An essay on a question relating to divine worship viz. whether it be contrary to the apostolical laws of decency and reverence for a man to have his head covered in the time and place of Gods solemn publick worship? : aff. / by Samuel Stoddon ...

An ESSAY on a Question relating to Divine Worship, Viz. Whether it be contrary to the Apostolical Laws of Decency and Reverence, for a Man to have his Head covered in the time and place of Gods Solemn publick Worship? Aff.

The INTRODƲCTION.

CUSTOM hath of old been fam'd, and always is found to be one of the touchy Deities, as one calls it; he that presumes to prophane her Al∣tars, must expect the severest Thunderbolt that her angry fist can dispense. And though she pre∣tends a claim in almost every thing that concerns humane life, and often to the prejudice and disturbance of discretion, yet in no case is she observ'd to be so tender and froppish as in the concerns of Religion, of what kind or con∣stitution soever the Religion be. 'Tis true, it is but a pedling kind of Deity, occupied, for the most part, about the minutes and punctilio's of greater affairs, but excessively fond of those her small Wares. He that sets himself against a Custom, takes a Bear by the ear, and meddles with the Diana, which is enough to pull the whole world, especially the interessed party, upon his head.

It is now my hard Task (because I see no other that hath or is about) to appear against one of the younger Brats of

this monstrous thing Custom. I confess it is some encourage∣ment, that it is a Brat of a late birth, for old age is the main thing that gives this creature strength; wherein it is unlike to most others. When it is grown gray-headed, it begins to claim a veneration, and is held Sacred. And the truth is, till it be full-grown, it is but a novelty, or fashion; and deserves not the name of Custom.

Yet of Customs or Usages, as of most other Species, there are some good, some evil, and some adiaphorous, or as chips in pottage. By how much the more any Custom hath of truth, of real decency, of necessary order, or tendency to edification, by so much the more venerable and legitimate, of what age, complexion, or sex soever it be; but by how much the more remote from these, by so much the less to be regar∣ded, yea by so much the more to be opposed. And though the courtesie, or rather the corruptions of time have honour∣ed it with gray-hairs, it is but like the hoary mustiness of ma∣ny other things, the proper livery or symptome of putre∣faction.

As for those petty Novelties and Protean Modes that never pretend to soar higher in their nature or use, than the orb of Civil conversation, they are without the lines of our present consideration. These like the spawn of Frogs, are sent out every spring, and brooded by an old wandring Hag, the ghost of an indeterminate custom, or humour of keeping tack with the present fashions, which like Almanacks or Insects, must change their shapes, and expire with the year. These Butter-flies are not the things that I am now about to pursue, though the poor Quaker thinks it as bad as the plague of Pharoahs flies; but yet by their flaps and scuffles to drive them away, they have but storm'd the peevish swarm the more about our ears. It were well indeed if some wiser heads knew how to antidate this piece of levity.

The matter of the proposed Question is a Ceremony, or gesture appertaining to the external Worship of God, or at least, now on the Test, whether it so appertain de jure, or no. And seeing it belongs not to Caesar, nor falls under the cogni∣zance of his Custom-Office, but appeal is made to an higher Court, of Conscience, to Conscience we will go, where the Word of God is the sole Judg, and infallible determiner of all

such Questions as concern God, or another world. And in∣deed it is the singular priviledg and dignity of the Church, that those unerring Oracles are committed to it, which may moderate and conclude those endless wrangles and disputes, which the capricious humours, the differing sentiments, and various interests of men dispose them to.

That God hath discharged his Gospel-worship from the burdensome Law of beggarly Ceremonies, is most evidently asserted in Scripture, and thankfully accepted by all his true Worshippers. But therefore to abandon all Ceremonies, would be at once to explode the Christian Religion, and banish the worship of God out of the world; that is, all external worship, which cannot possibly exist in actu exercito without the use of some such things as we have no better name for than Ceremonies.

But of Ceremonies there are divers kinds, some of a Civil, others of a Religious use; with the first we have not to do at present. The Religious Ceremonies are either of Humane or Divine Institution and Original. The Humane are either De∣cretal or Traditional; the Decretal are such as on some pretence or other have receiv'd the stamp of humane Authority or In∣junction, of which there are more than a good many; and in the rigid Imposition of which, Church-tyranny doth mainly consist. The Traditional are such as steal in, as other fashions do, without the midwifry of any Authority, Humane or Divine, and grow up with time into a custom or use, and are various according to the variety of Times and Places; and ought to be called in question by those that desire to preserve the Worship of God in its due chastity and integrity, and that dare not miscere sacra prophanis.

Those of Divine Institution are either Judaical, or Evangeli∣cal. The Judaical are such as were appointed of God, and calculated for the Church and Polity of the Jews, and all dy∣ed with it at the coming of the Gospel-ministration. The E∣vangelical Ceremonies are either natural or instituted. The na∣tural either common or proper. The common natural ceremonies of Religion, are such as are equally used in Civil and in Reli∣gious matters, as bowing the knee, uncovering the head, and some other things which respect that civil order, reverence, and decency, which ought to be observed in the external (and

especially in the publick) worship of God. The proper are such as are not used but in the matters of Religion. The Insti∣tuted ceremonies of the Gospel strictly and properly taken in contradistinction to natural, and which are designed to be of perpetual use, are only the two Sacraments, unless perhaps we may add the Imposition of hands in Ordination. Tho' the Sacraments indeed are Ceremonies, and somewhat more, viz. Seals of the New Covenant; yet in a large sense even natu∣ral ceremonies, and matters of real decency and order, that is such things as are ex naturâ rei, pro hic & nunc, necessary hereunto, and acceptable in the Worship of God, are institu∣ted too, i. e. commanded either implicitely or explicitely; for nothing offered by man, especially in Worship, which is not in obedience to God, by virtue of some command, is honou∣rable or acceptable to God; but what God hath commanded, he hath thereby instituted.

So then, the matter in hand will fall under the notion of a common, natural ceremony of Religion, pertaining to the De∣cency or Reverence of Gods Worship in the publick Assem∣blies of his Saints. And what authority it brings from the Su∣preme Lord and Lawgiver, we shall next enquire.

CAP. I. Of Gospel-Worship.

DIvine Worship (says Mr. W. Bradshaw) is internal only, or external also. Internal Worship is meerly spiritu∣al, and performed only within the temple of mans heart, of which none are witnesses but God and a mans own con∣science. All the inward motions of the heart directed unto God, are parts of this Worship, as Faith, Hope, Confidence, Love, Fear, and Joy in God, &c. which are all of them di∣vers acts and parts of inward worship, in every one of which God is honoured. All which spring from the apprehension of our own wants, and Gods infinite exeellency and goodness towards us. External Worship is an expressing and setting forth of the internal, by outward signs and rites, by which,

as by outward bodily shadows and colours, the spiritual inward worship of God is made visible and sensible to o∣thers.

The Internal Worship may be considered either as Habitual or Actual. As Habitual, and so we are bound to worship God at all times, the obligation holding both semper & ad semper. As Actual, and so we are bound to worship him on all occasi∣ons, the circumstances whereof make it a duty so to do. The External Worship is either publick, domestick, or secret; in all which he ought to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, as be∣comes his super-excellent Greatness, and Infinite Holiness.

As God is the Origin and Fountain, so he ought to be the Center of all Honour and Reverence, and the immediate and only object of all Religious worship and adoration. And as Honour and Reverence is due to him at all times, so especial∣ly in his Worship. I will be sanctified in all that come nigh me, Lev. 10.3. And the more publick the Worship is, the more strictly all kinds of Religious reverence are to be observed: And before all the people I will be glorified. Ibid. But the more private the duties of Worship are, the greater latitude is in∣dulged in the external part, or signs of reverence and honour. For tho' these outward expressions, compositions, or gestures of the body, be the genuine effects of that inward reverence of the mind, and so due to the divine Majesty; yet it is with special reference unto men, that others may see how God is and ought to be feared of his Saints. So that such things which are necessary in publick worship, are not alway so ne∣cessary in private or secret; and that which a person finds to be most advantageous to the right performance of his wor∣ship in secret, may not be so expedient in publick, because there is not the like reason in both.

Though Gospel-worship be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Spiritual Wor∣ship, in opposition to the irrational Idolatries of the Gentiles, and the Corporeal Sacrifices and Services of the Jews; yet it is a worship of the Body, as well as of the Soul. And though bodily exercises profiteth little, without true Godliness; yet while we sojourn in the body, God expects that the body as well as soul and spirit be offered up to him, and bear its part in his Worship. But of this more hereafter.

In Gods Worship there must be nothing tender'd up to

God, but what we have (expresly or consequentally) warrant for from the Word of God; therefore to worship him in body or mind, any otherwise than he hath required, is to adulte∣rate, or prophane his Worship, and to offer strange fire, and exposes the Worshippers to his just indignation.

In the matters of Worship, the jealous God stands upon little things; that is, what we, perhaps, call little, as modes and gestures, and other circumstances, he calls great. Na∣dab and Abihu erred only in the place from which they took their fire to offer, which should have been taken from the Al∣tar, where God himself first kindled the fire from Heaven, and we know what this cost them. Uzzah did but touch the Ark, and with an honest intention in the general, no doubt; but for this he must die. For a poor man to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath-day, might have seem'd to us as no great mat∣ter; yet it was as much as his life was worth, the sentence proceeding from God himself. The Bethshemites did but look into the Ark, and they must pay for this, with the lives of fifty thousand threescore and ten men.

Though God hath allowed Christians a greater latitude in his Worship, and hath not left them bound under the yoke of Levitical Rites and servitude; yet far be it from him to al∣low them to be irreverent in his Worship, this were to de∣stroy his Worship; for Worship and Reverence are almost syno∣nimous terms, and so are their opposites.

Matters of external order, decency, or reverence in the Worship of God, may not be determined by the will of man, but by the Law of Scripture and Nature; else what supersti∣tions and novelties may not men introduce into the Worship of God, under the displayed banners of pretended order, de∣cency, or reverence, as sad experience hath been long wit∣nessing?

CHAP. II. Contains a brief Exposition of the Sixteen first Verses of 1 Cor. 11.

Vers. 1. BE ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Wherein you have these three things: 1. An Exhortation proposed. 2. The Duty limited. 3. An Argument, or incouragement insinuated. The Exhortation is general, Be ye followers of me. Which (perhaps) Janus-like, looks both forward and backward; and is a tran∣sition and connexion between this and the former Chapter. He was last exhorting them to give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God; even as he him∣self did please all men in all things, not seeking his own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. And now, Be ye followers of me herein. Thus as it looks backward. Next he minds them of their remembring him in all things, and keeping the Ordinances, as he had delivered to them; wherein he praises them, ver. 2. yet with a But, ver. 3. whereunto he very perti∣nently premises this Exhortation, Be ye followers of me. Intima∣ting that though they had followed him in some things, for which he praises them; yet not in all; which made it necessary to remind them of the duty, Be ye followers of me, of my Do∣ctrine, and of my Example, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Be ye imitaters of me, like me in all respects, as far as you may, in spirit, in judgment, in practice and behaviour. Not as Christ would have his Disciples imitate the Scribes and Pharisees: All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works, for they say and do not. But take ye me for your Pattern in conversation, as well as in Doctrine.

But then, having stated their duty so largely, and foreseeing what ill use they might make of it, he scarce stays to make a comma, but in the same breath limits his words, and sets them their just bounds, even as I also am of Christ: q.d. Be not so foo∣lish as to imitate me in my Infirmities, as Alexander's Parasite did him; and as many others have ridiculously done. This were indeed to mock me, which vanity hath given the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

its evil acceptation. Be not so apish as to force your selves to an imitation of me in that which is naturally and ideopathice, pe∣culiar to me, as in my tone, cast of my eyes, &c. these things are fitter for Monkeys or Parrots, than for rational souls. Be not so wicked as to imitate me in my sins, wherein I transgress, or fail of my duty, nor hope that my example shall justifie you in such things. Make me your Pattern, not your Idol; but follow me as far as I follow Christ. To the Philippians he expresses it in more words: Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you, Phil. 4.9. And more particularly in the former verse: Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any vertue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. In these words I imitate Christ; and in these be ye followers of me. Thus is the duty limited. And then the argument or encouragement is insi∣nuated; in so following me you do indeed follow Christ; I fol∣low him, and you follow me, and so we follow him both. I am your Pattern but at second hand, as I may make him a little more intelligible and imitable. Christ the Original, I the Transla∣tion; Christ the Text, I the Comment. To imitate Christ is both safe and honourable; and this is all I aim at. It is far from my design to prosolyte you to a faction that you should be of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas; but to unite you all in the common center, Christ. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That the Ministers of Christ ought to be examples of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, in all things, wherein Christ is to be imitated; that they may be able boldly to say, Be ye followers of us.

Inf. 2. That it is the duty of all Christian people to follow their faithful Guides in all things, wherein they follow Christ, and no further.

