who have most of that character are the Ad∣mirers and Practisers of it. It would be too tedious to descend to Particular Countries, and shew what effect this hath had. Though this evil usage, brought in by Savage people, prevail'd very much, yet the folly and evil of it was di∣scerned by the Sober and Wife. These constantly, in observance of the Apostle's Canon here, wore their hair cut, and moderately short. It was a great while before Long Hair began to be Modish with our Christian Ancestors in this Isle. But when it was so, it soon met with a check, for ourg Chronicles acquaint us that it was taken notice of by a Sy∣nod of the Clergy in King Henry the first's reign, and decreed against; and the King himself, and by his example all his Knights, submitted to the De∣cree, and cut their hair short. So this Excess was laid aside a great while, and scarcely revived till about Sixty years agoe, when we borrowed from France

this evil practice, as we have done many others. If a Synod now should follow the example of that before mentioned, and shew their dislike of this general dis∣order, it would be an act worthy of them. Thus you have heard what hath been the Custom concerning Long and Short Hair. Now I will pass from Custom, which is said to be a second Nature, to the consideration of Nature It self as it is properly so called.

II. Taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in a stricter sense, i. e. as it signifies the Inward Law of Na∣ture, or Right Reason in our minds, let us see whether This teacheth that a man should not have Long Hair. It is grant∣ed, before I go any further, that Long Hair, as it is the product of Nature, as such (I say) is not a thing to be con∣demned; for then it ought to be con∣demned in Women as well as in Men. It is not to be denied that Nature hath given Men long hair as well as the Other Sex, if they will let it grow; as is clear from the instances of those men (and I have before informed you that there are and have been such) who suffer their hair to grow, and come down as low as their feet▪ Again, I grant that wea∣ring of Long Hair is not Intrinsecally

Unlaw••ul, and Sinful in It self absolutely, for what is so can never be otherwise: but we know that it was Lawful in the Nazarites, because it was commanded by God. If Long Hair had been in its in∣trinsick nature, and immutably sinful, it could not have been made otherwise by God himself, and consequently it could not have been enjoyned by him. Thus you see in what sense Long Hair is not a∣gainst the Law of Nature. Having pre∣mised this (which was requisite for the understanding this matter aright) I will shew how it was and is against Nature, or the dictates of Natural Reason.

First, you may judge of the Law of Nature by the Practice of men. What do All Nations agree in? How do the Best and Wisest of all Countries behave themselves in this affair? Which way doth the Reason of mankind steer it self? This you may be satisfied in from what hath been said already. The Soberest part of the world every where (Iews and Infidels, as well as Christians) wear not their hair at an Extravagant Length. What was the reason that the Stoicks cut their hair so short (as hath been ob∣served before?) It was no other then this, that they who were Immodest and

Lewd wore Long Hair, but those that were Modest and Virtuous and of Good Lives did not. Hence those Philosophers, to gain credit and repute with the peo∣ple, betook themselves to this Better Fashion, yea they ran into another ex∣cess, and to avoid Long Hair scarcely left themselves any.—Supercilio brevior coma.—••aith theh Satyrist of them, the hair of their head was shorter then that of their eye-brows. Hence their disci∣ples are calledi Detonsa juventus. Thus they did, because Short hair was look'd upon as a sign of Modesty and Chastity, and was in use among those that were most Vertuous. Therefore the Contrary usage, so far as it is against the Practice of the Soberest persons, and such as are the great∣est masters of Natural Reason, is against Nature. So that these two first accep∣tions of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 run into One at last, Custom and Nature teach the same. You may judge what Nature dictates by the Custom and Practice of Rational and Sober men.

Secondly, you may conclude that Na∣ture or Right Reason forbids the wea∣ring of Long Hair to men, because this is against the laws of Natural Decency and Comeliness. Observe then that the

Apostle here in this Chapter, and even to the end of the 14^th corrects the miscar∣riages of the Corintbians in their publick meetings, and then concludes all thus, k Let all things be done Decently. Whence I rightly infer, that Indecency (which was accompanied with Disorder) was their great fault. Which one thing is a Key to open the meaning of the Text, and acquaints us that Natural Decency is to be understood here by Nature. Which is further confirmed by the words of the Apostle in the verse immediately before This, Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? And from this very no∣tion of Decency or Comeliness he con∣tinues to argue in these words, Doth not Nature it self teach you, &c. [Is it come∣ly?] and [Doth not Nature teach you?] are the same. Let us see then what this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Decorum, this Comeliness signifies. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to follow the order of Nature in respect of Persons, Place, Time, State or Condition, or any other Circumstance whatsoever, and to act sui∣tably according to the Variety of these. And this Decorum is to be observed in all External Actions, Words, Gestures and Behaviour. When all these are rightly ordered, then a person acts De∣cently

or Fitly: but when these are not observed, he acts Vnbecomingly, and what he doth is Vnseemly and Vnsiting. It was thought Indecent in grave Socrates to be seen riding on a Cane, like a lit∣tle boy. The Senate of Areopagus, that Grave and Reverend Judicatory at Athens, made this Order,l that none of the Judges of that Bench should be per∣mitted to write Comedies. The reason was because it was Vnseemly and Inde∣corous for those Grave Senators to make Plays. These were not fit persons for such a purpose. Idem manebat, neque idem decebat, said Tully of the famous Hortensius. His way of Oratory and of Action became him in his Youthful years, but it had no Grace in Age. One thing becomes one Time, another another. And so this Law of Congruity and In∣congruity runs through all the Circum∣stances of a mans life, as might be shew∣ed. This is particularly to be discerned in the instance which is before us: Short or Moderate hair is a thing Convenient and Seemly in men, but the contrary is Vnseemly, Incongruous, Vncomely, be∣cause it is not suitable to the state and condition of Men, who ought to do things agreeable to their Rank and Qua∣lity,

who ought to shew themselves Manly and Grave, who ought to act their part Wisely, who are convinced that there is no time or place for Ex∣travagancy and Folly, who have natural impressions on their minds to encline them to what is Serious, and who know very well that this Garb we have been speaking of, if it be considered in all its circumstances and with all its appendages, is Inconvenient and Unseemly. This being so, Christians of all persons are to avoid that Unseemly wearing of their hair, because they are obliged by the Apostles Injunction to do all things De∣cently, and because the Indecent Length of hair hath at least an appearance of evil, which the same Inspired Writer bids them abstain from. Thus Nature teacheth that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, and that it is Honest and Decent, and Becoming the Exactness of Christia∣nity to observe a Moderate Length. This in general: but more particularly,

Thirdly, Even Natural Reason com∣mends to us the Apostle's advice, to think on things which are of good report, Phil. 4. 8. and to provide things ho∣nest in the sight of all men, Rom. 12. 17. 2 Cor. 8. 21. Now these Rules

cannot be more useful in any case then in the wearing of Habits, and of Hair. These ought to be such as are generally reputed Honest and Laudable, and have the good word of Sober men. Tertul∣lian, it seems, was accused of Light∣ness and Inconstancy by the people of Carthage for laying aside the use of the Gown (the common habit of the Ro∣mans) and putting on the Cloak (the usual vestment of the Grecians:) but he apologizeth for himself, telling them that he made choice of the Pallium as the Fittest and most Becoming Habit, and which was of Good Esteem and Repute among the Wisest persons, who are the most Competent Judges of the rules of Decency and Sobriety. It was, saith he, of great Antiquity, and so he could not be blamed for affecting Novelty, and wear∣ing an Upstart Habit. Besides, it was a very Vseful and Serviceable sort of ap∣parel, and on that account also it could not but be esteemed Honest and Law∣ful. Again, among the Grecians it was the proper habit of Philosophers, who were the Soberest and Antientest persons among them, and therefore was fittest for Christians, especially for Priests; and it was at that time generally made use of by

them: accordingly he wore it as soon as he was made Presbyter of the Church of Carthage, and he is pleased to call it a Priests Habit. Thus he followed those Rules of the Apostle exactly. And they are as useful and practical in the Other case, of wearing the Hair: which ought to be in that manner which is accounted Honest, and is of Good Report, that is, approved of by the Best and Wisest men, that hath the good liking of the Sobe∣rest and Gravest Christians, and that is practised by them, and not by Russians.

