An ESSAY on a QUESTION Relating to Divine Worship.  
VIZ.  
Whether it be contrary to the Apostolical Laws of Decency and Reverence, for a Man to have his Head covered in the time and place of God's Solemn public Worship? Aff.  
By Samuel Stoddon, Minister of the Gospel.  Levit. 19.30. 
Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and Reverence my Sanctuary: I am the Lord.  
LONDON, Printed by Anne Maxwell, and Robert Roberts, for the Author, 1682.   

To the Honourable Sir. H. F. Knight.  
S. S. wisheth all happiness of this, and of the better Life.  
Honoured Sir,  
THE vanity of the creature, which is by daily, and sometimes by dear experience taught us, hath this happy influence on all pious minds, to raise in them the greater reverence of, and closer adherence to the Creator; Whom to know, is highest wisdom; whom to serve, is perfect freedom: whom rightly to worship, is indispensible duty; and whom to enjoy is incomprehensible felicity. But where there is a Reverential awe of the Supreme Deity formed in the heart, there will be suitable expressions in the external deportment, especially in the acts of solemn devotion; so that the irreverence of the outer man proclaims to the world but the hidden Atheism of the inner. It hath been always matter of indignation with me, to see the Ludicra Fortunae, the Interludes of Fortune, magnified with the honour of Courtly Ceremonies, and the Worship of that God who dispenseth all these little things as he pleaseth, vilified by those that irreverently draw nigh to him. Though I am no Hyperaspistes of uninstituted ceremonies; yet God forbidden that I should not declare against profane Indecencies. I confess I know not whose Successor I am in the province that I have undertaken, or who hath been before me in it. I am like one that is going a pilgrimage over the Alps via aspera & consolita, in a rough and untrod path; but that sacred thread of Scripture which I have taken with me, I trust, will bring me safe to the Temple I aim at. I know I shall displease some, and seem as an idle wanderer to others; but thanks be to God, who hath instructed me to live above the unjust censures of men, and to rejoice in the conscience of my integrity. Sir, It is my duty and your deserts that oblige me to offer you this little part of my Studies; and not only duty, but hope of acceptance: Hope founded not on the Merit of the Action, but on the nature of the Subject, and the known sutableneso of your apprehensions and practice: so that, by this, I dare not so much as pretend to pay one mite of my debt, but to run further on the score. Your favourable acceptance makes me more your debtor. The faults which more or less always attend my best endeavours, I am conscious of, and confess them both to God and man. As God hath promised remittere confitenti, to forgive the Confessor, so I hope will you. Certainly I have not wilfully swerved from the Truth. If this poor Essay may interess itself in God's blessing, and your favour and good opinion, I may expect the success that will fully answer the ends of,  
Honoured Sir, Yours hearty devoted in all Christian observance, S. S.   

