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
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
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
formality and for a man to pray or prophecy with his head covered is gross irreverence but what is there no way to avoid one sin but by another must I needs run my self into the guilt of irreverence to escape the contagion of another's formality This is the Devils work to hurry men from one extream to another and I doubt it proceeded from a secret Spirit of Faction opposition and discontent or Church-Atheism and not honest Zeal What though some ceremonious Bigots among many other things needless and vain require also what God himself by his Apostles hath required shall I rebel against God to shew my dislike of superstitious men God forbid I will rather bless God for any thing that is right in those that in other things I dissent from Ob. 6. But there are yet others that think they have more to say than all this Their bodily infirmities are such as that they cannot bear it to be so long uncovered without hazard of their health But God will have mercy and not sacrifice Ans 1. It is true God will have mercy and not Sacrifice where he cannot have both Mercy rather than Sacrifice and if the case be so that the health of the body cannot be preserved without the covering of the head I know no body that questions the lawfulness of covering it But 2. There is both a Natural and Artificial covering which consist with the Rules of Reverence and Decency The natural covering is the hair Now though the Apostle requires the uncovering of the head in Divine Worship yet he allows the hair to be worn though not after the manner of Women as was shewed before Therefore he doth not absolutely forbid all covering but only that which is inconsistent with that Reverence which we owe to him whom we pretend to honour if then the infirmities of Nature be such as that this natural covering be not sufficient to answer its end God allows us to supply the defect by art with succedaneous coverings as Wigs or Caps which may be in the stead of the natural so that the phantastical excesses of Pride or Vanity be avoided And that to have the head thus covered in case of Infirmity is not inconsistent with Reverence no one that is well in his wits can doubt for it would seem an odd kind of Ceremony between man and man if they should pull off their Hats and Wiggs or Caps and all in complement to one another this would be a quaint kind of Caress Now that which would be thought superfluous indecent or ridiculous in humane Conversation is no less in the Worship of God There are ways enough to avoid irreverence in Gods Worship without violating the sixth Commendment or any other Moral Precept Ob. 7. Others think to say something in this if this had been such a Duty wherefore have our Teachers been so long silent Why had we not heard of this sooner Ans 1. I wish that such Objectors may not think it yet too soon to yield their Obedience to the truth What hath been done ignorantly may obtain mercy but obstinacy after admonition makes the sin double 2. How came it to pass that this should be a secret since that God hath delivered you from the Tyranny of Antichrist and hath given you the free use of your Bibles and in your own Mother-tongue and the words of the Apostle being so plain and express in the case 3. The Reasons why the Ministers of Christ have said so little of it may be 1. Because in those late days of Confusion they have had greater work on their hands to fix and establish the people in the fundamentals and essentials of Christianity for the preservation of their Faith and Comfort and to support the main buildings while the house of God hath been so shaken 2. It may be many of them have been guilty of the same error being carried away by the force of the Torrent from one extream to another upon that fall of Episcopal Ceremonies which was in England almost forty years ago since which time especially this piece of prophanity hath obtain'd the fashion among Dissenters And perhaps the sense of their own guilt hath made some the more slow to speak in this matter 4. The generality of Non-conforming as well as Conforming Ministers have taught you at least by their examples what their sense of the Apostle hath been and which the people should have observ'd as their Patterns in it yea some have adventured to reprove it publickly too though the capricious humours of the people have kickt at it and such as think themselves wiser than their Teachers have made ill use of it and been ready to shew what phantastical and schismatical Principles they are acted by I know not at present what more hath been or can be objected against our Thesis and how little these objections sigsignifie I leave to the judgment of all sober minds CHAP. IV. Backs the Proposition with some further Reasons and Considerations IF all that hath been hitherto said be yet too little to reduce the Worship of God to the Apostolical Rule in this particular I shall offer but these few things more and leave them to consideration 1. Suppose that Christ himself the supreme Lord and Master of the Assembly were present in person among you in your places of Worship Would you be covered or uncovered I hope you will allow him the reverence that you allow your earthly Master or Prince This Argument is but what God himself urges in onother Quarrel about his Worship Mal. 1.8 Offer it now unto thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person If the best that we have must be taken for an offering to a Governour or Prince who is but a man is the best too good for God And if the humblest tokens of Reverence be due to a Creature whom God hath set in Authority over us is it not much more due to God who is our Absolute and Supream Governour and Lord Ob. But perhaps you may say This is the way to bring in Superstition into the Church and makes as if all those Modes of civil Worship or Reverence which are due to Man are much more due to God so we may bring in Cirching and Bowing and making a Leg and a hundred other phantastical Gestures and quaint Goggles into the Worship of God which are used in mens Courtly Addresses to their Superiors Ans 1. This Proposition is as far from favour of Superstition or any uninstituted Ceremony as that of the Prophet before quoted is from Idolatry where God says Offer it now to thy Governour 2. There are Ceremonies in Gods Worship which are common as was said before Chap. 1. that is such as are equally used in Civil and Religious Matters as bowing the knee uncovering the head c. which signifie the Reverence that is due to God in his solemn Worship and yet the same Ceremony is lawfully used also toward the Magistrate