Fourthly, Natural Reason teacheth us that Long Hair is unlawful as it is any ways subservient to Pride, Wantonness, and Effeminacy. This is true, whether we speak of mens Own Hair, or whe∣ther it be Borrowed, and worn in lieu of their Own, as is the common pra∣ctice of these times. I am far from the thinking that the wearing of a Peruke, barely considered, is Unlawful. There may be occasion for borrowed hair in case of Necessity, want of Health, some unavoidable Infirmity, or Decay and Loss of that Natural Covering which they had. But now it is the custom, when neither Health, nor any Other ho∣nest cause can be assigned, to clap on a

false head of hair, as if hair were given women for a Covering, not for themselves (as the Apostle meant it,) but for Men. But this Needless use of false hair is not all that is to be blamed in the men of this age. They are yet more guilty, for they affect an Extravagant Length of hair, which is the fruit of Vnmanly Va∣nity and Pride, I will not say in all, but in many that use it. This Effeminate garb doth generally betray a weak and infirm mind; it is a sign of a want of other and better Head-Furniture. Com∣monly it is attended with an immode∣rate love of Softness and Delicacy. When they thus Extravagantly load them∣selves with Womans hair, they become Wanton and Luxurious, Soft and Wo∣manish. These are none of Samson's breed, their Strength lies not in their Locks, yea they are made feeble and effe∣minate by them. These Wanton La∣bels are in the generality of persons that wear them as noted marks of this dis∣grace, as a Fillet in Heraldry is of effe∣minacy, and as Gussets and a Goar si∣nister are signs there of Cowardize and Womanish disposition.

Fifthly, it might be added that so far as Long Hair may prove Incommodious

and Cumber some, and be a Hindrance to men in their Business (which they best know and are sensible of whose heads are hung with this Trouble some Tackle) it must needs be pronounced to be a∣gainst Nature, and the Law of our Ra∣tional faculties, for this approves of no∣thing which really Incommodes us, and is an impediment to us in any of the necessary offices of our lives. If a Re∣solute Vanity did not posses these mens minds, and strangely harden them, they would count those Ell-Wiggs an intole∣rable Luggage, and would beg to be rid of them. They would complain that these hang in their way, and even im∣pede their Eating and Drinking, the greatest business of their lives. Or, if we could imagine this sort of persons to be Warriours, they would then certain∣ly feel the mischief of this Incumbrance which they carry about them, and we should soon see them leave these Horse-Tails to the Enemy as the Ensigns and Trophies of their folly.

Lastly, the Natural Law of Reason bids men doe nothing that is Shameful and Opprobious, Disgraceful and Disho∣nourable; but such is a mans having of Long Hair. It is, saith the Apostle, a

shame to him; or rather, it should have been translated dishonour, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, and is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the next verse, which shews this ren∣dring of the word to be most proper. If a man wear long hair, it is a Disho∣nour to him, it being doing that which is unworthy of his peculiar Sex, and so is Vnnatural: which leads me to the next Particular which I propounded. But before I enter upon That, I will summ up the foregoing heads, that you may at one view discern how Nature (i. e. Natural Reason, which dictates what is Good and what is Bad) teacheth the Un∣lawfulness of Long Hair, viz. As it is against the Judgement and Practice of the Soberest race of men in all Regions of the world, as it is against Natural Decency and Comeliness, as it is a thing not of Good Report, so far as it may serve to Pride and Lewdness, so far as it may prove an Impediment, and lastly, as it is a Disgrace and Dishonour to the Sex. These things being thus, I can∣not excuse the Learnedm Salmasius, who declares that Length of Hair in men is free from all fault and blame, and that their Longest Locks are not against the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is one Extream:

the other is maintained by Poimenander, who looks upon this Text as a kind of Depilatory Text. So far is this Dutch Divine from a••••roving of Salmasius's Long Locks, that he will not suffer a mans hair to reach any further then his ears. It must only cover his Skill, he saith in another place. And at last he tells us that to wear hair below the ears is such a sin as deserves Eternal Death: But may we not ask this Damning man, What is the Hair of the head for? If it be not of some Length and Thickness, it is not for use, and so Nature gave it in vain. Is it not agreed on by all the Understanding part of mankind, that the Hair of the head was given to cover it from the cold, and to guard and shel∣ter it from the winds, or other assaults? And is it possible it should do this if it be so Clipp'd and Poll'd as some would have it? No: this design of Nature cannot be accomplished. It is granted likewise by all men of sober thoughts▪ that Nature intended the Hair of the head to be a Comely Adorning to it, which it cannot be if it be not permit∣ted to display it self in some measure, especially if it be reduced to that Low Cut which was mentioned before. Here

then we are concerned to avoid Ex∣treams on one side or other. As a man must not go like a Nazarite, or a Greek Philosopher, or like a N••buchadnezzar at grass with his hair hanging down about him, so neither must he appear like a Shorn Animal with a bare Skull, like an Affrighted Iew in his days of Mourning with his hair torn off, like a Cropt Sy∣nick, or like a Shaven Monk. But there is a Decent Medium to be prefer'd be∣fore these, and to be practised, that is, to wear the hair with a Convenient Shortness, or a moderate Length, call it which you will. This matter is easi∣ly decided by peaceable and sober minds, though some have made a great Con∣troversie of it, insomuch that it hath been called Bellum Capillare. This is certain, that no man can prescribe a Just Exact Measure, a Precise Length: for this may alter according to the age, tem∣per, and quality of the person, yea even according to the dimensions of his neck. We must not be Curious here, we must not be Censorious and Quarrelsom, we must not create Scruples and Diffi∣culties. Any Sober and well Considerate man, who makes his Reason his Rule, will easily determine in this affair.

III. The Difference of Sexes, which is another signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, teacheth that if a man have Long Hair, it is a shame and dishonour to him: for wearing the hair in a Different manner is one badg of the Sex. Difference of Habits distinguishes one Sex from ano∣ther: accordingly Hair, which is a sort of Habit, is a distinction of the Sexes. First, the hair of the face which we call Beards, is as it were the Clothing of the face. Some indeed have pulled these up by the roots, or shaved the place very close, as many of the Greeks and Romans used to do: but others let them grow, and that to a considerable length, as the Old Philosophers generally did. Adrian the Emperour (as we have noted before) was the first that brought a∣mong the Romans the fashion of Beards: before that time they usually had no hair on their chins or lips. But this pra∣ctice is against Nature, it taking away that which is one Distinction between the Sexes. Hence God forbad his peo∣ple not only to round (i. e. to shave all round) the corners of their heads, but to mar the corners of their beards, Lev. 19. 27. This latter, viz. the spoiling of the angles of the Beard by

cutting all off round, seems to be re∣pugnant to Nature, and consequently is as Shameful as the former. And there is nothing to excuse the general custom at this day among us of shaving off the Beard, and going with Smooth Chins like women, but this, that the Cutting or Not cutting of the Beard is not so Great a Distinction of the Sexes as the ordering of the Hair of the Head: for both men and women are furnished with Hair on their heads, but several people in the world are without Beards, that is, no hair grows on their faces. And be∣sides, this Beardless fashion is the more tolerable, as long as the Other Differen∣ces of the Sexes, viz. Clothes of the bo∣dy, and Hair of the head are kept up. And therefore it appears hence that we ought to be the more concerned for this latter. By the Hair of the Head there is a plain discrimination made between Man and Woman. And yet I do not say that simply and absolutely speaking, it is a Distinction instituted by Nature, because Nature hath made the Hair of Male and Female alike. Though a Beard seems to be a Natural Distinction, yet the Hair of the Head is not. But then This is to be said, that it is Natural to

distinguish the Sexes, and the Wearing of the Hair being through custom agreed upon among all Nations to be one Distin∣ction between the Sexes, it follows that it is Natural and Reasonable to observe this Distinction. Now if a Man wear his hair as long as a Woman, the Sex is not discerned, which is against the Law and Decree of Nature, viz. that the Distinction of Sexes is to be main∣tained, and not confounded. The very summ of the first part of This Chapter to the Corinthians is, that Women must not be forgetful of their Sex. There is a Modesty and Shamefac'dness proper to them, as the consequent of the Subje∣ction they owe, which is to be shew'd by putting on a Veil. Though they had Supernatural Gifts (as the Apostle here supposeth,) yet they were to re∣member their peculiar station and Sex. And so here the same thing is urged, viz. the Difference of Sexes made by God and Nature. This teacheth the man that it is Unfit for him to wear Long Hair, for hereby the Difference of Sexes would be taken away. We must not do things contrary to or unbecoming our Sex. That is Decorous and Seemly in a Man which is not in a Woman, and

so vice versâ. It must needs then be a shame to a Man to have hair of the Length which a Woman hath: for then he is truly Travestie, dressed in anothers Clothes, (which is the import of that French word,) and for which he may be justly Ridicul'd. And This certain∣ly is the Shame of This Age wherein we live, Though it is not so accounted, but rather, the Contrary is thought Shameful and Disgracefull. We may in our days alter and transpose the Apostle's words, and say, If a man hath Short hair, it is a Shame to him: but if a woman have Short hair, nay, if she hath none, it is a Glory to her. That Sex which used not to nourish the hair, now doth, or rather makes use of the hair which others should nourish: and the Other Sex which used to have their hair at the utmost Length, now cut it off and give it to the man. It is true, still the Distinction of the Sexes is preserved, though the Marks and Badges of it be Contrary to what they were herertofore. But notwithstanding this, here is a Perverting and Confound∣ing of the Natural and Primitive Order, a casting off the received Tokens which used to distinguish the Sexes of man and woman. Thus you see how Nature it

self teacheth that if a man have Long hair, it is a shame to him.