Inf. 3. That in following the Doctrine and Examples of the Apostles, we follow the Lord Jesus Christ. And are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself be∣ing the chief corner-stone, Eph. 2.20.

Ver. 2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you.

Wherein you have these two things exprest, 1. His Appella∣tion, Brethren. 2. His Commendation; of which, 1. The Form, I praise you. 2. The Matter, That you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances, as I delivered them to you. The 3. is Latent and concealed, which is his Design, viz. to make way for his intended reproofs. The Appellation is full of sweetness and condescention. What an Honour is it, that these poor con∣verted Gentiles should be owned as Brethren, by so eminent an Apostle of Jesus Christ: whereby he assures them of his love to them, his imposing no unnecessary things upon them, or Lording it over them, but serving in the same yoke of the Gospel with them, and their right to the same inheritance with him? The Commendation is full of Honour, Comfort and Prudence. Of Honour, as it came from an Apostle, and that not of the meanest note; and through him, from the Lord Jesus Christ him∣self, the Fountain of Honour. Their praise was of God, and not of man, full of Comfort, as it was a testimony and assurance, that they were so far right in their way to Heaven, and by Apo∣stolical Approbation were confirmed in their hope. And full of Prudence, the aim of it being to encourage them in what was good, to insinuate into their affections; to make way for neces∣sary and intended reproofs; and to remove the prejudices which might enervate the power and success of his Reprehensions; which seems to be his great design in it. In the Matter of his Commendations are these two things, 1. That they remembred him in all things. Sometimes by this Phrase, he signifies the re∣membrance of his wants, to supply them by their Charity, as 1 Thes. 3.6. But this is not likely to be his sense here, if we consider what he tells them 2 Cor. 11.7, and 9. though the Phrase indeed would seem to bear it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 omnia mea, all my affairs and concerns, and how I shall be provided for, and supplied in my Ministerial work. But I rather think that this was least in his thoughts; but that they remembred him in his Doctrine, Precepts, and Examples, what the had taught and left in charge with them to be observed; and how he had carried himself among them. 2. That they had kept the Ordinances as he had delivered them to them; that their remembrance was not only notional, but practical. They had observ'd and held fast, not only the Ordinances which he had delivered, but as he had delivered them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Traditions in general, whether

written or unwritten; all things that concern'd them as a Chri∣stian Church, either in matters of Faith, Worship, Discipline, or Manners.

Obj. But how can this large Commendation consist with this following reprehensions?

Sol. 1. Either this must be restrained to the godly and sincere, who made it their business to walk in all things according to A∣postolical institution or rules; or rather,

2. It must be understood in connexion with the following ex∣ceptions. q. d. Ye have done well, and deserve praise in all things; holding fast the Ordinances of the Gospel for the main; only some few particulars I have to reprove you for, and endeavour to set you right in. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That it is the duty and wisdom of all Christians, but e∣specially of Ministers, to palliate their reproofs with all gentleness and deserved Commendations.

Inf. 2. That all the people of God, however dignified or di∣stinguished by God or man, are Brethren.

Inf. 3. That all Apostolical Precepts and Traditions ought to be remembred and kept intire, according to their primitive In∣stitution.

Ver. 3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and that the head of the Woman is the Man, and the head of Christ, is God.

But; Now came his exceptions to his former general Com∣mendations, q. d. I would gladly praise you in all things as far as ye are praise-worthy; But there are some things which I can∣not pass without a reproof. I would have you know. Here he im∣plicitely reproves their ignorance, and yet palliates the reproof, by laying the charge as low as possible he could. He doth not condemn them of presumption, or contempt, or wilful irreve∣rence; but of weakness, and want of better instruction. There∣fore he wisely begins to rectifie them in the foundation of their er∣ror, and to set them right as to their Judgments; knowing that it is in vain to urge a reproof upon the Conscience, till the Judg∣ment be informed. He doth not fall rudely upon them with hard words, or harder blows, to fright or club them into Conformity, but draws them with the Cords of a man, in that rational way,

which is proper for rational Creatures. Doth not begin with the Affections, which is the way of the Devil and of the Beast; but with the Judgment, which is the surer way to fix them in what he is about to offer to them. That the head of every man is Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which denotes not the species, but the Sex; the Man spoken in opposition to the Woman; as both the word and the following Antithesis, do undeniably evince: Of every man, not restraining it to Christian men, as some do; but more gene∣rally, because all men, both in the Church and out of the Church, are put under this head Christ; though he be not head alike unto all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both these terms must be explained, and the last first. Christ, not as God (though so he be the head, not only of every man, but of every Creature) for this would not shew that order of Subjection, or sacred Hierarchie (if I may so speak) which God hath placed in the mystical Body; which is the thing the Apostle intends: nor can it be taken so in the next use of the word in the same Verse; nor meerly as Man, for so he neither perform'd any of his Offices, nor had all things put by the Fa∣ther in subjection under him. But as Mediator, under which consi∣deration, Relation and Capacity, the whole concern of the new Covenant is devolved upon him. The Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This can∣not be taken properly, but tropologically: and so he is the Head, either to every man in general, or in special, to every man that is related to him, as a member of his mystical body. In general, he is the head of every man. 1. In respect of Excellency and Dignity. Man, in respect of that Image, in which he was made, is the most excellent of all Gods sublunary Creatures. And Man, in re∣spect of his Sex, more excellent than Woman; but Christ the most excellent of all men, Thou art fairer than the Children of men. 2. In respect of Inspection. The head is that which looks after, and provides for every part, and which manages all the concerns of the whole body; so doth Christ inspect all the affairs, counsels and transactions of the Children of men. 3. In respect of Domination. It is he that governs and rules all, who is exalted above all Principalites and Powers; and hath the Government on his shoulders, both in his Political and Spiritual Kingdom. Thus he is the Head of every man in general. In special, he is the Head of every man that is related to him, as a Member of his mystical Body; and that 1. In respect of Primogeniture. He is the first-born among many Brethren. 2. In respect of Influence, both of

vitality and activity, Eph. 4.15, 16. All the influences of Wis∣dom and Grace are from him 3. In respect of special Providence and Regency. It is he that fore-sees, provides and disposes of all, for the good, and according to the state and capacity of every member in his body.

Quest. But why is he said to be the Head of every man? Is he not the Head of the Woman too, who are equally members of his body without, any distinction of Sex?

Ans. The Answer is easie. He is indeed the Head of his Church, which is his body, Eph. 5.23. Colos. 1.18. in which the Woman is comprehended, as well as the Man. But (as I said) the Apo∣stle is here shewing the order of the Superiority and Inferiority, which God hath instituted in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Frame or Fa∣brick of the mystical body, wherein all the parts are sitly joyn∣ed together and compacted in their several places and sphears; so that in respect of order, Christ is the immediate Head of the Man, and Man the immediate Head of the Woman; but me∣diately or immediately, Christ is the Head of both. And the Head of the Woman is the Man. By this time I presume there can be no great knot to untie here. We have another such Proposition as this, Eph. 5.23. The Husband is the Head of the Wife.

Q. Now perhaps some one or other may think it worth his while to demand, Whether Man or Woman in the Text, be just the same as Husband and Wife here?

Ans. In the original indeed, the words are the same in both places, Man and Woman; but here translated Husband and Wife, as in this place indeed it ought to be, and frequently elsewhere it is used; but not in our present Text, where it is evident the A∣postle speaks more generally of the Sex, not of the Relation; else must the Virgins and the Widows be exempted, and that not only here, but in all the following discourse, which cannot be. And the Head of Christ is God. We are now come to the head of the Apostles Climax, the Fountain and Original of all Dignity and Superintendency, which is God; that is, the Father. Not God essential, for so he cannot be the Head of Christ as Mediator; for then he must be Head to himself, which is absurd, but God Personal; and so Christ as Mediator is subject to the Father, My Father is greater than I, John 14.28.

Quest. But if God the Father be Head of Christ as Mediator, how shall we understand that of the Apostle Chap. 15.28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all? Here he speaks as if he were not yet subject to him, nor to be, till he hath delivered up the Kingdom to him.

Ans. I confess this is a knot that hath busied many wiser heads than mine; but yet we need not take it for a Gordian-knot: for the Apostle doth not deny that Christ, as Mediator, is subject to the Father, as he that is sent and deputed is (eatenus) inferior to him that sent and deputed him. But when he says, the Son shall be subject unto him that put all things under him; it is no more but this: He shall then lay aside his Mediatory Office, and give up his Commission unto the Father, by virtue of which all power was given him both in Heaven and in Earth, Matth. 28.18. that he should reign as it were a vicarious King in the midst of his enemies, Psal. 110.1, 2. as he had said before, v. 24. He shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father. It is as when a King shall send forth his Son into any of his Provinces with a Plenipo∣tentiary power to suppress a Company of Rebels, and to defend his good Subjects; and so to reign with full power as Lord and King over them; but when the Rebellion is supprest, and all things secur'd, he is to return and deliver up this Commission to his Fa∣ther, from whom he received it. This is the case here. 'Tis true, the Father rules now, but it is by the Son; but then this kind of Government, which is on the Sons shoulders, shall be laid aside. And this is the Subjection the Apostle here speaks of. Nor doth this deny the Eternity of Christs Kingdom. As the Father now reigns by the Son, so the Son shall reign for ever with the Father, but after another manner than now, That God may be all in all. There shall then be no more need of a Mediator, but the Chil∣dren of God shall have immediate access to their Father, and im∣mediate fruition of him. Now they see him in the face of Jesus Christ, but then face to face. Christ as God, shall reign eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ as man, shall be as he is, and ever from his first incarnation, was subject to him. Christ as Mediator or Vice-roy shall then cease to be. Hence I in∣fer,

Inf. 1. That the greatest Commendations that are due to any Church here in this world, may justly admit of some But's.

Inf. 2. That plain instruction is the surest way to a necessary Reformation.

Inf. 3. That God hath instituted a decent order of superiority and inferiority in the mystical body of Christ, which ought to be perpetually observ'd, and kept inviolate.

Ver. 4. Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Now he comes more close to the business, of which he charges them. Their guilt is implied, that they did not so pray and pro∣phecy. The sin is aggravated in this, That it was a dishonouring of their head. Every man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Sex, in contradistinction to the Woman, as in the former verse: Praying or Prophesying. Of Prophesying there are these two kinds observed in Scripture. 1. The revealing of secret and hidden things, either past, present, or to come, by some extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit of God. 2. The ordinary preaching of the Gospel, by such as are lawfully deputed thereunto, 1 Cor. 13.9. Chap. 14.3. &c. And in this sense especially we are to take it here; because that which the Apostle in this place intends, must be something that is perpetual and universal to all the Churches; and therefore joyn'd with praying; which two comprehend all the other Acts of Gods solemn publick worship, as being the principal parts of it. Praying or Prophesying, that is, either immediately or medi∣ately, comprehending both Speakers and Hearers; for the whole worship is the common and united act of the whole Congrega∣tion. All are said to pray, when but one speaketh; so all pro∣phecy, though only one be the Speaker. On this account the Woman is put among them that prophecy, ver. 5. and yet we know, the Woman was not permitted to speak in the Church, Chap. 14.34, 35. So then, Every man praying or prophecying, is as much as to say, every man that is engaged in the publick wor∣ship of God, or any part of it; having his head covered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having [something] on his head; that is, an ordi∣nary artificial Covering, more than necessity, on the account of infirmities, doth require. Which exception must be allowed, as you may hear more hereafter; dishonoureth his head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

shameth and casts a slight or reproach up∣on his head. And here lies all the difficulty of this verse, viz. what we are to understand by his head. Some would have it to be his head natural or proper, which is spoken of just before, and ought to be uncovered in praying and prophesying; and so the dishonouring is but to a mans self. But others with much better reason say, it must be the Head mystical or figurative, spo∣ken of in the precedent verse, which is Christ; and so the dis∣honour reflects higher. And because the pinch of the Question lies in this, I shall endeavour the more to clear the truth of it. 1. If a mans being covered in the time of publick worship, did only reflect dishonour upon his own head, and no one else con∣cern'd in it but himself; it would have been too mean a thing for the Apostle to have busied himself in it; to have appeared with such a reproof, and to have entred it in sacred Writ. Were not God interessed in the case, it would be but a prophane thing, and unworthy of the Divine Records. Therefore certainly there is some one more than man concern'd in this Dishonour. 2. What tolerable reason can there be given of this Aphorism in the former verse, where he lays down this for a maxim, The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the Woman is the Man, and the head of Christ is God; if it be not to shew us, as with a finger: what we are to understand by the head of the man here; for that's the position which he proceeds on, and improves in the following Discourse, and here fetches his Argument from? 'Tis a dishonour to Christ, who is the head of the man. The truth is, I know not where to seek a fuller and clearer Syllegism in all the Book of God, than this. The head of every man is Christ; Every man that prayeth or prophesyeth with his head coverd, dishonoureth his head. Erg. I wonder what Sophistry can fairly avoid the Con∣clusion, viz. He that prayeth or prophesyeth with his head covered, dishonoureth Christ. 3. The Relative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will contribute much to the elucidation of the sense. It is not made by the Possessive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 caput suum, but by the Re∣lative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ipsins, and that in the Genitive; which is as much as to say, he dishonoureth him, that is, the head of him; who, as he had said just before, is Christ. 4. It would appear from the Antithesis in the next verse, But every Woman that prayeth or prophesyeth with her head uncoverd, dishonoureth her head. Whom can we reasonably understand here by her head on whom the

dishonour is reflected, but the man, who he said, is the head of the Woman? For the covering of the head was a token of sub∣jection, as will appear by several places of Scripture; for which I refer you to the seventh verse. Therefore the uncovering of the head is virtually and symbolically a denying of that sub∣jection, which is a great dishonour to him, whom the God of Nature and Order hath made her head. And the truth is, I wonder to see the learned Piscator of another mind. Now if her head, ver. 5. must be expounded by ver. 3. so must his head too, ver. 4. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That Praying and Preaching are the great Gospel-Ordinances which comprehend all other parts of Divine Wor∣ship.

