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 manner 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 other 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 singing 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 Ordinance 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 Conversation 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 Conscience upon pain of Damnation yet that it is a matter of meey indifferency I utterly deny which if it be not already sufficiently 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 conscious 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 'T is indeed a hard matter to teach an old Tretter to pâ—â—e or to obtain credit against a long used custom though never so groundless or indecent 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 determine 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 cannot in reason be understood as if he had left it to be determined 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 about putting off or keeping on our hats We have a custom among 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 Apostles 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 contrary 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 impertinent 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 bodily exercise and bodily exercise they are told profiteth little 1 Tim. 4.8 but God is a Spirit and will be worshipped in Spirit and in truth Ans 1. 'T is true t is a bodily exercise and because the Apostle says it profiteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little we may not say therefore it profiteth not at all yea in some cases it profiteth very much 2. 'T is true too that worship which consists only in bodily exercise profitteth so little as not at all it is a shadow without the substance and a dead carkase without life the badg of Formality the cloak of Hypocrisy But yet that bodily exercise which is joyned with the inward Spiritual Exercise Veneration Affection and sincere Devotion of the soul and is properly and
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 Argument runs thus If Reverence be due to the presence of a Magistrate much more is it due to God whom he doth but represent 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 Ordinances 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 Apostle 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 vengeance 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 security 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 commanded to be covered but here expresly forbidden by the Apostle 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 express 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 Ordinances 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 necessarily 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 signified 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 inward 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 perhaps this hath not been the least thing that hath help'd to bring both Preaching and Preachers into contempt in these our licentious days while the elder sort have taught their children to behave themselves with less reverence in Gods presence than Parents or Masters will
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 assumption 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 distinction 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 Argument 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 Worship of God But it is a shame for a Woman to be shorn or shaven Erg. The Major he had prov'd in the former verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 assumes 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shorn or shaven and whether they be exegetical serving only to explain one another I say no because they signifie 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 't is 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 dishonour 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 Breeches 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 uncovered 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 Piscat sckol in lac upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 covering 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 imagine 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Woman 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 Devotion or toprevent the ensnaring of others eyes but
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 innocency but this shews that her head ought to be covered proportionably 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 dictates 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 manner 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 abominable 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 contentious Thus he speaks by way of Anticipation if any one hath a mind to quarrel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 property 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! notwithstanding all the Medimns I have used and all the words I have wasted to prove my Argument 't is but a frivolus thing if any one seems he hath any thing to object I have done 't is 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 trifling 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 Christians 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 Apostolical 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 Worship is a disorderly irreverent uncomely unnatural shameful 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 Objections we will consider how far all or most are agreed upon the matter 1. Then I suppose that all with whom I have to do are agreed 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
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 spoken of in the precedent verse which is Christ and so the dishonour 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 concern'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 'T is 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 Conclusion viz. He that prayeth or prophesyeth with his head covered dishonoureth Christ 3. The Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will contribute much to the elucidation of the sense It is not made by the Possessive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caput suum but by the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 subjection 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 subjection 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 Worship Inf. 2. That for a man to have his head covered while engag'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 honourable 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 extraordinary 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 Apostle intended a common Rule of Decency for ordinary Worship 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 Dishonoureth 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 subjection and doth in effect deny the Mans Authority and Dominion Whom then doth she dishonour but the Man while she thus exalts her self As the Child is said to dishonour his Father in denying him due Reverence 'T is true 't is 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 Therefore 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 mystical head of the Man that is to be understood in the former verse Though it is true also that with reference to this Symbol 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 uncovered of her ordinary artificial covering and therein change modes with the Man and do that which is the Mans