Hitherto I have considered the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the first sense, i. e. as it denotes having Long hair, or Loose hair which hangeth down at length, and is without any Artificial Ornament. But as This is a frequent signification of the word, so there is another, viz. to have hair not only Long and Uncut, but to dis∣pose of it after the manner of Women, to deck and adorn it. This is a known signification of the Greek word in the Text: yea, some will have this to be the Primary and Proper denotation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here then I will ex∣amine, 1. What this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was, wherein consisted the wearing of hair like Women, in respect of its Dress and Ornament? 2. Whether the Apostle here means Hair of this kind? 3. How Nature teacheth men that they ought not to wear such hair?

I. What is it to wear hair like wo∣men? For we shall not be able to tell what men are taught to do when they are forbid to have such hair, unless we know first what that hair was, viz. in regard of its Composure and Dress. You must know then, that women did not

wear their hair at Length, though it was Long, for they tied it up, and to this purpose made use of fillets, laces, ribbands. And they did not truss and wrap up their hair confusedly, but or∣dered it into several divisions: and ac∣cordingly they had Pins to divide the hair. It is no small piece of Learning to be acquainted even with the Attire of Women from the Antientest Writers. From them we may learn that all the Greek and Roman▪ yea and all Europaean women bound up their hair in a hand∣some manner. It is true, at Funerals, and when Extraordinary Grief surprized them, they let their hair down about their shoulders, but from this custom a∣lone it is clear that at Other times they wore it after another fashion, that is, they neatly tied it up one way or other, and suffered it not to hang down dishe∣veld. Yea, they gathered it sometimes into a knot on the top of their heads: the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman women wore their hair thus. And it is proba∣ble this fantastick Top-knot of their own hair is taken notice of and reproved by S^t Paul in 1 Tim. 2. 9. where he tells us that the Christian women must not be adorned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we tran∣slate

[with broidred hair,] but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks signified that Curled Lock or Tower which the women wore on the top of their heads, and by the Latins was call'd Corymbus. This you may satisfie your selves in from the best Lexicographers. But though this was a Particular use of the word among the Greeks, yet here it may have a Lar∣ger meaning, and signifie also the Other excesses and follies the women were then guilty of in dressing their hair. This is elegantly called in Isai. 3. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 calamistri opus: there was a great deal of Workmanship in that effeminate dressing of the hair, it was an Elaborate piece of art to dispose and order it aright. Accordingly from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, crines ornare, which the Greeks express likewise by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is akin to that I be∣fore named: whence you may guess what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are, in the more comprehensive sense of the word. We render it (as I have said) by [broidred hair,] but I conjecture the word is falsly set down, by the fault of the Printers 'tis likely. Broided is the word used by Coverdale and Tindal here, whence our Last Tran∣slators took it, but in Transcribing or

Printing it was corrupted: which ought to be taken notice of by those who have the Inspection of these things in our Church, that we may not make use of a false and mistaken Version, for [Broi∣dred] was mistook for [broided, or braided] (for both these words were heretofore in use.) Now, braiding the hair is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, plai∣ting the hair, which is forbid by S^t Pe∣ter, 1 Epist. 3. ch. 3. v. Though the hair might be put up decently, yet it was not to be braided or plaited; by which word, and by that other before named, all Lust and Wantonness in Trimming the head is condemned by those two A∣postles. The Magnasheh Miksheh, the well-set hair, the laborious Curling, Friz∣ling and Crisping the hair, which was then in use, and all other Gaudy and Wanton Dressing of it are here pro∣nounced Unlawful, and not fit to be practised by women professing Christiani∣ty. The short then is, that Women heretofore did always wear their hair Vn∣cut, and because of its Length they did not suffer it to hang about their ears, but tied it up, and decently disposed of it: but at last this Decent Ordering of their hair degenerated into an Indecent

Trimming, into a Lewd and Wanton Gar∣nishing it. It is the former of these which is expressed here in this one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This signifies the Womanish Set∣ting forth and Adorning of the hair, the wearing of hair as Women wear it. The Grammarians in the propriety and differences of words which they make, tell us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly of Women, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Men. Com•• est ca∣pillus aliquâ curâ compositus, say the Ma∣sters of Grammer and Criticism. And ac∣cordingly some of them derive it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 curare, colere, ••rnare, to take care of, trim, deck, adorn. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Womens hair properly, because it re∣quires great Care and Art to keep it, dress it, and tie it up. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be carefull about the hair, decently to gather it together, and to dispose of it: whence Loose and Squalid hair is oppo∣sed in all Good Authors to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus I have done with the First De∣mand, what the wearing of hair like wo∣men is.

II. I am to shew you that the Apostle speaks here of This very wearing of hair. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is mentioned twice to∣gether (in this, and the next verse) is meant of the ••ame thing: this will not

be denied, I suppose. Now the latter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, applied to the woman, cannot be meant of Long Hair only and simply, but also of hair which is Ordered and Fashioned according to the use of wo∣men: and that for these two Reasons. First, because it is said to be her Glory: but tis well known that Hair Hanging down and Disheveld is no Glory, no Or∣nament, no Honou••, and neve•• was thought to be to any of that Sex. When the Apostle saith, If a woman doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is a glory to her, he cannot intend Long Hair absolutely, and sol••ly, for that was no Comliness or Decorum, much less, Glory to the Greek or Roman, or any Europaean women▪ but on the con∣trary, it was thought Indecent, and was a sign of Neglect••u••ness and Squ••lidity, and therefore used in case of great Mourn∣ing and Lamentation. Secondly, in this same verse it is said that the womans hair is given her,n for a Covering. Hence then I gather that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must not be mere Long Hair hanging down, and ne∣ver cut. This indeed covers the neck and shoulders, but it is no more a Co∣vering to the head then short or Cut hair. Therefore it must be meant not on∣ly of hair worn at Length, but of the

Binding up the hair in an Artificial man∣ner, to do the service of a Veil, and in the way of a real Covering to the head. When it is tied up, and in several parts made up together, and fastned to the head, it is a Covering, whereas if it hang at Length, and be Loose and Flowing, it is not a Covering, or if it be one, it is as much a Covering to the other parts of the body as to the head. The A∣postle would have women cover or veil their heads, with their own Hair; and he intimates at the same time that this Natural Covering dictates what they should do moreover, that is, add an Ar∣tificial one, a Veil over their heads, as often as they go into the publick Assem∣blies, and are ingaged in solemn acts of Religion and Worship. God giving them the Veil of Hair, and by that as it were tells them they must be covered with ano∣ther. They are to have a Double Co∣vering; one Nature supplies them with, Art must afford the other: and if they cast off this latter, they may as well cast off the former. This you find to be the Apostle's way of arguing (whatso∣ever you think of it) in the begin∣ning of the Chapter, where he acquaints the Christian women of Corinth, that pray∣ing

with their heads uncovered is even all one as if they were shaven: and accor∣dingly he adds, If a woman be not co∣vered, let her also be shorn. Nature doth as it were shew the way in this case, and lets women know that they must cover their heads in time of Divine Wor∣ship. Why so? Because Nature hath given them Hair for a Covering: it tells them they must have a Veil. But what kind of Hair is this? It is Long Hair, but not hanging at length, it is gather'd and tied up, and made as it were into a Cap or Covering for the head. It is evi∣dent then that the Apostle here speaks against those Corinthian men who were Effeminate and Wanton, who at that time wore their hair after the manner of Women, who artificially wrapt it up, and dressed and adorned it after the fashion of that Sex. The Apostle forbids the Men to wear their hair thus: this is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, coma, properly so called, and belongs to a Woman. This Gathering and Tying, and Adorning the hair is the womans Natural Veil or Covering for her head, and given her to that purpose. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is her proper Ornament, and is even stiled by the Apostle, her Glory, as hath been often said. But this, as lawful as it is

in Women, becomes Unlawful and Sin∣ful in the Masculine Sex. If a Man makes use of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If he wears his ••hair like a woman, i. e. Gathered up, and Com∣posed by art, it is a shame to him. Not only Long Hair but Adorned Hair is not permitted to Man, but is against Nature. Which is the