Inf. 2. That for a man to have his head covered, while en∣gag'd in the solemn publick Worship of God, is a dishonour to Christ his Head.

Ver. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head; for that is even all one, as if she were shaven.

Here we have the duty of the Woman, which lies diametrically opposite to that of the Man. For the different Sexs, are provided different Rules of Decency. That which is comely and honou∣rable in one, is as unseemly and shameful in the other. Every Woman, that is, in the publick Congregation, of which he here discourses; that prayeth or prophesyeth: This cannot be understood of the extraordinary gifts of Prayer or Prophecy, which some very few of that Sex had attained unto, as Anna, Mary, the four Daughters of Philip; and in the Old Testament, Miriam, and Deborah, and Huldah, &c. for then by the same reason we must restrain it to the extraordinary Prophets of the Men in the precedent verse; and so this Rule of Decency both for the Man and the Woman, must cease with the cessation of these extra∣ordinary gifts of the Spirit; and so the occasion would have been too slender for so many words, and so sharp a rebuke of so great an Apostle. Wherefore we must conclude, that the A∣postle intended a common Rule of Decency for ordinary Wor∣ship, as the Basis, or Reason stated, ver. 3. is sufficient to evince. With her head uncovered. That is, without that ordinary covering,

which she uses at other times, as her Age, Place, Condition, Custom of the Country, or the Climate doth require. Dishonour∣eth her head. That is, the Man, which ver. 3. was said, (sensu pelitico) to be her head; for should we take it for her head simply and properly, the dishonour would be to her self. But it is certain, the dishonour reflects primarily and immediately on the Man, under whose Authority God and Nature hath put the Woman in subjection, and made the covering of the head, a token or badg of her inferiority and subjection, as appears by the Apostles discourse here, and of which, more below. So that in uncovering her head, she casts off that Symbol of her subje∣ction, and doth in effect deny the Mans Authority and Domi∣nion. Whom then doth she dishonour, but the Man; while she thus exalts her self? As the Child is said to dishonour his Fa∣ther in denying him due Reverence. 'Tis true, 'tis a sinful and shameful thing for any one to deny the honour that is due to a Superior, the shame reflects upon himself; and so it doth upon the Woman in this case. But it is the Man that is the immediate object of the dishonour, though she be the Subject of it. There∣fore it seems not to me, to be rational to think, that the Apostle intends to tell us how she dishonours herself, when he says, she dishonoureth her head. Hence then I measure back by the same line of Reason, that it must also be Christ, the political or my∣stical head of the Man, that is to be understood in the former verse. Though it is true also, that with reference to this Sym∣bol of Authority or Subjection, that is between the Man and the Woman, the Man seems to degrade himself, and to forfeit his Honour with the Woman, by having his head covered, and so he dishonours himself. But this is not what the Apostle aims at. For that is even all one, as if she were shaven. If she be uncover∣ed of her ordinary artificial covering, and therein change modes with the Man, and do that which is the Mans proper duty to do; she were even as good put away her natural covering too, and be clipt or shaven, as the Man is; else she looks like some odd monstrous thing, which is neither Man nor Woman. The assum∣ption we have in the next verse. Hence I infer.

Inf. 1. That for a Woman to habit or attire her self like a Man, is a sin; & vice versa.

Inf. 2. That for a Woman to have her head uncovered in the solemn publick Worship of God, is a dishonour to the

Man, whom God hath made to be her Head.

Ver, 6. For if the Woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a Woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Here by the way, I observe, That the Apostle makes a clear di∣stinction between the Natural and Actificial Covering; and that when he speaks of covering or uncovering the head, he intends only the artificial covering, which is various, according to the Countrys or Climates men live in; and therefore opposes it here to shaving off the hair, which is the covering which nature hath provided; and that nature needs. This distinction may be of use hereafter. The main business of this verse, is to state his Ar∣gument a turpi & indecoro, thus. If it be a shame for a Woman to be shorn or shaven, it is a shame to be uncovered in the Wor∣ship of God; But it is a shame for a Woman to be shorn or sha∣ven: Erg. The Major he had prov'd in the former verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that is even all one, as if she were shaven. It is as shameful for the Woman to be uncovered, as it would be to be shaven or shorn. And if you will not take the Apostles word for this (which yet I should take for a greater matter) his Reason is easily understood; because in the one as well as in the other, the Woman transgresses the Rules of her Sex, and as∣sumes that which is peculiar to the Man; and so dishonours him whom God hath made to be her head, by casting off the token of her due subjection and inferiority to him. For if she change habits and modes with the Man in one thing, she may as lawfully do it in another. The Minor he proves in the following verses from the Law of God, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Ecclesiastical Custom. Some busie Critick or other, perhaps, may ask me, Why the Apostle uses both these words here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shorn or shaven, and whether they be exegetical serving only to explain one another; I say no; because they sig∣nifie two things. The one is to clip or shear, as men do with Sizzars; the other to shave as with a Rasor. By these two words then he expresses both the usual ways of taking off the hair, either from the head or face. This then may serve to aggravate the case, q. d. For a Woman to be uncovered, and consequently for a man to be covered in the sacred actions of Gods Worship, is as

shameful a thing, as for a Woman to be trim'd head and face with Sizzars or Rasor, as a man is. Another Question will be, On whom this shame reflects? And 'tis quickly answered: As it is a sin in general, it reflects many ways. There is no sin but reflects shame and guilt upon the sinner; so the Woman shames her self, and shames her Sex too; yea, every sin reflects disho∣nour upon God, against whom it is committed, and whose Law is thereby transgressed. But that which we have to enquire, is, Who the the immediate Object of this shame or dishonour is? and when I have askt one Question more, a Child shall answer this. When the Master is deposed, and made to serve, and the Servant rules; when the Servant shall sit down, and the Master wait, Who is that is dishonoured, the Servant or the Master? So then, if the Woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; or (if you will give me leave to use the English Proverb, which is the nearest of any that I know to the case) Let her wear the Bree∣ches too; which (though it would be an ugly sight, and very ill become the Woman, yet) every one will say, is a disgrace to the Man. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That a breach of the Law of Decency in one part of it, is interpretatively a breach of the whole.

Inf. 2. That it is a good way to aggravate such sins, as we look upon as small, with the shameful Consequences of them.

Ver. 7. For a Man indeed 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.

Here the Apostle asserts it to be the Mans duty to be uncover∣ed. In what rank or file of Duties soever any one may place it, though perhaps among the Minores, yet sure it must be too great a presumption to disband it quite, or set it any where beneath the Title and Dignity of a Duty. I confess, I cannot but smile at the quaint Criticism of the Reverend Piscator here, upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 velare, which he says, is more than tegere or operire; and therefore fancies that the Covering, which is here forbidden to the Man, is some odd kind of Dress, which veils or mopps up his head, and face and all; but as for any other cover∣ing, as Hat, or Cap, or Bonnet, &c. which doth not hide the face, he thinks this Text hath no quarrel with. But (saving the

reverence of so learned and good a Servant of Christ) I must needs reply, 1. I know not among what sort of people this blind fashion was ever in use, unless it were the Pharisaei Mertarii; who (they say) to advance the esteem of their Humility and Penitence, had their Caps made like a Mortar, covering face and all, as though they were going to pay their last Devotions at a Gallows. But among the Cerinthians, I never heard of any that did affect that antick garb; therefore cannot in reason ima∣gine, that the Apostle should go about to reprove it in them. 2. This verse must be expounded by verse 4. as Piscator himself confesses, where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not used, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to wear any thing upon the head; which Periphrasis he seems to chuse on purpose, that it might reach all kinds of acquired Coverings, and to anticipate all quarrels about it. 3. What is here forbidden to the Man, is commanded to the Wo∣man; but if this be the kind of Covering that is forbidden to the one, and commanded to the other, then all those Women sin, that dare once shew their faces in the publick Congregations without a veil over them; and so those are in good Condition that wear Hoods, provided they pull them down over their eyes (which it may be, some prudently do for the help of their Devo∣tion, or toprevent the ensnaring of others eyes) but wo be to those poor Country-women, whose Condition in the world allows them but a Hat; or, it may be, not so much to cover their heads with. But that it is the duty of the Woman so to blind-fold her self, I think the Doctor himself would not affirm. For as much as he is the Image and Glory of God. Having asserted the Duty, he now gives the ground or reason of it. The Image of God, at least, as he was at first created, and therein his Glory, or the Image of his Glory. That which God glories in, say some, as the Master∣piece of his Creation. But this exposition renders not the reason of the Proposition. Wherefore the sense must be thus; God hath made Man the Image of his Glory to the Woman, set him as it were in his stead, to represent his Authority; as on the same account Rulers and Judges are called Gods. God hath invested them with his Authority, to rule as Deputies for him over o∣thers; so God hath given Man his power to rule over the Wo∣man, and set him in some respects, in the place of God to her, as Moses was to Aaron in another case, Exod. 4.16. The Glory of God is his infinite superexcellency and superintendency over

all his Creatures; and Man, in respect of that preheminence and superiority which God hath given him over the Woman, is she 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Image or Resemblance of this Glory of God. There∣fore she ought to be coverd in token of her subjection to the Man, and in obedience to that God who hath made them both: but the Man ought to be uncovered, because he ows no subjection to her. But the Woman is the Glory of the Man; or that which the Man hath to glory in; both in respect of her Creation; the matter of it being part of the body of Man, and the end of it made for Man, as in the next verses; and in respect of her sub∣jection to Man, as Children are said to be the Glory of their Pa∣rents, and Subjects the Glory of their Prince.

Ob. But now the next Question ought to be, How came this covering of the head to be a token of subjection? and if it be so, why should not the Man be covered too, in token of subje∣ction to his head Christ?

Sol. This indeed is two Questions at once. I shall begin with the first, How this covering of the head, became a token of subjection?

1. We need not be very inquisitive how it came to be so, if we can prove from the Scripture that it is so; whether it were by Di∣vine appointment or natural instinct, it is all one as to the case in hand.

2. For my own part, I think it was not so in the state of Inno∣cency; but it was sin and shame, as the occasion, that brought it into the world. 'Tis true, God ought to have been worshipped in Innocency, and the Woman was even then inferior to the Man; but there was then no need nor use of veils, till by the fall, sin and shame required it.

3. That the Woman was put in greater subjection to the Man after the fall, than she was before, is evident from Gen. 3.16. Thy desire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall rule over thee; which was more than ever he had said before. And in testimony of this subjection, it is rational to conclude, that there was some token given perpetually to be observed; that the Woman might alway be put in remembrance of her sin, in disobeying her Ma∣ker, and ensnaring the Man, and so pulling the yoke upon her own neck.

4. That this token of having the head covered, was of very early use in the world, we have several intimations in Scripture,

Gen. 20.16. Behold he is to thee a covering of the eyes; which is a proverbial speech, alluding to the known Custom which was then among the Women. Thus Abimelech reproveth Sarah. The same is this; He is thy Husband unto whom thou owest thy self, and under whose Protection thou shouldest have hid thy self, as a Subject under the wing of her Sovereign. So Gen. 24.65. when Rebekkah came to meet Isaac, she throws on her veil, in token of her subjection to him, as well as of her modesty. But by the A∣postles discourse, and argumentation all along these verses, we are now treating of, it is most evident, that the very end and sig∣nification of this Ceremony, is to testifie the Womans subjection and inferiority to the Man, ver. 3, 6, 7, 10. So then the cover∣ing of the head is, and ought to be the token of her subjection.

The other Question, or part of the Question, is, Why should not the Man be covered too, in token of his subjection to his head Christ? To which I answer,

1. VVe never find that God or Nature did so appoint the Man to signifie his subjection to Christ by such a Ceremony; there∣fore to presume upon it without any warrant, is Superstition.

