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 Apostle is here shewing the order of the Superiority and Inferiority which God hath instituted in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Frame or Fabrick of the mystical body wherein all the parts are sitly joyned 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 mediately 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 Apostle 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 Plenipotentiary 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 Father from whom he received it This is the case here 'T is 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 Children of God shall have immediate access to their Father and immediate 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 infer 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 prophecy The sin is aggravated in this That it was a dishonouring of their head Every man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 mediately comprehending both Speakers and Hearers for the whole worship is the common and united act of the whole Congregation All are said to pray when but one speaketh so all prophecy 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 worship of God or any part of it having his head covered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having something on his head that is an ordinary 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shameth and casts a slight or reproach upon 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 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it a handsom sight is it becoming the excellent Majesty of that God with whom we have to do Is it not piece of shameful irreligious daring irreverence That a Woman pray unto God uncovered Though only praying be mentioned 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 apparently seen on one side as on the other nor in it self as in the natural 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 covered or a Woman with her head uncovered are both alike uncomely 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 foulest 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 Worship 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 'T is 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 prophanation 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 Nature 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 Worship For whatsoever is comely in Gods Worship is so as he approves or accepts it what he rejects cannot be accounted comely 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 rejects Matth. 15.9 In vain do they worship me teaching for dectrine the Commandments of men That which hath but Mans Authority 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 reason 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 commandment And what Commandment was this Be sure 't was 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 Commandments 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 Consequentially 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 experience of the most spiritual and best discerning Christians That which the worship of God or any part of it may be decently orderly spiritually and edifyingly performed without is not necessary in that worship or part of worship and if not commanded then superstitious and sinful And so far for this Digression Hence I infer Inf. 1. That the pure spiritual simplicity of Gospel-worship allows 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 covering This is but the illustration of the Argument of the former verse
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
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 others so God hath given Man his power to rule over the Woman 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image or Resemblance of this Glory of God Therefore 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 subjection to Man as Children are said to be the Glory of their Parents 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 subjection 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 Divine 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 Innocency but it was sin and shame as the occasion that brought it into the world 'T is 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 Maker 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 Apostles discourse and argumentation all along these verses we are now treating of it is most evident that the very end and signification of this Ceremony is to testifie the Womans subjection and inferiority to the Man ver 3 6 7 10. So then the covering 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 therefore 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 another 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 habit 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
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 Messenger or the Angel for it is the same word sent to prepare the way of the Lord. And Christ himself the Messenger or Angel 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 Angels of those Churches and then the Argument will run thus If the Woman be bound to pay her Reverence to the Man in general 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 Mediator Gal. 3.19 Therefore the name of God and the name of Angels is often used promiscuously in Scripture for one another 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 covered 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 remember 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 inferiority of place in which God hath set her and for her Comfort minds her That God hath not put her altogether in the condition 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 Woman neither the Woman without the Man Though God hath subordinated one to the other he hath not divided them one from the other though one be above the other yet one cannot subsist 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 redeemed 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 Parent to the Woman yet now the Woman is half-parent to the Man The Man is by the Woman both as to his being nutrition 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 't is God that hath placed them in this order And of this he admonishes them That the Man may not exalt himself or despise the Woman or turn his power into tyranny 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 redeem'd from the ruines and dregs of the most salvage barbarism as to have any natural sentiments of what is comely or uncomely Judge
and not the stating of a new Question as some may opine 'T is 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 general and ancient Custom others the natural inclination others 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 distinguishing 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 having long hair 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 allows it to cover the temples and the neck others are for a greater length usque ad habitum but understand it of decking and adorning 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they say comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Apostle 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 neglected and devoted to a perpetual slovenliness yet it is most certain that as far as any adorning of the head or any other part whether of Man or Woman savours of Pride or fantastical effeminacy 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 this Interpreters cannot be of a mind neither Some will have it be such a shame as is without sin or such a disgrace 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 nature 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 decent 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 'T is 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 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
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
man and man To conclude this verse then we have here the Apostles Argument 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 Knowledge Righteousness and Holiness but with this difference 1. The Man is thus formed of God immediately the VVoman mediately of the Man and therefore may truly be called 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 Vir operiens caput non seipsum modo sed ctiam Deum dedâ—corat Synop. in loc but so was not the VVoman T is true she shares in the Dominion over 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 prosecution of this Argument a creatione follows in the next verses Hence I infer Inf. 1. That God hath given the Man Power and Authority over 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 Creation 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 subjection 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 living Woman All that Parents conveigh in the act of Generation viz Matter and Form to their Children did God separate 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 Woman for the Man Here he carrys on his Amplification from the end of the Creation 'T was 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 institution 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 Dominion 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 Government 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 Government upon the hands of a Woman as often it doth she not only may but ought to manage that Authority and Trust according 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 follows 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debet the same which was said before ver 7. concerning the Man and which makes it to be duty So ought therefore 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 token of Desolation So here the power that is the veil or covering the token of the Mans Power and of her Subjection Besides it is observed that the word which the Hebrews use for a veil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cant. 5.7 and Isa 3.23 springs from a root that signifies to have Power and Authority on which account some translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vid. synops in loc 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 Angels 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 therefore 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 Reverence as was said before Ob. But is not this to patronize an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping of Angels Ans No more than the other did patronize an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Adoration 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 acknowledged 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 Worshippers 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 Overseers 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 wanton glances from those whose eyes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of adultery or of the Adulteress and so as it were turn the house of God into a Brothel-house 'T is true 't is an horible heathenish 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