III. thing I am to undertake, viz. to shew how Nature teacheth that a Man ought not to wear his hair after this man∣ner. And here we will take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Tripple sense which we took it in before, viz. as it signifies Custom, Natural Reason, and Difference of Sex. First, it is not to be denied that many Men among the Gentiles went with the Attire of their Hair like Women. It is easily proved out of History that the Crecian Men kept their hair uncut and unpoll'd, and were very vain and wan∣ton in dressing it. They used to perfume; cut and crisp their hair, and to take a great deal of care about it. Yea, the Spartans went even to the Wars with their hair artificially combed and adorned. The Corinthians, among other Grecians, degenerated into this effeminate wearing of their hair, which the Apostle here re∣proves them for. But among the Athe∣nians

particularly a Knot of hair tied up, and standing upright on their crowns was the universal fashion even among the Men. This was called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: this latter word is used (as you have heard) by the A∣postle, and perhaps refers particularly to this fashion. It was also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Scorpion, because perhaps it was part∣ly framed in the figure of a Scorpion or Snake; it twirled about like such an animal, for which reason also a Curled Lock of hair is called a Worm in our modern stile. Salmasius hath proved from Lucian, Virgil, and other Authors that this Top-Lock or Curl'd Tuft of hair on the crown of the head was the fashion of Other Nations besides the Greeks. This and other excesses of the like kind were used by the Men among the Ro∣mans also, as appears from those Wri∣ters who took notice of them, and in∣veighed against them. Ovid jerks those Effeminate Men who will not let a hair be amiss or out of its place,

Quisque suas ponunt in statione comas.

o Iuvenal corrects the pride of the Ro∣man Gallants in wearing their hair finely dressed: andp Horace lashes them for

the same Effeminacy. Nay, not only the Jeering Poets took notice of their Luxury and Extravagancy in this point, but the Gravest Moralists thought it a disorder fit to be animadverted on and se∣verely reproved. Thus Seneca gallant∣ly reproves the Roman Vanity of being Delicate and Curious about their Hai••: he checks them for spending so many hours under the Barber's hands, he re∣presents how Angry they were with him if he did not do what they would have him, if their Set of Points did not hang right, if any the least Curl were out of order: they had rather the Common∣wealth should be troubled and disordered then their Hair. In short, he rebukes them for being so busie between the Glass and the Comb, and tells them it is a sign they have a greater desire to be Sptuce and Fine then Honest. But Pa∣gans were not the only persons that were infected with this folly. The Au∣thor of theq Apostolical Constitutions saith, It is not lawful to nourish the hair, and to tie it up in a Knot, nor to curl and crisp it, seeing the Law forbids it. From whence it appears that this Vanity and Luxury of composing the hair in a Womanish manner was crept in even a∣mong

Christian Men. And this further appears from that Antient Canon of the 4^th Councel of Carthage, Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam, which was made against the Massaliani, a sort of Hereticks then in Africa who indulged an Effeminate wearing of their Hair, of whom likewiser Epiphanius and S^t s Augustin speak. But though this Vi∣••ious practice spread it self among Pa∣gans and Christians, yet it did not U∣niversally prevail, it was no General Cu∣stom. That it was not so among the Pagans is evident from the Reproofs which it met with from the Sober and Grave among them•• yea, from the Wit∣ty and Facetious. And that it obtained not among Christians is manifest, because it is checked here by the Apostle as a single miscarriage of the Christians of Co∣rinth: and Councels, Fathers and Do∣ctors have reproved it in their Decrees, Sermons and Discourses, as the fault of some only. The short is, there were two Contrary Practises or Customs on foot at that time, one of the Rude and De∣bauched part of the world, the other of the Better and Civilized fort of people▪ now, we cannot think that the Apostle appeals here to the Custom of the former,

but of the latter: for we cannot imagine that this Holy Man would propound the Worst of men as an example to the Chri∣stians of Corinth to follow. Whence we may certainly infer that he doth not mean here the Custom of the Rude and Immoral, but of the Civil part of man∣kind. He tells the Corinthians that if they will conduct their lives by the usual practise of these, they may be sufficient∣ly furnished with Examples, all the Re∣formed part of the world act after this manner, that is, they detest the Wo∣manish wearing of their hair. The Mo∣dest, Wise and Sober in all Nations and in all Ages have opposed this practice, it being disagreeable to the dictates of Reason in all understanding and conside∣rate persons. Which brings me to the next Particular.

Secondly, Nature it self, i. e. the dictate of Natural Reason, Natures in∣stinct and Common Sense teach this, that a Man is not to wear hair like a Woman. The Manly Sex is forbid by the Law of Nature to have hair after the manner of the Female sex. Natural Reason d••ctates against Adorned Hair in men on the same accounts that it was against their Long Hair, viz. because it is

Indecent, because it is of no Good Re∣port, because it is subservient to Pride and Wantonness, because it is contrary to the Practise of those who are most guided by the conduct of Reason, &c. But I will insist only on the first of these, the Natural Indecency of the thing. Here then, as before, we are to take notice that there is a Decency and Fitness to be observed and followed by all that own either Reason or Religion, There is t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Beauty or Comliness of Holiness, which more immediately respects the Worship of God, but there is also the Pulchritude and Decour of Holiness to be observed in all the actions which re∣late to Religion, or are done by Holy men, for these do nothing that is Un∣comely and Indecorous. All those things which our Apostle prescribes the Corin∣thian Christians concerning Virginity and Marriage throughout the whole 7^th chap. of his 1 Epistle to them, he tells them he speaks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that which is Comely, i. e. that a Decent and Fit behaviour might be kept in all they did. Again, in Phil. 4. 8. he commends to them whatsoever things are honest; but the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Venerable, Grave, Comely. And so that of the fa∣mous

Roman Orator is true,u That which is Decent is Honest, and whatever is Ho∣nest is Decent. Thus when the Apostle joyns Godliness and Honesty together in 1 Tim. 2. 2. the latter word in thex Greek may denote that Grave and Decent de∣portment of life which I am speaking of▪ Religion regards Civility, Christianity concerns it self in a Sober, Decent, and Orderly carriage, in a Modest and Reve∣rent behaviour. What is said of wo∣men in Tit. 2. 3. is to be applied to both sexes, they are to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in behaviour as becometh ho∣liness. The vulgar Latin renders it in habitu Sancto, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 2. 9. It is certain that word signifies not only Ge∣sture, Countenace, Speech, and the whole Behaviour of persons, but their Habit al∣so, viz. as this word denotes the Out∣ward Dress. This is to be regulated by those of the Masculine kind in a spe∣cial manner. Man was made for Busi∣ness and Manly Employment: therefore a kind of Carelessness andy Neglect in respect of Beauty and Dress doth be∣come him. He must not study to be Fine and Delicate: it is not agreeing with his work. To tie up the hair, and

to trim and adorn it, and to compose it by art, in brief to wear it as a Woman doth, is Unbecoming a man. Thus Na∣ture or Natural Reason teacheth that Adorned hair in men is Indecent and Un∣fitting, and in plain terms Sinful and Unlawful.

Thirdly, Nature, i. e. the Difference of sexes dictates that a Man ought not to wear his Hair in the fashion of a Wo∣man. The Learned Salmasius, who un∣derstands by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ the Distinction of sexes, or that Law of Nature which teacheth there should be a Difference made between the Sexes, hath sufficiently proved this Acception of the word. I need not there∣fore repeat here what I said before, that Nature is taken in Good Writers in this sense: That I think is unquestionable. Now I am only to prove that the Di∣stinction which is between the two Sexes is sufficient foundation for This Prohi∣bition, viz. that a man should not wear his hair as women do. You must con∣sider then that there are actions and de∣portments Proper to each Sex, the very make and Constitution of the Sexes dicta∣ting these Peculiar and Proper operations. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in general is that which is consentaneous to our Nature, and distin∣guisheth

us from Other species of beings. But in particular this Decorum is that which is peculiar and appropriated to one or the other Sex. There are certain boundaries which part both Sexes. That which is decent in one is not so in the other, and never can be. It is true Pla∣to would have Women train'd up to Mar∣tial Exercise and feats of Arms, that, if there should be necessity, they might defend their Country. But this was a Fanciful project of the Philosopher, as many of his are: and others of his Bre∣thren Philosophers were ashamed of it. One Sex must not incroach on the other, and usurp the rights and usages proper to it. As (to appro••ch to the matter which is before us) there is a Particu∣lar Habit and Dress which belongs to Women, and there is another which is proper to Men: and that Habit which doth become the former, doth in no wise become the latter, and so vice versâ. The Law of God which was given to the Iews by Moses positively asserts this Distinction of Habits, and strictly forbids that people to disguise themselves in the promiscuous Garments of either Sex. See their Distinct Vestments commanded by God in Deut. 22. 5. Philo giving

the Reason of this Law saith,

The Mo∣saick Law takes care of the Habit of man and woman, forbidding the former to wear what belongs to the other, z that not the least footstep or shadow of Effeminacy might disparage the Masculine kind. And again, he saith, a The Man ought to wear no Garment that is a badg of Unmanliness. For (as he adds)b the Law follows Na∣ture, and observes and enjoyns what is Proper and Fitting for all persons even in the least things.

This Fit∣tingness first introduced, and ever since hath kept up a Distinction of Habit or Dress in the Sexes. All the Wise and Sober men of the World have approved of this as a Law of Nature, and have sharply rebuked those that violated it. Thus we are toldc that when Aristotle beheld a yc••th finely trickt up, and in a dress very effeminate, he upbraided him in these words, Art thou not asha∣med, when Nature hath made thee a Man, to make thy self a Woman? The Poets indeed acquaint us that Hercules for Omphale's fake put on womans ap∣parel, and spun, using the Distaff instead of his Club: and Achilles, to avoid the wars, disguised himself in a Female dress.