2. This token of covering the head, is ordained to signifie the subjection and reverence that is due from the VVoman to the Man; and therefore unworthy to be used as a token of that which man ows to God. Though a universal subjection of soul and body be due to God, and all possible Reverence and Devotion, yet it must be exprest by such outward tokens as God appoints. Man is Gods glory, the VVoman is Mans; but gloria Dei revelanda est, gloria autem hominis occultanda, velari ergo debet mulier, non vir. Gods Glory must be open and revealed, but mans Glory (especially having forseited it by hearkning to the VVoman) must be covered and veiled; therefore the VVoman ought to be covered, not the Man.

3. Should the same Symbole of reverence and subjection be observed by the one, as by the other, it would be a Confusion; the series and order of this Subordination would not be discerned; therefore as the immediate Object of this veneration is different, and as the Subject is different too, in respect of Sex and Degree, so is the sign or Symbole.

Quer. And here, perhaps, some body or other may start ano∣ther Query; VVhether the VVoman ought not to worship God in the Congregation as well as the Man?

Sol. I know nothing that ever I said to the contrary: They ought to worship God with the same internal, spiritual religious Devotion; the common Object of Divine worship being the same to both; but yet with this difference of external ha∣bit, which relates immediately to the Man, who is her head, and that for the reasons already given, and also for those that follow. The covering of the head in general denotes guilt and shame, as well as subjection; and therefore appointed to the VVoman, who was first in the Transgression. The uncovering of the head, signifies Power and Rule, and therefore appointed to the Man. But observe (to prevent another Quarrel) this is only in sacris, between God and Man, though it be otherwise (at least in some Countrys, and among some people) in civilibus, between man and man.

To conclude this verse then, we have here the Apostles Argu∣ment (both for the Mans being uncovered, and the VVomans being covered; for what proves one, proves both) from the Creation in General. The Man is the Image and Glory of God, the VVoman the Image and Glory of the Man; therefore this difference in external habit or attire, ought to be observed, when they appear before their Maker to worship him.

Ob. Yet once more; VVas not the VVoman made in the Image of God, as well as the Man?

Ans. Yes, as to the internal Qualities of her soul, as Know∣ledge, Righteousness and Holiness, but with this difference;

1. The Man is thus formed of God immediately, the VVo∣man mediately of the Man; and therefore may truly be cal∣led the Image of the Man.

2. The Man is the more principal and perfect Image of God; on which account the VVoman is called the weaker Vessel.

3. And which is most to the purpose. The Man was made in the Image of Gods Superintendency and Dominion; but so was not the VVoman. Tis true, she shares in the Dominion o∣ver the Creatures, but it is with, and by, and under the Man. VVherefore God having committed this Authority unto the Man, and appointed him the sign and token of it, he ought to defend it; nor may he resign it to any other, till by Death he resign up soul and all to him that gave it; and to do otherwise, is Treason against the King of Heaven. The further prose∣cution

of this Argument a creatione follows, in the next verses. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That God hath given the Man Power and Authority o∣ver the Woman, which he ought prudently and faithfully to preserve.

2. That the subjection and obedience of the Woman to the Man, is the Mans natural Right and Glory, and the loss of it his shame.

Inf. 3. That the reason of the Mans being uncovered, and of the Womans being covered in sacred actions, is founded on that order of Superiority and inferiority, which God hath by Crea∣tion establish'd in them.

Inf. 4. That for men to violate the Law of their Creation, is a dishonour to their Creator.

Ver. 8. For the Man is not of the Woman; but the Woman of the Man.

In this he pursues and amplifies his former Argument from the Order and Law of the Creation. First the Man, then the Woman; and of the Man was the Woman. So that here are two things to prove the superiority of the Man, and the sub∣jection of the Woman. 1. The priority of Creation; He was her Senior in the world, and therefore ought to bear rule over her. 2. The fundamentality of her being, was in the Man; and that both as to matter and substantial form. The Woman is of the Man. The whole humane nature was created in Man, and did exist in him without the Woman, and before she was, Of this living Man, God takes a living part, and forms the li∣ving Woman. All that Parents conveigh in the act of Genera∣tion (viz Matter and Form) to their Children, did God sepa∣rate (though in another and miraculous manner) from the Man, to form the Woman of. It is not necessary here to meddle with that Controversy concerning the original of the rational Soul; whether it be propagated as the souls of other Animals are, or immediately created, or whether it be in a middle way between both, or partaking of both, as some will have it. This is enough to move the Apostles assumption, That the Man being first created, and of him the Woman; therefore he ought to have the preheminence. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That priority of being is a natural priviledge, which claims Reverence and Respect.

Inf. 2. That to whom we any way owe our Beings, we owe our Obedience.

Ver. 9. Neither was the Man created for the Woman, but the Wo∣man for the Man.

Here he carrys on his Amplification from the end of the Cre∣ation. 'Twas for the Mans sake that the Woman had her Being, that she might be a help meet for him; but that which is the end, whereunto the means is appointed, is more excellent than the means; therefore so is the Man more excellent, and ought always to be acknowledged a superiour to the Woman. Thus he reasons both from the order and the end of the Creation, That the Woman ought to be covered in the worship of God, and the Man to be uncovered; for that's the Proposition he is still prosecuting. And hitherto he hath managed his Argument from the first insti∣tution of things, which is the same Method he takes again in this Chap. where he reproves them for their prophane abuse of the Lords Supper, from vers. 18. to the end; where after he had laid open their sin, he labours to set them right, by reducing them to the first Institution of it, ver. 23. So you see he hath done here; when he would reconcileate that Reverence and Honour to the Worship of God, and that decency and order among the Worshippers, which began to be violated, he pleads with them from the first Institutions of the God of Nature. Hence I infer.

Inf. 1. That the Woman, that is not according to her place and condition in the World, useful unto Man, doth not answer the end of her Creation.

Inf. 2. That for the Woman to exercise Authority or Domi∣nion over the Man, is wickedly to rebel against the Laws of her Maker; and to pervert the very end and design of her Being.

If any peevish Frop should be ready now to cry Treason, Treason; as if I had denied unto Queens and Princesses in Kingdoms or Common-wealths, or unto Mistresses in Families, any of their just right of Royal or Despotical Rule and Govern∣ment over their Subjects and Servants: I shall stop his mouth with this; That he understands not the Question. Where the Providence of God casts the right of Civil or Domestick Govern∣ment

upon the hands of a Woman, as often it doth, she not on∣ly may, but ought to manage that Authority and Trust, accor∣ding to her place and capacity, as amply and as freely, as if it were in the hands of a man. For she doth not thus rule by the virtue of her Sex, but by virtue of that power, which by the wheel of Gods Providence, is lawfully and justly come into her hands; not as she is a Woman, but as she now stands in the place of a Man, to those that are under her; or as she is impowered and allowed by the Man, under whom she is so to do. But a few words are enough for so trifling an Objection.

Ver. 10. For this cause ought the Woman to have power on her head, because of the Angels.

This verse may look either forward or backward, or (Janus-like) both ways. For this cause, that is, either the cause now already assigned; and so it is but the Conclusion of his former Argument, and belongs to it: or for this cause, which now fol∣lows; and so it is but his transition to another medium for the proof of the same thing. Ought the Woman to have power on her head; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 debet, the same which was said before, ver. 7. con∣cerning the Man; and which makes it to be duty. So ought: there∣fore if she do otherwise, she sins. To have power on her head. To obtain the true sense of this Phrase, we must examine these two words, Power and Head. Power, this may be taken figuratively or properly; figuratively by a Metonymy, for the sign of Power, not her own; but that power, which the Man hath over her. This figure is common in Scripture, Ezek. 7.27. The Princes shall be cleathed with desolation, i. e. with Sackcloth, the badg and to∣ken of Desolation. So here the power, that is, the veil or cover∣ing, the token of the Mans Power, and of her Subjection. Besides, it is observed, that the word which the Hebrews use for a veil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cant. 5.7. and Isa. 3.23. springs from a root that signifies to have Power and Authority; on which account, some transla∣ted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text, not power, but a veil; as also in some Versions it is sound. Or else Power may be taken properly and without a figure; but then it must be passively, not that Power which she exerciseth; but the power which she is under. Her head. this also we may take either with a figure, or without. With a figure, and so her head is the Man, as ver. 3. and then the sense

is thus. She ought to have, that is, acknowledge, that the power of ruling and governing her, is in the Man. Or without a figure, her own proper head; and then the Power must be taken for the covering or sign of that power, under which she is. So that when all is done, the sense is the same; viz. she ought to acknowledge the Man's Power or Dominion, under which God hath set her; and in token of it, to have her head covered. Because of the An∣gels. Here we have another Medium to prove his Assertion by. But before we improve it Argumentatively, we must first explain it. And a great pother is made by Expositors, what we were best to understand by the Angels here. Some will have it literally, and others will cast a figure for it. Of those that will have it literally, some are for the good Angels, others for the bad; those that are for the good Angels, think the Apostle argues thus,

1. Those blessed Angels are our Superiors, both by the order of their Creation, and the Superexcellency of their Nature; there∣fore both man and Christ too, as Man, is said to be made a little lower than the Angels, Heb. 2.7, and 9. so that, if the Argument of Priority and Superiority, hold good with reference to the Man, as he had reasoned before; the same Argument is good still, to prove the same Reverence to be due, in respect of the Angels, and that both from the Man, and from the Woman; because the Angels are before and superior to them both, though not with the same external sign or token of the Reverence; God having made the token of Mans Reverence, the uncovering of the head (for this uncovering of the head, is not only a token of his power over his Inferior, but of his Subjection to his Superior) and the covering of the head, the token of the Womans Reve∣rence, as was said before.

Ob. But is not this to patronize an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshipping of Angels?

Ans. No more than the other did patronize an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or worshipping of the Man. A civil Reverence and Homage is due to Creatures, which are our Superiors, at all times; nor ought to be neglected, when we come before God in sacred things. Though God be the alone Object of religious Worship and Ado∣ration, yet we must not be rude and barbarous towards others; this would reflect dishonour upon God himself; for Superiority and Authority is a Ray of the Divine Majesty, shining in the

Creature; and therefore on this account ought to be acknow∣ledged by us.

2. These blessed Angels are our Inspectors, especially in the actions of Divine Worship; they are present, as Witnesses to take notice of the Disorders and Indecencies of the Worship∣pers, as well as to guard and defend them in their Worship. And this, they say, was one signification of the Cherubim-work in the Temple; so the Argument runs thus. If the Woman ought to be covered, to testifie her Reverence and Subjection to the Man, much more ought she to have regard to the holy Angels, who are always present in the Assemblies of the Saints, and ought to be had in Reverence, both for their own glory, and as they are appointed of God to this Office, and set as Inspectors or Over∣seers of his VVorship.

3. These blessed Angels are our Examples and Patterns, Isa. 6.2. The Seraphims were represented in the vision of the Lord with six wings; with two of which they covered their faces, in Testimony of their Reverence and Subjection to their Lord. But what that this was for our Example any otherwise than in general to give our Superiors, and especially to God, that Honour and Reverence that is due, I think will be somewhat hard to prove.

Those that will have it to be the bad Angels, sense it thus: When the Sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord, Satan, by his evil Angels, is wont to come among them, Job 1.6. who is alway prompting to evil, and taking all occasions to that end; therefore the Women ought to be veil'd, that they may not by their open beauty, be occasions of lust, or of wan∣ton glances, from those whose eyes are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, full of a∣dultery, or of the Adulteress; and so, as it were turn the house of God into a Brothel-house. 'Tis true, 'tis an horible, heathen∣ish, shameful wickedness for any Woman to attire her self so, in any respect, either by covering or uncovering, as that she may minister fuel to the Lusts of others, and a Demonstration it is of a Woman that values not the Reputation of her modesty. I would there were not too much of this, even among some of the Professors of this wanton, lascivious Age. I do not censure every thing that may accidentally feed lust in others; for where but reigns, it will take occasion, where there is no just occasion given; but that which doth properly give occasion to lustful

thoughts or motions, and may be prevented. But that the Apostle should intend this sort of Angels here, seems not very probable; because then, it's likely, he would have called them Devils or evil Angels, as they are always called by some such name, when they are spoken of in Scripture, as Instruments of evil.

Those that will rather take the word figuratively, refer it either to Men, or to God himself.

1. To Men, so indeed we find the word often used for the Priests and Prophets of the Lord, the Governours of the Church, and Preachers of the Gospel, Mal. 2.7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge, for he is the Messenger (or the Angel) of the Lord of Hosts. So Chap. 3.1. John the Baptist is called the Mes∣senger, or the Angel (for it is the same word) sent to prepare the way of the Lord. And Christ himself, the Messenger, or An∣gel of the Covenant, Eccles. 5.6. Neither say thou before the Angel, that it was an error; that is, before the Priest, who is to take cognizance of thy vows. So Rev. 2. and 3. the Ministers and Governours of the seven Churches of Asia, are called the An∣gels of those Churches: and then the Argument will run thus. If the Woman be bound to pay her Reverence to the Man in ge∣neral, much more to those men whom God hath made chief in the Congregation, and set, as it were in his stead, to represent him as his Ambassadors to the Churches.

2. Some refer it more immediately to God himself, thus; God himself is present in the Assemblies of his Saints, instructing, convincing, converting, comforting, assisting, protecting, &c. by the intermediation and ministration of his blessed Angels. For all Gods works ad extra, both in the Church, and out of the Church, are done by their Ministry. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels, Act. 7.53. And so the Gospel, which is called the Promise, was ordained by Angels in the hand of the Me∣diator, Gal. 3.19. Therefore the name of God, and the name of Angels, is often used promiscuously in Scripture, for one ano∣ther, Act. 7.35. It is said, The Angel appeared to Moses in the Bush; but Exod. 3.6. says, it was God, that is God by his holy Angel. So it was the Angel that appeared to Manoah and his Wife, Judg. 13.2. which is understood to be the Lord himself, that is, by his Angel, ver. 22. Now according to this sense the Apostle argues thus: If the Woman ought to behave her self

with all due Reverence to be covered, in token of her Subjection to a mortal Superior, how much more ought she to reverence the glorious presence of the holy God, who by his blessed Angels is always in the midst of the Congregation of his people? Or thus: The holy God, who is always present in the Assemblies of his people by his Angels, will be offended to see the Woman with her head uncovered, or the Man with his head covered; (for both these stand together under the same Condemnation, though only one of them be here expressed) but the holy God cannot be offended with any thing, but with sin. Erg. for the Man so to be co∣vered, or the Woman uncovered, is sin. This Argument lies so clear in the Text, that I think I need not bestow any labour on Major or Minor, to rub them any brighter. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That God by his holy Angels, is invisibly present in the Assemblies of his Worshippers.

Inf. 2. That external, as well as internal Reverence, is due to the worship of God, on the account of the holy Angels.

Ver. 11, 12. Nevertheless, neither is the Man without the Woman, neither the Woman without the Man in the Lord. For as the Woman is of the Man, even so is the Man also by the Woman; but all things of God.

In these two verses he improves his former discourse, by way of Counsel and Comfort Of Counsel to the Man, That he re∣member the need he hath of the Woman. Though God hath made him her Superior, yet not to Lord it with rigour over her, but to exercise his Authority with humility and love. Of Counsel and Comfort to the Woman, that she do not grudg at that infe∣riority of place in which God hath set her: and for her Com∣fort minds her, That God hath not put her altogether in the con∣dition of a servant to the Man, but so as in the same respect she is equal with him, at least in the Lord, and in the matters of her Soul. Nevertheless: whatever I have said of the Mans Authority, and the Womans Subjection, Neither is the Man without the Wo∣man, neither the Woman without the Man. Though God hath sub∣ordinated one to the other, he hath not divided them one from the other; though one be above the other, yet one cannot sub∣sist well without the other; though there be a difference of Sex, and a difference of place and degree, yet are they conjoyn'd as one in the Lord; they are equal in Christ, as joynt-members

of his mystical body. The Woman as much as the Man, redeem∣ed by the same blood, saved on the same terms, and their souls of the same preciousness. They are not without one another, but are joyned together as one flesh, in the Lord, or by the Lord; not only by the Law of Faith, but by the Law of the Creation. They necessarily depend one upon the other. If either of the Sexes should perish, the other must perish too, and cannot long survive. For as the Woman is of the Man: that is, as to her first Original, as was said before, ver. 8. even so is the Man also by the Woman. Not as it was with Adam, who had his being by immediate Creation; but men now are continued in the World by natural generation, which cannot be without the Woman. Though the Man were at first the sole Parent, or instead of Pa∣rent to the Woman, yet now the Woman is half-parent to the Man. The Man is by the Woman, both as to his being, nu∣trition, education and well-being. But all things of God. That is, all these things, both the Man and his Superiority, and the Woman and her Subjection. They are Creatures of his forming, and of his disposing; 'tis God that hath placed them in this or∣der. And of this, he admonishes them, That the Man may not exalt himself, or despise the Woman, or turn his power into ty∣ranny; and that the Woman may not disdain to bear the yoke, which her Creator hath laid upon her; for in so doing they would both rebel against their Maker. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That Man and Woman are all one in the Lord.

Inf. 2. That the Superintendency or power of the Man over the Woman, is of Divine Right.

Inf. 3. That the yoke which we lay on Inferiors, should be no heavier than God and Nature have made it.

Inf. 4. That in pressing flesh-displeasing Duties on others, we should mitigate the rigor with all the sweetning Considerations we can.

Ver. 13. Judge in your selves, is it comely that a Woman pray unto God uncovered?

Or (which is all one) That a Man pray unto God covered? and if not pray, then not prophecy; for the reason is the same in both; as ver. 4, 5. Here is another Argument taken from the common sense of all men, at least of such as are so far re∣deem'd

from the ruines and dregs of the most salvage barbarism, as to have any natural sentiments of what is comely or uncome∣ly. Judge in your selves. Here his Rhetorick and his Logick meet together, both to convince and perswade. He will force them to yield the Argument, or forfeit their Judgment and Reason. Is it comely: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is it a handsom sight, is it becoming the excel∣lent Majesty of that God, with whom we have to do? Is it not piece of shameful, irreligious, daring irreverence, That a Wo∣man pray unto God uncovered? Though only praying be men∣tioned, prophesying also is included; that is, That a Woman be present in the Congregation, where these sacred actions are in performing.

Ob. But if he intends both, why doth he mention only the Womans part?

Ans. 1. Because the Mans part is necessarily understood, and concluded from it.

2. He chuseth this (perhaps) to the greater advantage of his Argument. The foulness of a sin is not sometimes so apparent∣ly seen on one side, as on the other; nor in it self, as in the na∣tural consequences of it. His Argument then will be reduc'd to this, That which is uncomely, disorderly or irreverent, ought not to be admitted, or tolerated in the worship of God; but for a Man to worship God in the Congregation with his head cove∣red, or a Woman with her head uncovered, are both alike un∣comely, disorderly, and irreverent. Erg.

Ob. But you may say, this is a dangerous Argument, till it be agreed by what Judge or Rule it ought to be determined, what is comely or decent in the Worship of God.

Ans. That which is now started, is one of the Games of the times; I shall not pursue it at length, nor do I hope to add any thing to what hath been, by one and another already better done on the case. All that I shall say at present to it, I shall reduce to these three positions.

1. Should every thing pass for decent and comely, that any one phansies or judges so to be, there would certainly be very few or no indecencies, or matters of uncomeliness, found among men; for every ones own ways and conceits (though never so ugly) are right and beautiful in their own eyes; and so the foul∣est absurdities, and grossest fooleries, yea, and impieties too, must pass for decent and lovely, because there is some or other that will have it so.

2. Every thing that is decent and comely enough in it self, and in its proper place, use and season, is not so in the Worship of God; much less can that be comely in Gods Worship, which is no where else comely. The first part of this position, I think no one will deny. It is decent enough for a man to whistle after his Cart, or to lift up a shout in harvest, or to strip himself naked to swim; but that any of these, or the like, are decent in the Wor∣ship of God, no sober man can think. The other part of the position is but the necessary consequence of this. That which is every where ugly, is much more so in Gods Worship, where the greatest Reverence and Decency is required. 'Tis true, those things which God hath particularly appropriated to his Worship, may not be prophaned by a common use; though we may not say, such things are ugly out of Gods Worship, yet the propha∣nation of them is ugly, because sinful; but whatever God hath appointed, is therefore decent because he hath appointed it. This is the Apostle's Argument here; for the Woman to be uncovered or attire her head like the Man, or for the Man to be covered, or put on the Knots and Tresses of the Woman, as if they were agreed to exchange Sexes, is a most uncomely thing in Na∣ture; therefore much more in the solemn Worship of God.

3. There is none that can make any thing comely or decent in the Worship of God, but God himself who requires the Wor∣ship. For whatsoever is comely in Gods Worship, is so, as he ap∣proves or accepts it; what he rejects cannot be accounted come∣ly in his Worship; but what he hath not appointed, he rejects. And to prove this, we can have no better evidence, than his own words, wherein he declares what he approves, and what he re∣jects, Matth. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for de∣ctrine the Commandments of men. That which hath but Mans Au∣thority in Gods Worship, is a vanity; Jer. 7.31. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The only rea∣son that is mentioned here of Gods Indignation against this thing, is, that he had not commanded it, Hes. 5.11. Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because be willingly walked after the com∣mandment. And what Commandment was this? Be sure 'twas none of Gods; then they would not so willingly have walked after it; nor would God have been offended at their walking so.

It must needs be some commandment of men. Most Interpreters understand it of the Commandment of Jeroboans, who made Israel to sin by his own idolatrous Inventions and Additions to the Worship of God; yet doubtless the Inventer and Imposer thought these things to be decent and comely; and so it seems did the people too; but God thought them not so, they were no Com∣mandments of his. Now God hath commanded all the matters of his worship, and consequently all that is to be accounted decent or comely in it, one of these two ways, Expresly, or Consequenti∣ally.

1. Expresly, but these are not the things in dispute at present; though they are not wanting that dare wrest and dispute against some of the plainest expressions of his will.

2. Consequentially or Collaterally; so all those Circumstances of worship are commanded, which are necessary to the orderly, serious, reverent and most edifying performance of it; yet this necessariness or expediency is not left to the Arbitration of man, but must be determined pro hic & nunc, by the nature of the things, and the present dispensation of Providence, and the general ex∣perience of the most spiritual and best discerning Christians. That which the worship of God, or any part of it may be decently, or∣derly, spiritually and edifyingly performed without, is not ne∣cessary in that worship, or part of worship; and if not command∣ed, then superstitious and sinful. And so far for this Digression. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That the pure spiritual simplicity of Gospel-worship, al∣lows no external uncomeliness or irreverence in it.

Inf. 2. That what the common suffrage of men determines to be uncomely in nature, or in civil Conversation, is much more so in the worship of God.

Inf. 3. That it is the duty of Women to pray unto God, as well as of Men.

Ver. 14, 15. Doth not even nature it self teach you, that if a Man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a Woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a co∣vering.

This is but the illustration of the Argument of the former verse, and not the stating of a new Question, as some may opine.

'Tis strange to see what a coyle is kept among Interpreters about the sense of this Paragraph, as if they had a mind ex fulgore dare fumum, to veil not only the Womans, but the Text it self, or as if they had a humour to trip and wrestle, rather than to follow the Ball. I shall take little notice of one or other, but pass through the Croud as quietly as I may, about my business. And to make my way clear, these three terms of the Text must be explained. 1. What the Apostle means by Nature. 2. What by having long hair. 3. What by shame.

1. The first Question is, what the Apostle would have us to understand by Nature. Some say the Law of Nature, others, the Law of Nations; others, the light of natural Reason; others, ge∣neral and ancient Custom; others the natural inclination; o∣thers, the Sex it self, Male and Female, into which nature hath divided mankind. Others take it for that order which God hath appointed and found in Nature. Now if we would know whether of all these to chuse, and how to make a right Judgment, we must attend to the scope of the Apostles Discourse. He hath been all along proving that this difference of habit is founded ab origine, in the difference of Sex, by the God of Nature, and so by him made one of the Laws and Constitutions of Nature, for the di∣stinguishing of one Sex from the other, that there might not be confusion, and for the testifying of that place of Superiority or Inferiority which they stand in toward one another. It is Nature, or rather the God of Nature, that gives the Woman her hair for her natural covering, and the same nature it is that teaches us so to judge in this case.

2. The next Query is, What we ought to understand by hav∣ing long hair, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And here we shall find them as little agreed, as in the other. Some take it for wearing the hair long; and of these, one will have it clipt all off close by the head; another will have it just to cover the ears; another more advisedly al∣lows it to cover the temples and the neck; others are for a grea∣ter length, usque ad habitum, but understand it of decking and a∣dorning the hair, and never quarrel at the length, so that it be worn carelesly and slovenly; and that which proselyted them to this opinion, was the derivation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which, they say, comes from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, curare to trim or trick up a thing with curiosity. Now for my part, I do not find that the Apostle tells us either here or any where else, what the standard

or just size for length, must be of the mans hair; (yet he might well conclude, that without an exact Rule to an hairs breadth; so many heads were never like to agree upon't) yet I think the nearer it comes to the ordinary length of the Womans hair, the further it is from the Apostles Rule. Nor do I think (though our English word Comb be derived from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that the A∣postle doth forbid any man to comb his head, nor to powder it neither, nor yet to put on borrowed hair, when the defects of nature make it necessary or expedient: for if all other parts of the body may lawfully assume something of ornament, as well as bare covering, I know not why the head alone should be neg∣lected and devoted to a perpetual slovenliness; yet it is most cer∣tain, that as far as any adorning of the head, or any other part whether of Man or Woman, savours of Pride, or fantastical ef∣feminacy, it is sinful and shameful. The scope makes the sense plain enough. The Apostle doth all along oppose the attire of the Man to that of the Woman, particularly as to their heads, which ought not to be the same, nor yet chang'd, either as to the natural or artificial covering; as the Man ought not to cover his head with the artificial or assumed attire, after the manner of the Women, so neither with the natural.