This was indulged as a Shift for a time; But no men of Sober Morals among the Gentiles allow'd of this Change of Ha∣bit as an usual practice. Seneca represents their sense when he speaks thus to his friend,d

Do not those men live against Nature (the very thing in the Text) who change their own habit for that which belongs to the other Sex?

This Interrogatory is a flat Negative, and it is as much as if he had said, these men do absolutely confront Nature, and de∣fie its Laws. The Poet who said,

Quem praestare potest mulier galeata pudo∣rem, Quae fugit à sexu?

was of the like opinion as to Women, viz. that they cannot without putting off Shame and Modesty put on the ap∣parel of Men. And if Iews and Gentiles have thus declared their sentiments as to this particular, you may expect that Christians have not been behind them. It was the peremptory determination of the Councel of Gangra that a woman is not to wear m••ns clothes, nor a man the womans. And there have been o∣ther Laws made by the Church, and also by the Secular Magistrates to refrain dis∣order in this kind. For they thought

that a Fitting and Distinct Dress is a good guard of Honesty, is serviceable to promote Modesty and Shamefac'dness, and to hinder the violating of Chastity. Briefly, All Nations and Countries have observed this Distinction, and according∣ly have had Proper and Distinct Gar∣ments for the Sexes. This was pursu∣ant of what our Apostle here saith, that Nature teaches this, i. e. Nature which distinguisheth the Sexes, Nature which hath every where made a Discrimination between Male and Female, Nature which makes a Difference not only as to Clothes of the body, but as to the manner of wearing the Hair of the head: for the Hair both of the Head▪ and Beard is a Natural Clothing, and is rightly called by Salmasius, altera vestis. The Diffe∣rence of Men and Women ought to be manisested by this very Clothing. The Different wearing of the Hair distin∣guisheth the Sexes. Nature which hath made a Difference between male and fe∣male, dictates also that they are to be Differenced as to This.

But you will say, Nature teacheth not the way of Differencing the Sexes by the wearing of Hair, for All People a∣gree not as to the manner of wearing

it. In some Countries the woman is distinguished from the man by having Short hair, and the man from the wo∣man by Long Hair tied up, and never cut. I Answer, 1. The practice of some Nations and people as to this thing is no Argument. It is sufficient that the Generality of the Best and most Mora∣lized people observe. This manner of di∣stinction between the Sexes, which I have proved they do. 2. I have before pro∣ved that there is something of Natural Decency and Fitness in distinguishing the Sexes by this Particular Manner of wearing the hair. 3. Though I should say with Salmasius, that Nature teacheth not the Particular way of differencing the Sexes as to Hair, yet this I must say, that when Custom and Institution have settled such a Particular way, Nature then teacheth us to observe it, it bids us not break the Distinction, but keep it up. We see there are Different Usages and Cu∣stoms in different Countries, but the••e is Honesty or Dishonesty in the ob∣serving several of them, though they be Different, yea almost Contrary. Good and Laudable Customs are a Law in ma∣ny places; they are so in This Land: and Reason, which is the Law of Na∣ture,

teacheth us to observe these. Say then that This of the Text was a Lo∣cal Custom only, say that it was a Tem∣porary Precept (as there are several such in S^• Paul's Epistles,) calculated only for such a place and certain time, yet the Precept nearly concerns us. For though we are not immediately obliged to this Individual and Particular thing, yet because the Reason of the Precept obliges us, we are on that account, though more remotely, ingaged to observe this very thing. On this consideratione Sal∣masius himself grants that it is a Sin in a man to wear his hair as Women do. And although some of these things which the Apostle mentions in the beginning of this Chapter, as mens being uncovered, to denote their Superiority, and the wo∣mens Covering their heads as a sign of their Subjection, together with the Par∣ticular Manner of wearing the hair used at that time, which the Apostle refers to, be not in use with us at this day, yet the General Rule of keeping up a Difference between the Sexes is still va∣lid and obligatory, and will always be so. This is certain and fi••ed, and never to be shaken, that Nature hath made a Diffe∣rence between the Sexes, and that it is

a Sin to confound them. And it is not to be denied that this Difference of Sexes is to be manifested by Different Habit and Apparel, to which appertain Wearing the Hair. And this in the times of the Apostle was after this man∣ner; Hair hanging down, and moderately cut was proper to Man, and Long Hair, but tied up and with some art disposed was proper to the Woman; for the diffe∣rence of Men and Womens hair con∣sisted not only in the Length, but in the Disposing and Dressing of it. It is Manly to cut the hair, and neglect the adorning of it: it is Womanish to let it grow, to gather it up orderly and with some innocent art. This is the Diffe∣rence of Sexes made by the Hair which S^t Paul speaks of. This is that which was suggested by the Author of the A∣postolical Constitutions, speaking of that Law in Leviticus, Thou shalt no round the corners of thy head, &c.f It behoveth us, saith he, not to spoil the hair of the head or of the beard, not to change the fashion of man against Nature, i. e. to order the hair so as to take away in part the Natural Difference between the Sexes. This is that which an Antient Father on the like occasion saith,g To

violate the symbol (or sign) of the Vi∣rile Nature is impious. The Wearing of hair is such a Symbol, and therefore to confound this in the Sexes, that is, for a Man to wear his hair after the Wo∣manish way, and for the Woman to wear hers after the way which is proper to Men, is Unchristian, Impious, and Un∣natural. This, in conjunction with what I have said before, I take to be the A∣postle's meaning in these words, Doth not even Nature it self (and with it Custom) teach you, that if a man hath Long hair, and disposes of it in that manner which women do, it is a shame, it is a dishonour to him? But if a woman have Long hair, and wears it after that way of Dress which is proper to her Sex, the law of Nature, to∣gether with the Vsage of the sober part of the world teacheth that it is a glory to her. This I offer as the Full and Complete sense of the Apostle in this Text.

And now though I have finished my task, yet because This place of Scripture about men and womens Hair comes in here only by the by, and is not the Main thing intended by the Apostle, but is brought to prove what he had urged be∣fore, that women praying or prophesying should cover their heads, and men uncover

theirs, it being (I say) brought in here as an Argument to prove the Decency of such a practice in time of Divine Worship, which is the Main and Principal thing the Apostle urgeth in the beginning of this Chapter, therefore I will annex here something of this subject, and shew you what hath been the Practice of the world as to this, and How, and for what Rea∣sons the Apostle presseth it here. And though my chief design is to speak of this custom of Covering or Vncovering the head as it was used in Divine Worship, yet, to shew the utmost extent of this practice, I shall say something as I go a∣long concerning this usage in General and Civil Conversation. I will begin first with the practice of the Iews and other Eastern people. As for the Common and Civil usage among them they sel∣dom were Bare-headed in publick. And the mode used in Civil conversation gave the rule also for Religious Worship. The Iews went always with their heads co∣vered, and so continued even at Divine Worship: and most of the Eastern peo∣ple did the like. The Iews of old, both Priests that sacrificed, and People that were present, had their heads covered. Not only women but men hid their heads

and faces with a Veil when they pray∣ed, as the Learnedh D^r Lightfoot hath proved. The Hebrew Doctors who tell us that they came in this posture into the Temple, and there remain'd so all the time of the Service, tell us also, that they did it out of pure Reverence, and for ••ear of seeing the Divine Ma∣jesty, as they speak. And from the Tem∣ple this was derived to the Synagogues, and with some addition, for in these pla∣ces you may at this day see them (not only those that Officiate, but the whole Congregation) pray standing with the Ordinary Covering on their heads, and over that likewise they cast a Veil. This people he••etofore, when they so∣lemnly Mourned (which was a piece of Religion,) veiled their heads, besides that they covered them with Dust and Ashes. Of this Mourning Covering, which was added to their Ordinary one, the Scrip∣ture often speaks, as in the 2 Sam. ••5. 30. Ier. 14. 4. Ezek. 24. 27. and sund••y other places. This was also used by Other Nations in the East, as the Per∣sians; Thus Haman mourned, having his head covered, Esther 6. 12. And this was a Prologue to another and Worse Covering, 7 ch. 8. v. they ••overed Ha∣mans

face, which was done immediately upon the Kings being displeased with him, for Covering the face or head was a sign among them of being cast out of savour. This afterwards was in use among the Iews, and was a token of, Condemnation: and accordingly you read that when Christ was condemned to be guilty of death, some began to cover his face, Mark 14. 64, 65. But passing this by, I am concer∣ned at present in the more usual and Or∣dinary Covering which the Iews used. Their Priests had a Particular Covering for their heads, which is called Migba∣noth, Ex. 29. 9. Lev. 8. 13. Exod. 28. 40. and sometimes, Zaniph, Zech. 3. 5. which are rendred by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by Our Translators bonnets and mitres. After several disputes a∣bout the nature of this Covering, it is not to be doubted that it was a kind of Tur∣bant, which I gather from Ex. 39. 28. where 'tis expressly said that it was made of fine linnen, and from Ex. 29. 9. & Lev. 8. 13. where 'tis said it was bound upon their heads. Besides, the verb Zanaph, circumvolvere, circumli∣gare, whence Zamph comes, shews that this was a Cove••ing that was rolled and tied about the head. And as for the

rest of the people, they continually wore something on their heads, a sort of Bon∣net, or Hood, or Cap, (for it is diffe∣rently represented.) Or you may call it a Hat▪ and such perhaps were those Hats which the three young men were bound in when they were thrown into the burn∣ing fiery furnace, Dan. 3. 21. So our Translators render the word there, though the invention of Hats (such as we have at this day) was since the be∣ginning of Queen Elizabeths reign. It is most probable that this was a sort of Tur∣bants, and that the Iews generally wore this sort of Covering on their heads, though it was not so rich and costly as that which the Priests and Great Men wore. Whatsoever this Covering was, it was so close to their heads that it could not be presently pull'd off with ease, and so it was not a custom to shew Respect to their Superiours or equals when they met them by pulling off this attire. For this cause it was no sign of Reverence either in their Synagogues or any where else to be Bare-headed. They had another way of shewing Re∣verence and Respect to God and men, viz. by Bowing; which prevailed with all other Oriental people gen∣rally.

They shew'd also their Respect and O∣beisance by baring their feet. Hence Moses put off his shoes: instead of Vnco∣vering his head, he did so to his feet. And perhaps Solomon alludes to this Eastern mode in Ecol. 5. 1. Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, i. e. shew all signs of Reverence in that place. The Persians likewise were of the number of those who used not to uncover their heads either in Civil or Religious conversation. And the Ma∣hometans to this day (for I may bring them in here because they are successors of the Antient Eastern people in those Countries,) these (I say,) as well as the Persians, wearing Turbants (which are not so easily put off) have their heads constantly covered with them: they never put them off to the Great∣est Men or Princes. And being not un∣cover'd to Men, they will not be so to God. They perform their Religious Worship with their Turbants on their heads: only we are told that when they go to Prayers they touch them with the tops of their fingers, in token, some think, of taking them off. So much of the practice of the Iews and other Eastern Nations.

Le•• us see what the Greeks and Ro∣mans did. The Old Greeks had a con∣trary practice, they used no Covering on their heads, being an Hale and Stur∣dy people, and not willing to use them∣selves tenderly. Besides, they were in∣ured to sharp enterprizes and services in the Wars, wherein they found it most proper to come on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which hath been since used in a Proverbial way for Bold and Manly Adventures. But those that came after them were not so disposed; for Thucydides, Strabo, and Pol∣lux acquaint us that the Spartans wore woollen caps or hats, and that the He∣lots their servants had dog-skin hats: nor was it a frequent custom to vail these hats or bonnets in way of Salutation. And if you ask what was the usage at their Worship, Macrobius and Plutarch, two sufficient witnesses, assure you they Uncovered their heads in Divine Offices. It was their opinion it seems that the Gods were not to be addressed after the manner of Men: and therefore though many of them in ordinary and common converse covered their heads, yet they ap∣pear'd in another posture at their pub∣lick Devotions. Besides, the Temples or Places consecrated to the Gods were

heretofore Open without any roof or co∣vering: which the Old hardy Greeks seemed to emulate, and would needs wor∣ship with bare heads. But the practice of the Romans, as it is best known, so it is most observable. It is certain that the Old Romans used no Covering on their heads. Whilest they were Hard and Strong, and before they were grown Effeminate it was usual with them to go Bare. Clothing arrived to what it was afterwards by degrees both for the head and other parts. But at first when they were not so tender and delicate, their very Kings and Princes, and after that, their Consuls and Greatest Officers used to go bare-headed. Yea,i Iul••us Caesar reckon'd it the Greatest favour and ho∣nour that could be done him by the peo∣ple, that they bestow'd upon him a Law∣rel-Crown to hide his bald head. But though it was the usual Custom of the Romans to go with their heads Uncove∣red, yet this practice of theirs had these following Exceptions, (as you may ga∣ther from those who have writ of the Roman Customs, and particularly from Plutarch in his Quaest. Roman. & Lip∣sius de Amphitheatro, Cap. 19. as also from Varro, Tully, Martial, Plautus,

Suetonius, Ovid, Horace, Salust, Seneca, with whose Names only I trouble the Reader here, that I may save him the trouble afterwards of consulting their words at length in the margin.) 1. At their Plays they were Covered. Those Sports being indulged them out of Good Will and Favour, they took the liberty at that time to sit with their caps or hats on. 2. When they Travelled their heads were covered against the injury of the weather. Although generally when ••hey went abroad they were bare-headed, yet in considerable Journeys, when they were to be a good while out, and espe∣cially in Voyages at sea, they took their caps with them. 3. In the Wars they most frequently wore these caps or hats. It is true Statues and Medalls present their Commanders and Souldiers bare-headed: but so they do our Kings of England, and generally all others. We must not therefore infer thence that These never wear hats or any other Co∣vering on their heads. 4. The Aged peo∣ple wore something on their heads when their hair was fallen of. 5. So did they that were Sick, and very much indisposed by infirmity of body. 6. Some add, that when the Weather required it, as

in Rain, Snow, Hail, great Winds, or when the Sun beat on them extraordi∣narily, they took part of their Gown, and clapt it on their heads: but that was no formal Covering. So 7^ly, when they Mourned, they covered their heads. 8^ly, It is well known that the Romans when they were made Free, had a Hat or Cap put on their heads: for this was a Sym∣bol or Emblem of Liberty among them. But though this Cap was given to them that were Manumitted, yet I do not read that they made any use of it; some of them never wore it afterwards. Lastly, The Romans (as it is obvious to observe of them; in which likewise they fol∣lowed the Grecians) used one sort of Custom in their Civil, another in their Sacred affairs, and accordingly when they were interessed and employ'd about Religious Worship, they were not Bare-headed but Covered. And yet though they generally worshipp'd their Gods with Veild heads, I know not how it came to pass, but so it was, they wor∣shipp'd Saturn with heads Uncovered, But excepting this one Instance, it is uni∣versally agreed that the Romans, when they were at Religious Exercises, were Covered, both Priests and People, the

former with their bonnets, caps or hats, the latter with some part of their clothes thrown over their heads. This is ob∣served of them by Plutarch (who at the same time takes notice of the Con∣trary practice of the Greeks,) and he gives This Reason why they covered their heads when they Worship'd the Gods, viz.k because by so doing they gave a testimony of their Humility and Submission to the Gods. So Servius in∣fers from a place in Virgils third Aeneid, that the Italians covered their heads in time of Worship, of Sacrificing espe∣cially. Nothing is more acknowledg'd by the Learned then that the Romans cover'd their heads in their Temples, and at their Religious Service, as the Iews did; whom they imitated also in Veil∣ing themselves in time of Mourning. And from the custom of having their heads covered when they Worship'd and when they Mourned, we may infer that they used the Contrary practice at other times, and consequently that they went with Bare-heads. Here I might remark that (contrary to the custom of the Iews and all Eastern people) Unco∣vering the head to Magistrates and Su∣periors as they passed by was used by

the Antient Romans as a token of Re∣spect and Honour. This was an usage for a time, as Varro and Plautarch testi∣fie: but afterwards, and in our Apostle's time tis most likely, that custom was laid aside, and it was not a sign of Re∣verence, but of Manhood and Superiori∣ty to bare the head. The Better sort of them, the Richest and most Credi∣table persons appear'd in this posture. Though after this Another Custom pre∣vail'd, and in a short time Vncovering the head became a sign of Respect and Reverence among the Romans, and all Western and Northern people. To pass then to the customs of Other Nations; the Old Germans and Gauls used no Co∣vering on their heads, and therefore you cannot expect any such thing in their Worship. As to the Americans lately discovered, the History of those places tells us that generally they being strong and lusty use not themselves to any Cove∣ring on their heads, as they have but little, and sometimes none on their bo∣dies. Particularly Purchas saith of the people of Brasil that they all goe Bare∣headed, and their heads are as hard as blocks. This being their custom, no wonder that these Blockheads are Un∣covered

likewise before their Gods or Idols.