3. The other Question is, What we are to understand by shame, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? In this Interpreters cannot be of a mind neither. Some will have it be such a shame, as is without sin, or such a dis∣grace as proceeds from a Mans neglect of himself in indifferent and trivial matters; a shame which hath not its soundation so much in the thing it self, as in the opinion of those that judge it to be shame, as was the case of Davids Messengers to Hanun, 2 Sam. 10.4, 5. when Hanun had caused their beards to be so misused. But this (I doubt) is to make too light a matter of it. That which is a shame to Nature, which is contrary to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a Christian, must needs be sin, and no small sin, especially in the worship of God. Therefore some make this to be of the same na∣ture with those sins of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 1.26, 27. a changing of the natural use of one Sex with the other.

Ob. But if the wearing of long hair be a sin against the light and dictates of Nature, this will condemn the Nazarites, of whom Christ himself was one, who were not only allowed, but required by the Law of God, to let the locks of the hair of their heads grow all the days of their Separation, Numb. 6.5. And of this

sort of Votaries, some were Nazaraei seculi for the whole term of their lives, as Sampson, John the Baptist and Christ; and others Nazaraei dierum, who separated themselves by a vow unto the Lord for a certain number of days, commonly thirty days.

Ans. 1. This was by divine appointment; and who questions, but that the great Lord and Law-giver may dispence with his own Laws, and make what particular exceptions he pleases, without abolishing, or any way infringing the binding force of his Law to others.

2. Yet we do not say, That it is simply long hair the Apostle is here declaiming against, but the wearing it more muliebri, after the manner of the Woman. And yet I am of the opinion, that the Nazarites themselves were good enough to be known from the Women by the wear of their locks, as well as by other things. Should I enter into a prolix discourse of long hair, I might spend more time than the Argument is worth; and besides, out-run the intent of my Text, which mentions it only by the by.

But if the Woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. That which is a shame to the one (you see) is a glory, a lawful, de∣cent, laudible ornament to the other; and the Reason follows, for her hair is given her for a covering. And who gave it her for a covering, but he that gave her her hair and her being too? 'Tis true, he that gave hair to the Woman, gave the like to the Man; but not to this end, or for this use; Not that this covering is enough for the Woman (though it had been enough to answer its end, as a symbole of her subjection to the Man, had she abode in in∣nocency) but this shews that her head ought to be covered pro∣portionably, as all her other parts are, and the head especially; because uature it self intimates it, and thereby teaches it. But now to reduce this to the Argument in the former verse, where he was reasoning ab indecoro. Judge in your selves, is it comely? The assumption he proves in these two verses, by the indications of Nature, q. d. the very works of God in nature are sufficient to convinceus, that the Woman ought to be covered; and then by the same reason and rule of opposition, that the Man ought to be uncovered, at least in the solemn publick worship of God. Hence I infer,

Inf. 1. That Christians ought not to disregard the moral di∣ctates and indications of nature.

Inf. 2. That it is a shameful, unnatural thing, for men to pride themselves, or to glory in the curiosities of hair, after the man∣ner of Women.

Inf. 3. That length of hair is given of God unto the Woman, not only for her covering, but for her ornament, though not for pride or levity.

Inf. 4. That for men and Women mutually to interchange modes and fashions in wearing their hair, is unnatural and abo∣minable.

Ver. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.

We are now arrived to the conclusion of this Dissertation of the Apostle, where, for a close, we meet with three well accoutr'd Arguments more in a breast; But if any man seem to be conten∣tious. Thus he speaks by way of Anticipation, if any one hath a mind to quarrel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to maintain his contrary opinion; not for truths sake, but for satisfying of his ill humour, that he may seem to prevail by his Sophisms and Fallacies, and will not acquiesce in these our Arguments and Determinations, as every one will do that is not of a contentious schismatical Spirit. Here we have one Argument more insinuated, which may be formed thus: To dispute against a clear truth, or plain duty, is the pro∣perty of a contentious, wrangling person; but to dispute against what hath been here asserted and prov'd, is to dispute against a clear truth and a plain duty. Erg. We have no such Custom. What Custom? Some will tell you, No custom to be contentious, or to insist peremptorily or stifly upon frivolous matters. I believe it, this were indeed a great shame for an Apostle, a Planter and Pillar of the Churches, to be once guilty of it; much more to make a Custom or Trade of it. But what is this to his purpose? Can we imagine that he would tell them thus, Well! notwith∣standing all the Medimns I have used, and all the words I have wasted, to prove my Argument, 'tis but a frivolus thing; if any one seems he hath any thing to object, I have done; 'tis a business that is not worth the arguing; any one may do as he seems best, whatever I have said to the contrary. Certainly, if this had been his mind, he had done much better, both for the Churches peace, and his own credit, to have took his pen and scratcht it all out

again, and not to have troubled the sacred Canon with so tri∣fling a matter. But when he says we have no such custome; I think he tells them quite another thing. He here informs them what the Custom and Practice of the Apostles was in the case, whereof he had been speaking; and assures them, that he had herein laid no other burden upon them, than he himself, and all the rest of his Brethren the Apostles, had always born, and took to be their duty; so that here in the close of his discourse, he seems to look back on the first verse, where he began it, and so to knit up both ends together. Be ye followers of me: And then the second Argument you have thus: It is the duty of all Chri∣stians to follow the examples and practice of the Apostles in all things that are according to the wil of God; but this was the practice of the Apostles, and according to the will of God, as was proved before; Erg. Neither the Churches of God. That is, the primitive Gospel-Churches planted by the Apostles. where we have the third Argument thus: That which was the general practice of the primitive Churches of Christ, by Apo∣stolical institution, ought to be the practice of all succeeding Churches; But this was the general practice of the primitive Churches, and that by Apostolical institution. Erg. And now you have heard the Apostles sense of the Question, and our sense of the Apostle: whence I conclude at once, That for a Man to have his head covered, or a Woman to have her head uncovered in the time and place of Gods solemn publick Wor∣ship, is a disorderly, irreverent, uncomely, unnatural, shame∣ful, schismatical, antiapostolical and unchristian-like practice. And thus much by way of Exposition, wherein I hope I have not run beyond my Text.

CHAP. III. Answers a few Objections and Scruples upon the case.

NOtwithstanding what hath been hitherto said, perhaps some may seem to be contentious in our times, as well as in the Apostles; which I shall answer as I am able. And truly I wish, I had now before me, all that the Art of Contention could

produce against our Thesis. But before we meddle with the Ob∣jections, we will consider how far all, or most are agreed up∣on the matter.

1. Then I suppose that all, with whom I have to do, are a∣greed, That there is a reverence of the body, as well as of the mind and soul, due to the Worship of God, on the account of that God whom we worship and adore. The body is the Lords as well as the Spirit, and by both he ought to be Worshipped with those explicite signs and demonstrations of Reverence and Veneration, which are proper to both. For ye are bought with a price, therefore glorifie God in your body, and in your Spirit, which are Gods, 1 Cor. 6.20. O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker, Psal. 95.6. The humblest and most abject postures, and self-abasing prostrations of body, as well as of soul, a covering of the lip, a laying the mouth in the dust, are all too little to express the distance that is between the holy God and sinful Man. Besides, where there is the truth of that inward fear and Reverence that is due to God in the heart, it will naturally and necessarily seek to express its self externally in such a way, and by such signs, as are apt and proper to shadow it forth by. True Devotion is like fire, which cannot be shut up, but will discover it self; but where there is no symptom of life in the exterior parts, we rationally conclude, that the spark of life is extinct at the heart.

2. I hope it will be granted me too, without much begging, that for the Woman to come into the Congregation of Gods Worshippers, with her head uncovered, or attir'd after the man∣ner of the Man, is a very uncomely and unchristian-like thing. I do not think that all Women are bound to use the same manner of covering. God hath allowed latitude enough in these things, if we have but Wisdom and Moderation to avoid extreams on both hands, and to keep within the bounds of Decency and Modesty, that it be not affectedly, austere, sordid, or ridiculous on the one side, or to vitile, extravagant, or meretricious on the o∣ther; observing the Apostles rule, 1 Pet. 3.3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of Apparel. Not that any of these are in themselves evil, or the use of them simply forbidden, but the excess; the fond affecting of these toys, the exceeding of

their due measures and degrees of persons, the spending of too much time, cost or care on them; or the feeding of pride or lust by them, this is morally evil.

3. And I presume upon the observation of all that I have had to do with, that it will not be denied, that in praying and in sing∣ing of Psalms, the Man ought to have his head uncovered. I met with none that own these Ordinances, but are ready to own it to be their duty to be uncovered in them, and take it as a piece of prophane irreverence, and contempt of Gods Ordi∣nance, to be otherwise. Though indeed there be some, who of late have learnt a new fashion of uncovering the head, by hanging their Hats half way on one side, or on their brows; these are uncovered by a Synecdoche partis, and shew their readiness to keep them quite on, if it were but the fashion; as if they were afraid of too much reverence, or of abasing themselves too much in the sight of God. Of whom this phantastical fashion was first learnt, I know not; yet thus much even these seem to grant by that little they do, that in these duties the head ought to be uncovered in whole, or in part.

And being thus far agreed, that which remains to be tried, is only this: Whether it be the duty of the Man to have his head uncovered, while the word of God is read or preached in the Congregation of his people? And having now brought it to the Bar, let us hear what its Accusers have to say.

Ob. 1. I hear some alledge thus, That it is in it self a matter of indifferency, and to be determined by the custome of those particular Churches or people, where any one hath his Conver∣sation, and not to be positively asserted for a general duty.

Ans. 1. I confess, I never took it to be a fundamental of the Christian Religion, nor would I press it upon any Mans Consci∣ence, upon pain of Damnation; yet that it is a matter of meey indifferency, I utterly deny; which if it be not already suffi∣ciently prov'd, I hope it may by that time the trial is over.

2. This sounds like some poor put-off, of those that are con∣scious to their own guilt, and are loth to have their ill manners corrected; pray have us excus'd; thus and thus we have been us'd to do, and are asham'd now to do otherwise. 'Tis indeed a hard matter to teach an old Tretter to p••••e, or to obtain credit a∣gainst a long used custom, though never so groundless or in∣decent.

3. I would willingly learn what any sober wit can gather out of the Apostles discourse, to prove this to be a matter of such indifferency, as that the customs of Churches or Places must de∣termine it pro or con. We have observ'd that more than once he positively asserts it as a duty; for a Man indeed ought not to cover his head, ver. 7. For this cause ought the Woman to have power on her head, ver. 10. That which the Apostle says ought to be done, or ought not to be done, I dare not call indifferent. That which he says ver. 16. We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God; which is the only place where he mentions any thing of custom, hath been expounded already, and can∣not in reason be understood as if he had left it to be deter∣mined as to practice, by the customs of every particular Church or people; for then had he miserably bassi'd himself, and taught them to have replied thus: What means this great harangue a∣bout putting off, or keeping on our hats? We have a custom a∣mong us to do as we do; and this by his own Doctrine, is sufficient to justifie us; and what then is become of all the A∣postles Argument? Certainly he doth not leave it to the customs of any particular Church, that then was, or that afterward should be, but reduces all to that which was the custome of the Apostolical and Primitive Churches.

Ob. 2. Others object, That the Reformed Churches in other Countrys observe no such thing, but generally practice the con∣trary in their Assemblies; but if it were a duty, why should not they practice it as well as we?

Ans. 1. What other Churches do, I know not, but by hearsay; or how far they conform to the Apostles rule in this case, is im∣pertinent to enquire. It may be they vary from us, and from their Rule too, both in matters of opinion and practice; and wherein they deserve not to be commended, nor imitated; to their own Master let them stand or fall.

2. God never made the judgments or practices of men, the Rule or Directory of his Worship, but his written word. What wild work should we soon make in the Worship of God, if our eves should be as the fools, in the ends of the earth, upon the sushions of France, or Geneva, or Holland, or New-England, or any others? If we once forsake Scripture, and make men our Rule, we are in a fair way to Idolatry, to Atheism, to any thing. This is an objection which becomes no sober Christian. A few

more words I should bestow on it, were it worth my while

Ob. 3. Others are ready to plead thus; That it is but a bodi∣ly exercise, and bodily exercise they are told, profiteth little, 1 Tim. 4.8. but God is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spi∣rit and in truth.

Ans. 1. 'Tis true, tis a bodily exercise, and because the Apostle says it profiteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a little, we may not say therefore it profiteth not at all; yea, in some cases it profiteth very much.

2. 'Tis true too, that worship which consists only in bodily exercise, profitteth so little, as not at all; it is a shadow with∣out the substance, and a dead carkase without life; the badg of Formality, the cloak of Hypocrisy. But yet that bodily exer∣cise which is joyned with the inward Spiritual Exercise, Vene∣ration, Affection and sincere Devotion of the soul, and is pro∣perly and aptly expressive of it, is both profitable and accepta∣ble. The case is the same as that of St. James, between Faith and Works; either being alone is dead and unprofitable (that is, where both are requir'd) but in conjunction they are amiable and absolutely necessary to the right performance of the duty.

3. If it be unnecessary, because a bodily exercise, then all bo∣dily exercise must be condemn'd, by the same Law, as unneces∣sary in the Worship of God. The giving of Alms, the visiting the Sick, the going to hear, the using of the voice in Prayer, Preaching, Singing, Hearing, Reading, Conference, and the like; or the bowing the knee before God, and many other things, are all but bodily exercises; and if therefore unnecessary, this will at once throw all the visible worship of a Deity out of the world, and turn it into meer Atheism. But,

4. God hath required us to glorifie him with our bodies, as well as with our Spirits, 1 Cor. 6.20. and on this account, because both are Gods; both are his, and by both he will be worship∣ped. Nay our bodies as well as our souls, are the members of Christ, ver. 15. and the Temple of the Holy Ghost, ver. 19. therefore it were very impious to deny him the Worship of both. But this is more than enough for so triffing an Ob∣jection.

Ob. 4. Others there be that will allow it to be necessary, by the Rules of Decency and Reverence, to be uncovered in prayer, and in singing and perhaps in reading of the Scriptures too, but not in preaching: And their reason is, because in preaching we have

not the pure word of God, but mixt with mens own private o∣pinions and improvements.

Ans. 1. The truth is, I cannot but blush to look upon the wickedness of this Argument; and the more, that any men of sobriety and learning should own it. It's a sign the cause is bad, when such poor shifts are made to uphold it. But

2. As for the venting of mens private opinions in their preach∣ing. I answer thus; 1. So they may, and often do in their pray∣ing too; and yet it seems the Argument will not be allowed in that Ordinance, though the reason of the Argument be the same. 2. Either those private opinions which they vent are true or false; if they are true, then are they one where or other expresly or consequentially contain'd in the Scriptures, and so are a part of the sense of Scripture, and the very mind and will of God; though it may be impertinently applied. If they be false, they ought to be reproved, and disciplin'd according as such errors do deserve. But it is an hard case, if there be no other way to correct anothers impertinencies or extravagancies, but by our own irreverence and indecencies.

3. I would know what other reason can be given, why men should be uncovered in time of praying or singing, &c. but this, because it is the Ordinance of God, whose Worship we are bound to reverence both with body and soul. If this be not the reason, I would fain learn what it is. And if so, I would as wil∣lingly understand by what Rule in Divinity it is found, that preach∣ing is not altogether as much Gods Ordinance, as praying, or singing, or any other. For my own part I ever took Preaching to be the great Ordinance of the Gospel; for I never heard that Christ sent forth his Apostles to sing, or to pray; though these indeed be included as parts of his Worship, but always sent ex∣presly to preach; the Denomination of their office being taken a Majori. Now if one Ordinance be to be reverenced, because it is sacredly instituted, shall onother which is more expresly in∣stituted, be prophaned as unholy? In prayer and singing, we speak to God, or of God; in Preaching God speaks to us: is there not as great a Reverence due, when God speaks to us, as when we speak to him? Shall I speak to my Prince uncovered, but as soon as my tale is out, clap on my Hat while he speaks to me, as if I owed the honour to my own words, not to his? Methinks the bare mention of such unavoidable absurdities, should be

enough to make the frivilous Objectors blush.

4. It seems very strange and audacious, that Preaching should be excluded, while the Apostle himself hath expresly joyn'd it with Praying; I wonder out of what arbitrary Court this Bill of divorce first issued, for the putting asunder what God had joyned together; or how it came to pass, that prophesying hath so for∣feited its Honour! What hath Preaching done, that the Greeks scorn it, as foolishness and babling? The Jews look on it as a stumbling-block; and Christians themselves so degrade it and rob it of its due Reverence and respect? what hath preaching done to deserve this? Why! it hath beaten down the strong holds of the Devil in the World, and erected the Kingdom and Scep∣ter of the Lord Jesus Christ; and for this will the Devil be re∣veng'd on it, as he is able; because he cannot banish it out of the World, he will pour what contempt he can upon it. But it is sad, that such as call themselves Professors, should be his Instruments in so cursed a Design.

Ob. 5. Others, it seems, argue after this fashion: This uncover∣ing of the head in Divine Worship, is a thing that hath been so abus'd, and rested in by a company of dead Formalists, and so zealously affected by such as dote on foolish and superstitious Ce∣remonies, that to shew our dislike of their ways, we think it ex∣pedient to act contrary to them in this thing also, and not to symbolize with their Superstitions.

Ans. Had I not heard it from some that pretended to sobriety, I could not have expected such an Objection from any but a mad∣man. For,

1. By this Rule we must cast off every thing that belongs to the external Worship of God; yea, and the Worship it self too, because it hath been abused by such as are formal and supersti∣tious. To argue the unlawfulness or inexpediency of a thing, from the abuse of it, would make mad work in the world; for what good thing is there, that hath not been by some or o∣ther abused?

2. As for such things as are of our own device and appoint∣ment in the Worship of God, for the more orderly and profit∣able performance of it; if any thing of that nature, in length of time, come to be generally abused, and lose their first end and use, and cannot be restored to their true intention and ser∣vice, it is expedient to lay them aside, and to supply the defect

by that which is more proper to reach the good end; and by this measure all humane institutions ought to be dealt with. But the matter in question is no Humane, but a Divine institution, and that express; therefore he that will cut this off from the pub∣lick Worship of God, had need first to cut it out of his Bible.

3. To rest in the bare external and outward Ceremonies of Worship, is gross formality; and for a man to pray or pro∣phecy with his head covered, is gross irreverence; but what! is there no way to avoid one sin but by another? must I needs run my self into the guilt of irreverence, to escape the contagion of another's formality? This is the Devils work, to hurry men from one extream to another; and I doubt it proceeded from a secret Spirit of Faction, opposition, and discontent; or Church-Atheism, and not honest Zeal. What though some ceremonious Bigots, among many other things needless and vain, require also what God himself by his Apostles hath required; shall I rebel a∣gainst God, to shew my dislike of superstitious men? God for∣bid, I will rather bless God for any thing that is right in those, that in other things I dissent from.

Ob. 6. But there are yet others that think they have more to say than all this. Their bodily infirmities are such as that they can∣not bear it to be so long uncovered, without hazard of their health: But God will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

Ans. 1. It is true, God will have mercy and not Sacrifice, where he cannot have both; Mercy rather than Sacrifice; and if the case be so, that the health of the body cannot be preserved without the covering of the head, I know no body that questions the lawfulness of covering it. But,

2. There is both a Natural and Artificial covering, which con∣sist with the Rules of Reverence and Decency. The natural co∣vering is the hair. Now though the Apostle requires the unco∣vering of the head in Divine Worship, yet he allows the hair to be worn, though not after the manner of Women, as was shewed before. Therefore he doth not absolutely forbid all co∣vering, but only that which is inconsistent with that Reverence which we owe to him whom we pretend to honour; if then the infirmities of Nature be such, as that this natural covering be not sufficient to answer its end, God allows us to supply the defect by art, with succedaneous coverings, as Wigs or Caps;

which may be in the stead of the natural, so that the phantasti∣cal excesses of Pride or Vanity be avoided. And that to have the head thus covered in case of Infirmity, is not inconsistent with Reverence, no one that is well in his wits can doubt; for it would seem an odd kind of Ceremony between man and man, if they should pull off their Hats, and Wiggs, or Caps, and all, in complement to one another; this would be a quaint kind of Caress. Now that which would be thought superfluous, inde∣cent, or ridiculous in humane Conversation, is no less in the Worship of God. There are ways enough to avoid irreverence in Gods Worship, without violating the sixth Commendment, or any other Moral Precept.

Ob. 7. Others think to say something in this, if this had been such a Duty; wherefore have our Teachers been so long si∣lent, Why had we not heard of this sooner?

Ans. 1. I wish that such Objectors may not think it yet too soon to yield their Obedience to the truth. What hath been done ignorantly, may obtain mercy; but obstinacy after admonition, makes the sin double.

2. How came it to pass, that this should be a secret, since that God hath delivered you from the Tyranny of Antichrist, and hath given you the free use of your Bibles, and in your own Mother-tongue; and the words of the Apostle being so plain and express in the case?

3. The Reasons why the Ministers of Christ have said so little of it, may, be 1. Because in those late days of Confusion, they have had greater work on their hands, to fix and establish the people in the fundamentals and essentials of Christianity, for the preservation of their Faith and Comfort, and to support the main buildings, while the house of God hath been so shaken. 2. It may be many of them have been guilty of the same er∣ror, being carried away by the force of the Torrent, from one extream to another, upon that fall of Episcopal Ceremonies, which was in England almost forty years ago; since which time especially, this piece of prophanity hath obtain'd the fashion a∣mong Dissenters. And perhaps the sense of their own guilt hath made some the more slow to speak in this matter.

4. The generality of Non-conforming, as well as Conforming Ministers, have taught you, at least by their examples, what their sense of the Apostle hath been, and which the people should

have observ'd, as their Patterns in it; yea, some have adventured to reprove it publickly too; though the capricious humours of the people have kickt at it; and such as think themselves wiser than their Teachers, have made ill use of it, and been ready to shew what phantastical and schismatical Principles they are acted by. I know not at present what more hath been, or can be objected against our Thesis; and how little these objections sig∣signifie, I leave to the judgment of all sober minds.

CHAP. IV. Backs the Proposition with some further Reasons and Considerations.

IF all that hath been hitherto said, be yet too little to reduce the Worship of God to the Apostolical Rule in this particular; I shall offer but these few things more, and leave them to consi∣deration.

1. Suppose that Christ himself, the supreme Lord and Master of the Assembly, were present in person among you in your places of Worship, Would you be covered or uncovered? I hope you will allow him the reverence that you allow your earthly Master or Prince. This Argument is but what God himself ur∣ges in onother Quarrel about his Worship, Mal. 1.8. Offer it now unto thy Governour, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? If the best that we have, must be taken for an offering to a Governour or Prince, who is but a man, is the best too good for God? And if the humblest tokens of Reverence be due to a Creature whom God hath set in Authority over us, is it not much more due to God, who is our Absolute and Supream Go∣vernour and Lord?

Ob. But perhaps you may say, This is the way to bring in Superstition into the Church; and makes, as if all those Modes of civil Worship or Reverence which are due to Man, are much more due to God; so we may bring in Cirching, and Bowing, and making a Leg, and a hundred other phantastical Gestures, and quaint Goggles into the Worship of God, which are used in mens Courtly Addresses to their Superiors.

Ans. 1. This Proposition is as far from favour of Superstition or any uninstituted Ceremony, as that of the Prophet, before quoted, is from Idolatry; where God says, Offer it now to thy Governour.

2. There are Ceremonies in Gods Worship, which are com∣mon, as was said before Chap. 1. that is, such as are equally used in Civil and Religious Matters, as bowing the knee, uncovering the head, &c. which signifie the Reverence that is due to God in his solemn Worship, and yet the same Ceremony is lawfully used also toward the Magistrate; so that though it be in it self a civil Ceremony, yet in the Worship of God it is sacred. And yet for all this it doth not follow, that all civil Ceremonies are so; but only such as God, by the Law of Scripture or Nature, hath made necessary or proper to express the inward Reverence and Worship of the mind by.

3. Both Scripture and Nature (as hath been shewed before) hath claimed this Ceremony in question, as due to Gods solemn Worship; therefore it is a Wickedness to neglect it. Now the Ar∣gument runs thus: If Reverence be due to the presence of a Ma∣gistrate, much more is it due to God, whom he doth but re∣present, and by whom it is that he rules; and if those external shadows and signs of Reverence, which Nature and Custom hath made proper to signifie the Reverence of the mind by, be due to a Creature, much more is that which God and Nature hath made proper to express it by, due to God; Or, if you will, thus: The Worship that we offer unto God, must be performed, as in the presence of that God whom we worship (unless we hope to go behind his back to Worship him) therefore if his visible presence would make us to be uncovered, his spiritual and invisible presence should do no less. Yea, Christ is visibly present in his Ordinan∣ces, though not personally, yet Representatively, as the King is in all his Courts of Judicature by his Officers that represent him; so that what is done in the presence of Christs Ordinances and Officers, is done in his presence. And if by the Angels, 1 Cor. 11.10. we are to understand the Messengers of the Gospel, (as some will have it) then this is but the same Argument which the A∣postle here urges, and must be allowed.