This is a short Account of the usage of Covering the head, especially in time of Worshipping. Now to ••••ing it to our purpose, and to apply it to what the Apostle enjoyns in this Chapter, and which he gives us to understand was the practice of the Corinthian Christians, al∣though some had swerved from 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which occasioned his Reproof here. It is evi∣dent that S^• Paul did not borrow this custom, o•• the mens praying with the head uncovered, from the Iews or Romans, for we have proved that in their Tem∣ples they covered their heads. Whence then was this custom among the Order∣ly Christians of Corinth, and how came the Apostle to urge id••as a Decent and Reverent Observance? I answer, S^t Paul writing to the Grecians (for so the Co∣rinthians were) follow'd the Grecian custom, among whom it was usual to be Bare-headed and Divine Worship. And though the Romans were Covered at the service of their Gods, yet at other times they generally were Uncovered. To go with the head bare was so far from being a badg of Inferiority and Sub∣jection, that it was rather a token of Ho∣nour

and Superiority, and was accordingly used by persons of the greatest Quality among them. And we are sure that Co∣vering the head in some cases was a sign of Submission and Shame▪ and what was worse: else caput ab••u••ito had not been part of the common Form of Sen∣tencing and Condemning malefactors a∣mong them. Here then the Apostle, who used Great Prudence, nayl Cr••ft, as he himself is pleased to say, thought fit to make use both of the Grecian and Roman customs, viz. the practice of the former in their Religious Worship, which was the mens Vncovering their ••eads, and the usage of the latter in their Or∣dinary and Common Converse, which was the same, and might now not seem un∣acceptable to the Corinthians, since the Roman Tongue and most of the fashion•• of that people were grown common a∣mong the Greeks, as interchangeably the Greek Tongue and many of their customs were in good repute among the Romans▪ S^t Paul therefore is pleased to introduce and adopt this custom into the Christian Church, and to enjoyn the Converts and Believers of Corinth to make use of this in their Divine Worship and Service of God. It is not to be doubted that this

practice which the Apostle here urgeth is founded even on a Civil Custom which obtain'd at that time among the persons the Apostle writ to. For the Eccle∣siastical▪ Order and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be ac∣commodated and conformed to the Civil Usages of a Place, if they have nothing of evil in them. Particularly in Prayer and Divine Service this may be obser∣ved. The Civil posture used in sup∣plicating Kings and Great ones is law∣fully used in Religious supplication of God. By the same Gesture and Habit wherewith we testifie our Respect to Men we may express our Reverence to God. All the Cristians of Europe ge∣nerally do so. Which by the by gives us the true Account why the Rites and Observances of several Churches vary from one another. The reason is be∣cause Civil Customs vary in several Coun∣tries: accordingly Ecclesiastical Rites do so too. But observe here that the A∣postle who takes this Particular Custom used in Common and Civil conversation, and transfers it to a Religious use, yet would not let the other Custom, viz. of Covering the head, which so ge∣nerally prevail'd in the Roman and Iewish Worship be made use of in the

Christian one. For it is reasonable to think that the Apostle here rebukes the Custom of the Corinthians about the Mens being Covered, because it was bor∣rowed from the Roman Idolaters and from the Iews. The Corinthian Church used the like in their Solemn Assemblies, and therefore they are justly reprehended because they conformed to a Custom which was so General and Prevalent a∣mong those Superstitious Worshippers, who were then Cover'd and Veild at their devotions. First, He would not have them cloud their heads at their Service as the Gentiles did at the worship of their Idols. It hath been intimated be∣fore that the Servile Fear of their Gods made those worshippers Veil and hide their heads: but the Apostle would have the Worship of Christians to be Free and Ingenuous, and void of that slavish Fear and Dread. Besides, this would be an imitating of the Iews, who with∣out any Prescription and Order from God wrapt up their heads in Veils when they were at their Publick Worship. The Apostle would by no means allow the Christians to follow this practice of Pray∣ing with their faces covered, it being so great a piece of Jewish Superstition. He

would not suffer them to ape the Iew∣ish people in this kind of Hood-wink'd Devotion. For These Reasons and for Others suggested in this Chapter, S^t Paul's will is that the Corinthian Men, who were Converts and Saints, should be Bare-headed in their Religious Assem∣blies And from S^t Paul all Christians generally have received and practised this Usage, though not upon the very same grounds and reasons for which he urged this practice. For the Christian Churches at this day conform to this usage, be∣cause among them generally the Token of Respect or Reverence to Men is Un∣covering the head, and therefore they observe This also in their Addresses to God, and express their Adoration and Worship by having no Covering on their heads. And herein they follow the A∣postle himself, who (as I have suggested) made choice of the Civil usage of the Grecians and Romans, and brought it in∣to the Church.

Hitherto I have spoken only of the Covering or Vncovering used by Men. In the next place, Because the Apostle adds, Every woman that prayeth or Pro∣phesieth with her head uncovered disho∣nours her head, I must adjoyn a few words

concerning the Injunction which is in∣cluded in these words, viz▪ that the Christian Women were to cover and veil their heads when ever they were emploi'd in Religio••s Worship. The Covering or Veiling the head among that Sex is no New thing. It was an antient custom to bring the wife to the husband co∣vered with a Veil, as we expressly read of Re••ekah when she was brought to Is••••••, Gen. 24. 65. and thence likely it was that Iacob was baguiled by La∣••an, and thought he had Rachel when he was in possession of Leah. The Ra∣••ins tell ••s that he that joyned the man and woman in marriage used to Cover the head of the bride with the end of the linnen which hung down from the bride∣grooms neck. To which they say Ruth referr'd when she spoke to Boaz to spre••d his Skirt (the end of his garment) ••-ver her, Ruth 3. 9. And hence Mar∣riage it self is call'd Chuppah, from Chip∣pah, to cover. The Iewish women ge∣nerally after they were married used a Veil; they went covered with this into the Temple and Synagog••es, and they wore it wherever they appear'd pub∣lickly. As for the women among the Romans, it is well Known that Nubere,

which is the proper word for their Mar∣rying, is as much as Obnubere, because she clouded or covered her head: for those that are acquainted with the Romans Cu∣stoms know that the Bride was brought home covered with a Veil. To this our English or rather Norman Laws may allude perhaps, which call a Married Woman a femme covert, and by it they understand the Womans being sub potest a••e viri (as they speak,) under the power of her husband. A woman, when she marries, puts her self into a state of Subjection, and this without doubt was signified heretofore by the Veiling her. Thus it was among the Iews and Romans, and thus it was a∣mong the Grecians (who imitated the Romans, as I said before, in many things,) at least it was thus among the Corin∣thians whom the Apostle wrote to; the Women went Veiled to shew their Hu∣mility and Subjection. And indeed this custom remains still not only among the Turks but most Eastern Countries, Yea in most parts of the world. This Ca∣no•• then of the Apostle (as the other co••ce•• ning Mens Uncovering their heads) is taken from the Civil usage among Women at that time (not ex∣cluding)

the Other Reasons assigned by the Apostle in this Chapter on which he grounds this practice.) All modest and honest Ma••rons, Wives, and even Vir∣gins wore certain Veils: or Coverings on their heads, and they never used to ap∣••ear publickly without them. And the Apostle liked this Custom so well that he would have it obtain in the Worship of God. The Modesty which women shew at Other times must much more be expressed in the Sacred Assemblies. If they go with Veiled heads in all o∣ther places, certainly it is unfi••••ing to come. Unvell'd and Uncover'd into the Publick Congregation. Hence he en∣joyns that a Woman praying or Prophe∣sying be Covered. This Prophesying of Women was foretold by the Prophet Ioe••, 2. ch. 28. v. and we read some Instances of it in Acts 21. 9. Some of these Prophesying Women were in the Church of Corinth, and being extraor∣dinarily Gi••ted (which was the peculiar Donation of those first times of the Gos∣pel) they Pray'd and Preach'd publick∣ly (which latter especially was a Man∣ly Office,) and they proceeded to usurp on the Custom which was proper to the Men, i. e. they Vncovered their heads,

and would needs have their Faces seen as well as their Voices heard. The A∣postle soon took notice of this bold dis∣order, and here enjoyns them (together with all other women) a modest Veil, or rather he doth but bid them practice the known Custom used by that Sex. This Injunction without doubt was ob∣serve'd by all the Faithfull women; and we may inform our selves from Eccle∣siastical History that it was derived to After ages, and practised a long time by that Sex. It came down as far as the Emperour Decius's time, by the same to∣ken that he put out a Decree that the Christian women at Rome should leave off wearing the Veil on their heads, hoping that by that Immodest usage they might be brought at last to Paga∣nism and Idolatry. But his design did not take of perverting their minds and bringing them to comply with the Pa∣g••n Worship, though they laid aside their Veils and went Bare-headed, for which they gave This Reason,m that they counted it an Honour to them to suffer this disgrace among men for Ch••ists sake. But soon after (if not about the same time) the Veil was thrown off, not by force of Persecutors but of Choise

for which that Sex is smartly reprehe••d∣ed by Tertullian, in his piece de Velan∣dis Virginibus: where his main indeavour is to prove that Virgins as well as Mar∣ried Women were to be Veild in the Religious Assemblies, and that it was S Paul's meaning in this Chapter. Where∣fore he reproves the manners of the Women and Maids who came into the Congregations Uncovered and in their Hair, as a direct breach of the Aposto∣lical Canon. And certainly so it was, for that which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter concerning Womens beha∣viour in the Churches did not only ob∣lige the Women of that time, but is ob∣ligatory to this very day. All Chri∣stian women are ingaged by vertue of what the Apostle here saith, to be al∣ways with their heads covered in time of Prayer and other Religious Exercises. The Women among the Iews and the Turks meet apart from the Men when they pray in publick: the Women (ac∣cording to their custom) are shut up by themselves. But this is a kind of Ex∣communicating them, and therefore is not allowable: wherefore let the A∣postles Injunction take place, that is, let them not appear with their heads

Uncovered all the time they are at Di∣vine Worship. At other times and in other places, especially at home and in their own families, Christian women, and more especially English women, may law∣fully shew themselves without a Co∣vering on their heads (unless it be that which the Apostle saith was given them for a Covering,) that it may appear they are not of the number of those women who are servilely used, as it ••s the cu∣stom of some Countries, where no wo∣man is seen but with her head muffled up and quite hid.