2. Let every one that yet resolves to be of a contrary practice in this particular, consider how he can be assur'd, that he doth not sin in it. If it be matter of duty to be uncovered, then it is

sin to be covered; and if it be sin, it can be no little sin (were there any such thing) it being an irreverent prophanation of Gods solemn Worship, of which the Holy God is always wont to be so very jealous. If it be such a sin, and wilfully persisted in after admonition, with what confidence can such Worshippers hope for acceptance with God? or indeed to escape his just ven∣geance? And who is there that would not tremble thus to mock and dare the Almighty? Therefore the only way is to tell us, as they do, that this is no matter of Duty, but of Liberty; and thus the Question is easily answered, when it is well proved. We will not trouble our Brains at present, to conjecture by what unheard-of Medium they are ever like to make it probable; but rather advise the Objectors to consider, whether their se∣curity be such, as they dare venture the wrath of God, the loss of all their religious Duties, and of their souls too, upon it. They suppose it to be a matter of liberty; it is their Opinion; yet they hear there is something to be said against it, and therefore but an Opinion and questionable; yea, they find some that are as confident, that it is a matter of Duty. We no where find it com∣manded to be covered, but here expresly forbidden by the A∣postle, if we understand him aright. Well! we will suppose the case to be doubtful, and the Question shall be, which is the safer way; for in dubiis tutior pars est eligenda. Will any one that hath any regard to his soul, judge it safer to adventure upon a supposed Liberty (and that in so easie a task as uncovering the head) which is no where asserted in Scripture? or to comply with that which seems (though it did but seem) to be an ex∣press command? If it be matter of Liberty, then there is no sin on either hand. But what if this supposition should be found false at last, and the great Judge determine against it? Where are the forward Objecters then? surely he is worse than a mad man that will adventure his soul at so cheap a rate.

3. That which doth necessarily and per se, bring the Ordinan∣ces of God into contempt, must needs be a very great evil; but for the Man to have his head covered in any part of the publick Worship of God, is that which doth necessarily and per se, bring the Ordinances of God into contempt. Erg. I hope the Major will pass for Orthodox in any part of the World, whether Christian, Jewish, or Pagan. And I doubt not but the Minor will be prov'd to be altogether as true. Preaching is the Ordinance,

and the great Ordinance of God; but this Ordinance it doth ne∣cessarily and per se bring into contempt. What is that keeps up the Honour and Credit of any thing in the World, but that visible respect and reverence that is paid it in the sight of men? The uncovering of the head is the great visible sign and token of Reverence; if this then be denied, how is the Reverence sig∣nified? And if there be no visible Reverence, what follows but visible contempt? and that as necessarily as darkness follows when light is gone. In vain is it to talk of the inward spiritual Reverence of the mind. For 1. where there is indeed this holy Principle, and good frame of Spirit within, it will naturally seek for vent, and express it self before men, in such ways, and by such means, as are commonly used, and taken to be the aptest and most proper to express it by. 2. Where there is this in∣ward Reverence of the soul, it will seek (as all other gracious habits do) to propagate it self to others. He that loves and sears God, would have all others to love and fear him too; and he that reverences Gods Ordinances, would that all others should do the like; and therefore will be zealous and forward to teach and encourage them so to do by his example, as well as precept. But now who will say or believe that such a one doth reverence Gods Ordinance, when they see no more sign of Reverence than if he were only among his fellows, or about his ordinary business in the World? and by this means others also are taught, not only to behave themselves with the same irreverence, and so run into the same guilt; but, which is worse, to have slight and base thoughts of Gods Ordinance, yea, and of God himself too, who hath appointed it. When the Honour of an Ordinance is lost, the saving power of it is lost, and so becomes to the wicked a matter of scorn. So that besides the wrong that is done to God, how great is the wrong that is hereby done to souls! per∣haps this hath not been the least thing that hath help'd to bring both Preaching and Preachers into contempt in these our licenti∣ous days, while the elder sort have taught their children to be∣have themselves with less reverence in Gods presence, than Parents or Masters will allow them in theirs. What more effectual course could be taken to breed up a new Generation of Scorners, and to joyn issue with the Devil, to banish the Authority of preach∣ing from among men? that it should be the interest of any peo∣ple so to do, is very strange!

CHAP. V. Concludes all with a serious and short address to the Non conforming Brethren, both Ministers and People.

I Shall now shut up this Discourse (wherein I doubt I have not been very welcome to some of my Readers) with a few words to my Brethren, both Ministers and People.

1. To those that are in the Ministry. Reverend and Dear Sirs! It is notoriously known, what hard things our Mothers Children, that are angry with us for not complying with all their imposing-humours in sacred things, have been long charging us with, and filling the ears of Authority with their harsh Declaimings against us, as a company of heady, high-minded, schismatical, self-wil'd, and ungovernable Creatures; as if we were such as pleased not God, and were contrary to all men. And very uneasie it would be to bear it, did not the Conscience of our simplicity make it light. But while we talk of Conscience, and think to bear our selves upon the Gospel-rights and Priviledges of it, we do but a∣buse our selves, and harden them; and prostitute the very name of Conscience to open contempt, while we plead Conscience to justifie our Disobedience in the case of a sew harmless (as they say) and gray headed Ceremonies; and yet make no Conscience of that open prophanity and irreverence, which the very light of Nature would teach the poor Heathens to condemn and ab∣hor in their Worship. Partiality in the matters of Conscience, is one of the greatest Scandals and Reproaches of Religion, and that which gives the Adversary the greatest advantage.

—pudet haec opprobria nobis, Et dici potuisse, & non potuisse refelli.

I have long wished for a Rebuke to this irreverent, unscriptural practice, from some graver, and more venerable hand or other; For I said, days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But I have not found any that have hitherto medled in this matter. And perhaps I shall be censur'd too, for being busier than doth become me; but that (as far as it respects my self) shall be put on the private score, and be one of my least concerns;

yet this is that which is my defence. The Apostle himself hath spent no less than 16. Verses upon the case before me; and I have not spent half so many sheets. If then I must pass for a Trifler, let it be because I have said no more, or said it no better; which fault, I hope some wiser man or other will shortly mend; and I shall patiently submit to any reasonable Correction.

Sirs! when I hear that voice of God himself to his Servant Moses, from Exod. 3.5. Put off thy shooes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground; and the same to Joshua too, Josh. 5.15. I dare not make light of the external signs of Re∣verence in the special presence of the holy One, who hath de∣clared, that he will be sanctifyed of all that come nigh to him. What was it that made those places holier than others, but Gods special presence there, which alone was able to consecrate it? I do not think that one place is holier under the Gospel, than ano∣ther, with what pompous Ceremonies soever men may pretend to consecrate it; nor that there is any Reverence due to one place more than to another, on the account of its supposed Consecra∣tion; but Gods Ordinances, I am sure, are as holy as ever they were; and God is as much to be reverenced as ever. Holy and Reverend is that name of his, which he will never change. The uncovering of the feet was among some people a token of Re∣verence and Subjection, and used in sacris; whence they had their Nudipedalia sacra: and in token of their Reverence and Homage, this Ceremony was religiously observed. The uncovering of the head is with us a token of the same thing; therefore by a parity of reason, is due to Divine Worship. Is it not a shameful thing, and hard to be born by any that are tender of Gods Honour, to see how every ill-manner'd Boy, and daring Youth, that neither regard nor understand their Duty to God or Man, rush into the presence of the great Jehovah, with that wanton levity and un∣concernedness, as if they were come about some of their own Puerilia, their Games and Sports; and behave themselves with that bold irreverence, which would be thought intolerable in the presence of their Superiors? as if the places of Gods publick Worship were the allowed Theaters of Prophanity, and rudest Liberty? And for all this, they will plead the toleration, yea, the example of their Seniors. Pudet haec opprobria, &c.

Now Sirs! the guilt of this is charg'd on us, who are their Teachers. And the truth is, I know not how we can clear our

selves, either to God or Man, without our utmost and faithful en∣deavors to remedy it; which now will be the more difficult, be∣cause by our long silence we have encouraged and setled them in it. But seeing the difficulty is much of our own procuring, this should be so far from discouraging, that it should quicken us to more. How can we expect that God shall bless his word in our mouths, while we can see it thus dishonour'd, and be silent? And what though you may expect the unjust Censures and Frowns of some of your froward Hearers? it is not for the Messengers of the Lord of Hosts to fear the displeasure of men. Nay, in the dis∣charge of your Duty, you have not only the peace of your own Consciences, but the promise of Gods blessing. God may subdue mens wills to the obedience of the truth, beyond what you expect. For my own part, I bless God for the success I have had, and that with very little labour, and which hath encourag∣ed me to recommend it unto others. And what if your Congre∣gations should be the thinner? a handful of humble, serious, re∣verent Worshippers, are better than a multitude of proud, rude, prophane, phantastical ones. Nor will this weaken the Interest you should uphold; a few that lap, are a safer guard, and surer of victory, than a whole Army of such as God doth not chuse. Nor need you fear of making more Divisions, or raising fires a∣mong those, whose interest it is, especially at such a time, to be united. 'Tis mens lusts and imperious wills that make Divisions, and not Gods Law, nor the zealous pressing of Duty. As for those that will depart on such a score, let them depart; we need them no more than the Wheat doth need the Chaff in the floor, or the good Figs needeth the bad. I know no good such Wor∣shippers do in an Assembly, but hinder Prayers. God is now re∣fining us, and let us be refined. But perhaps all these fears may be but false suggestions of the evil one, who is so pelased to see holy things prophaned. For my own part, I can testifie, that I have found the quite contrary of these fears. But I must consider to whom I am speaking. Pardon, Dear Sirs! this plainness and li∣berty of Speech. Verbum sat sapienti. I will say no more, I could say no less.

2. To the people; If I have not yet answered all your Obje∣ctions, I wish I knew them, that I might endeavour to answer them; but if I have answered them, I hope you will be perswa∣ded. Sirs! Perhaps you still look on the matter I have been now

imployed in, as a small thing; and truly were it not that, where∣in the Honour of Gods Worship and Ordinances were interessed, it would for me pass for a small thing. Could we secure the glory of God, by taking the contempt to our selves, it should be as little a thing, as you would have it to be. But alas! these ar∣rows of scorn fly over our heads, and wound that which is a∣bove us. Oh Sirs! take heed, you have to do with a jealous God, and in a matter wherein his jealousy hath always been most ten∣der. Never tell me of any awe or reverence you have upon your hearts, while I see no visible signs of Reverence to attest it. Judge in your selves; is it a comely thing, that the Mes∣sengers of Christ that stand in his stead to you, and come on his message, and represent his person, should stand bare before you, (as indeed we ought to do) and you sit upon your seats cover∣ed, as if ye were set there to be our Judges, not our Hearers? as if we stood to beg your approbation, and not to teach, and admonish, and reprove you? Sirs! the credit of our Ministry is not ours, but Christs; therefore we are bound to magnifie our Office. Are we your Teachers? are not you then our Scholars? Shall the Master read his Lectures bare, and every Boy in the School be covered? Would this be a decent sight? But that which is not decent in Morality, is much more indecent in Re∣ligion. I confess I am asham'd that the World should know, that any of those that call themselves Christians, and Professors, should need so much ado to be reduced to Reverence and good Manners in the Worship of their God. Methink I would be∣speak you, as the Servants of Naaman did their Master, 2 King. 5.13. If the Prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith unto thee, wash and be clean? If the Lord should bid you sell your Possessions, and lay down the price at your Teachers feet; if he shall call you to mingle your Blood with your Sacrifi∣ces, will you not do it? how much rather then when he bids you to be uncovered in his Worship? Certainly he that will not uncover his head for-Christ, will hardly part with his head for him. 'Tis true, some will rather part with their blood, than with their ill humours; but with such Sacrifices God is not well-pleased. And now Reader! having thus briefly, in the name of Christ advertised thee, I shall leave thee to consider it; expecting either thy Obedience, or thy Reasons to the contrary. I shall

〈◊〉〈◊〉 all with the words of the Apostle, Heb. 12.28, 29. Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire.

—siquid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti, si non, his utere mecum.

FINIS.

Notes

• Lev. 10.2. Cap. 9.27.
• 2 Sam. 6.7. Num. 15.35.
• 1 Sam. 6.19.
• Mat. 23.3.
• Psal. 45 2.
• Piscat. sckol. in lac.
• Vir operi∣ens caput, non seipsum modo, sed ctiam Deum de∣d••corat. Synop. in loc.
• Vid. synops. in loc.