But it will be said, The Argument of the Apostle will not hold now, Co∣vering the head being not a sign of Sub∣jec••tion, but of the contrary among us▪ I answer, Christian women may, in con∣formity to the antient practice of their Sex, observe the Apostles Injunction though not for that one Parti••ular Rea∣son which he mentions, viz. to testifie Subjection to their husbands. Suppose that be Obsolete, and Antiq••ated with us, yet there are Other Reasons, which will always hold, viz the regard which they ever o••ght to have to their Cha∣stity, the due care which they ought to take lest they expose themselves by

an unseemly behaviour, the extraordina∣ry Modesty as well as Reverence which they are obliged to express whiles they are concern'd in the Worship of God, the deep sense of their being observ'd not only by Men, but by God and An∣gels. Which last consideration seems to be made use of by our Apostle when he saith, For this cause the woman ought to have power on her head because of the Angels, v. 10. She ought to have po∣wer. What is that? The samen He∣brew word (as our Learned Annotator observes) which signifies a Veil, de∣notes also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 power; when 'tis said therefore that the woman ought to have power on her head, here is meant a Veil on her head, which is a sign and token of the power over her. This all women ought to wear in the Congregation, if not in sub∣jection to Man yet in reverence to Angels, those Heavenly and Divine Spirits who are present in the Publick Assemblies (as even the Heathen Moralists have con∣fessed,) and are Overseers and Witnesses of the behaviour of Women as well as of Men in the Church. I know there are Other Glosses on these words: some with Beza understand by the Angels the Ministers and Governours of the Church,

the Prophets that Prophesied in the Con∣gregation, and they think that S^t Paul exhorts the Women to be veiled, that they might not by exposing their beau∣ty be an occasion of diverting those per∣sons from their serious employment. Our Great English Rabbi fancies that by the Angels are meant the Messengers or De∣puties of Espousals, and that women had the liberty of unveiling or veiling their faces upon their account. But that which may confute this opinion is this (not to speak of the unusual acception of the word Angles) that the Apostle in this Chapter speaks of the Sex in general, but especially of Married Wo∣men, whereas this Author restrains the Apostles words to the Unmarried only. This Worthy Man hath another inter∣pretation, of a far different nature, which is this, that Evil Angels or Devils are to be understood here, and that the A∣postle's meaning is (to deliver it in this Authors own words) thato women must not expose their faces in the publick con∣gregation lest the Devil make a bait of their beauty, and thereby int angle the hearts and eyes of the men. Lastly, I could offer a conjecture of my own, viz. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a mistake of the

Transcribers for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be••aus•• of the flocks, i. e. the Congregations or Assemblies of Christians, which are called flocks, Mat. 26. 31. Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3. (although the same Greek word he not used in these pla∣ces.) The plain sense then is that Wo∣men ought not to appear with uncovered heads, but to behave themselves with singular modesty and humility, consider∣ing the Solemn Employment which they are about. They are met together to worship God, they are come into the Assemblies of the Faithfull for no other end, therefore let them not dare to shew themselves Immodest and Irreverent, let them have a Veil on their heads because of the flock of Christ: let them avoid all lightness and vanity, and set them∣selves with the utmost seriousness to that Divine VVork which they are gathered together for, and let them in this be ex∣samples to the flock. But if you will not admit of any alteration in the Greek Co∣py, (which I am not very forward to urge) then in my judgement the first Interpretation which I named seems to be the most genuine. When the A∣postle enjoyns the women to cover their heads because of the Angels, he proceeds

upon the received opinion of the Jews, that Angels are always present in Re∣ligious Meetings, and indeed in all Great and Weighty Consultations. Where∣fore he suggests the Reasonableness of womens modest behaviour in the Con∣gregation because of these Angels. As if the Apostle had said, If Men be dis••egarded by you, yet have respect to these Invisible Overseers and Obser∣vers, who take notice of your loose and disordely carriage, and will one day re∣present it to your disadvantage. This Reason is perpetual.

And thus I have finished the Consi∣deration of these words. The summ is this, That the Apostle is desirous those Christians at Corinth, who had been con∣verted by his Ministry, should walk or∣derly and as became the professors of the Gospel. Wherefore he blames the Men for Covering their heads, and the Women for laying aside their Veils in time of Religious Worship; and again he chides both Sexes for another Dis∣order, viz. that the Men wore their Hair like Women, and that These appeared in the guise of Men as to their Hair. He lets them know that both these kinds of Disorders are re∣pugnant

to the Institution of God and the Dictates of Reason. But especially the latter of these practises is con••uted here by an Appeal to Nature, which is a Comprehensive Topick, and you may understand by it the General dictate of Natural Reason, and the Particular Law of Nature concerning Distinction of Sexes, as also Usage and Custom which is a Second Nature. According to the direction of these the Apostle would have them walk, suggesting that not only the Length but the Adorning of the hair are Uncomely and Inde∣corous, and therefore Unnatural in the Manly Sex, but are Comely and Decent, yea even Proper and Natural in the other. In a word, a Man must not be like a Woman either as to her Veil and Covering or as to her Long and Dressed Hair, because he is taught otherwise by the Law of Reason, and by that of the Sex, and even by the Practice and Custom of the soberest part of the world, which are all com∣prised in the large extent of the word Nature in this place of the Apostle.

Notes

• a

  Viro medi••••te veluticapite subordinato. Estius in loc.
• b

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Natu∣••••, à na∣se••••do.
• c

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Homil. in 1 Cor. 11.
• d

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c

  Lev. 21. 5.
• f

  Bonfrerius, Bochart, Groti••••, Heinsius.
• h

  In Thaliâ.
• i

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2. cap. 36.
• k

  Gen. 41. 14.
• l

  Lib. 1.
• m

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n

  Iliad. ••.
• o

  In These••.
• p

  In A••ibus.
• q

  'Ev 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rbet. l. 1. c. 9.
• r

  Hom. Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• s

  Plutarch, in Thes.
• t

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quaest. Roman.
• u

  Lib. 1.
• x

  De animal. sacr.
• y

  In vitâ Apollon. l. 7.
• z

  Cyprian. Epist. 77.
• a

  Vt ego ••odie raso capite calv••s accipia•• pileum, Plaut. in Amph••••r.
• b

  Dere rustic. l. 2.
• c

  His French Dictionary.
• d

  Fratres Crinitos. De opere Monach. cap 31.
• e

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Sub Sy••∣ves••••••.
• f

  Cap. Vx∣cratûs.
• g

  Matth. Westm. A. D. 1127.
• h

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• i

  Pers••••s.
• k

  ch. 14. last v.
• l

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plu∣tarch.
• m

  De C••mâ
• n

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pro vela∣mine.
• o

  Sat. 8.
• p

  Lib. 2. Ode 5.
• q

  Lib. 1. cap. 3.
• r

  H••res. 80.
• s

  De opere 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap▪ 31.
• t

  Ps. 96. 10 & 110▪ 3.
• u

  Quod decet hones••um est, & quod ho∣nes••um est, decet. Cic.
• x

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• y

  F••rm•• vi∣tes negl••cta decet.—Ovid.
• z

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De F••rtiludine.
• a

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• b

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• c

  Stobaeus i•• Serm. 164.
• d

  Non∣vi∣dentur tibi ••••ntra Na∣turam vive∣re qui c••m∣mutant cum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vestem? Ad Lucil. Ep. 123.
• e

  De C••mâ
• f

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 1. cap. 3.
• g

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Ale ••and. Paedag••g. l. 2.
• h

  Harmo∣ny of the N. Test. 1 Corinth. 11.
• i

  Sueton. in Jul. Caes.
• k

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Quaest. Rom.
• l

  2 Cor. 12. 16.
• m

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cedren. Hist Com∣pe••••.
• n

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 velum à Radad do∣minari, po∣testatem in aliquem ex∣ercere. So I could' ob∣serve that the word Sad••k is u∣sed for pe∣testas and ••egumen∣tum.
• o

  Harmony of the N. Test.