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

The INTRODUCTION.  
CUSTOM hath of old been famed, and always is found to be one of the touchy Deities, as one calls it; he that presumes to profane her Altars, must expect the severest Thunderbolt that her angry fist can dispense. And though she pretends a claim in almost every thing that concerns humane life, and often to the prejudice and disturbance of discretion, yet in no case is she observed to be so tender and froppish as in the concerns of Religion, of what kind or constitution soever the Religion be. 'Tis true, it is but a peddling kind of Deity, occupied, for the most part, about the minutes and punctilios of greater affairs, but excessively fond of those her small Wares. He that sets himself against a Custom, takes a Bear by the ear, and meddles with the Diana, which is enough to pull the whole world, especially the interessed party, upon his head.  
It is now my hard Task (because I see no other that hath or is about) to appear against one of the younger Brats of this monstrous thing Custom. I confess it is some encouragement, that it is a Brat of a late birth, for old age is the main thing that gives this creature strength; wherein it is unlike to most others. When it is grown gray-headed, it gins to claim a veneration, and is held Sacred. And the truth is, till it be fullgrown, it is but a novelty, or fashion; and deserves not the name of Custom.  
Yet of Customs or Usages, as of most other Species, there are some good, some evil, and some adiaphorous, or as chips in pottage. By how much the more any Custom hath of truth, of real decency, of necessary order, or tendency to edification, by so much the more venerable and legitimate, of what age, complexion, or sex soever it be; but by how much the more remote from these, by so much the less to be regarded, yea by so much the more to be opposed. And though the courtesy, or rather the corruptions of time have honoured it with gray-hairs, it is but like the hoary mustiness of many other things, the proper livery or symptom of putrefaction.  
As for those petty Novelties and Protean Modes that never pretend to soar higher in their nature or use, than the orb of Civil conversation, they are without the lines of our present consideration. These like the spawn of Frogs, are sent out every spring, and brooded by an old wand'ring Hag, the ghost of an indeterminate custom, or humour of keeping tack with the present fashions, which like Almanacs or Infects, must change their shapes, and expire with the year. These Butterflies are not the things that I am now about to pursue, though the poor Quaker thinks it as bad as the plague of Pharoahs' flies; but yet by their flappes and scuffles to drive them away, they have but stormed the peevish swarm the more about our ears. It were well indeed if some wiser heads knew how to antedate this piece of levity.  
The matter of the proposed Question is a Ceremony, or gesture appertaining to the external Worship of God, or at least, now on the Test, whether it so appertain de jure, or no. And seeing it belongs not to Caesar, nor falls under the cognizance of his Custom-Office, but appeal is made to an higher Court, of Conscience, to Conscience we will go, where the Word of God is the sole Judge, and infallible determiner of all such Questions as concern God, or another world. And indeed it is the singular privilege and dignity of the Church, that those unerring Oracles are committed to it, which may moderate and conclude those endless wrangles and disputes, which the capricious humours, the differing sentiments, and various interests of men dispose them to.  
That God hath discharged his Gospel-worship from the burdensome Law of beggarly Ceremonies, is most evidently asserted in Scripture, and thankfully accepted by all his true Worshippers. But therefore to abandon all Ceremonies, would be at once to explode the Christian Religion, and banish the worship of God out of the world; that is, all external worship, which cannot possibly exist in actu exercito without the use of some such things as we have no better name for than Ceremonies.  
But of Ceremonies there are divers kinds, some of a Civil, others of a Religious use; with the first we have not to do at present. The Religious Ceremonies are either of Humane or Divine Institution and Original. The Humane are either Decretal or Traditional; the Decretal are such as on some pretence or other have received the stamp of humane Authority or Injunction, of which there are more than a good many; and in the rigid Imposition of which, Church-tyranny doth mainly consist. The Traditional are such as steal in, as other fashions do, without the midwifery of any Authority, Humane or Divine, and grow up with time into a custom or use, and are various according to the variety of Times and Places; and aught to be called in question by those that desire to preserve the Worship of God in its due chastity and integrity, and that dare not miscere sacra prophanis.  
Those of Divine Institution are either Judaical, or Evangelical. The Judaical are such as were appointed of God, and calculated for the Church and Polity of the Jews, and all died with it at the coming of the Gospel-ministration. The Evangelical Ceremonies are either natural or instituted. The natural either common or proper. The common natural ceremonies of Religion, are such as are equally used in Civil and in Religious matters, as bowing the knee, uncovering the head, and some other things which respect that civil order, reverence, and decency, which ought to be observed in the external (and especially in the public) worship of God. The proper are such as are not used but in the matters of Religion. The Instituted ceremonies of the Gospel strictly and properly taken in contradistinction to natural, and which are designed to be of perpetual use, are only the two Sacraments, unless perhaps we may add the Imposition of hands in Ordination. Tho' the Sacraments indeed are Ceremonies, and somewhat more, viz. Seals of the New Covenant; yet in a large sense even natural ceremonies, and matters of real decency and order, that is such things as are ex naturâ rei, pro hic & nunc, necessary hereunto, and acceptable in the Worship of God, are instituted too, i. e. commanded either implicitly or explicitly; for nothing offered by man, especially in Worship, which is not in obedience to God, by virtue of some command, is honourable or acceptable to God; but what God hath commanded, he hath thereby instituted.  
So then, the matter in hand will fall under the notion of a common, natural ceremony of Religion, pertaining to the Decency or Reverence of God's Worship in the public Assemblies of his Saints. And what authority it brings from the Supreme Lord and Lawgiver, we shall next inquire.   

CAP. I. Of Gospel-Worship.  
DIvine Worship (says Mr. W. Bradshaw) is internal only, or external also. Internal Worship is merely spiritual, and performed only within the temple of man's heart, of which none are witnesses but God and a man's own conscience. All the inward motions of the heart directed unto God, are parts of this Worship, as Faith, Hope, Confidence, Love, Fear, and Joy in God, etc. which are all of them divers acts and parts of inward worship, in every one of which God is honoured. All which spring from the apprehension of our own wants, and Gods infinite exeellency and goodness towards us. External Worship is an expressing and setting forth of the internal, by outward signs and rites, by which, as by outward bodily shadows and colours, the spiritual inward worship of God is made visible and sensible to others.  
The Internal Worship may be considered either as Habitual or Actual. As Habitual, and so we are bound to worship God at all times, the obligation holding both semper & ad semper. As Actual, and so we are bound to worship him on all occasions, the circumstances whereof make it a duty so to do. The External Worship is either public, domestic, or secret; in all which he ought to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, as becomes his superexcellent Greatness, and Infinite Holiness.  
As God is the Origin and Fountain, so he ought to be the Centre of all Honour and Reverence, and the immediate and only object of all Religious worship and adoration. And as Honour and Reverence is due to him at all times, so especially in his Worship. I will be sanctified in all that come nigh me, Leu. 10.3. And the more public the Worship is, the more strictly all kinds of Religious reverence are to be observed: And before all the people I will be glorified. Ibid. But the more private the duties of Worship are, the greater latitude is indulged in the external part, or signs of reverence and honour. For tho' these outward expressions, compositions, or gestures of the body, be the genuine effects of that inward reverence of the mind, and so due to the divine Majesty; yet it is with special reference unto men, that others may see how God is and aught to be feared of his Saints. So that such things which are necessary in public worship, are not always so necessary in private or secret; and that which a person finds to be most advantageous to the right performance of his worship in secret, may not be so expedient in public, because there is not the like reason in both.  
Though Gospel-worship be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Spiritual Worship, in opposition to the irrational Idolatries of the Gentiles, and the Corporeal Sacrifices and Services of the Jews; yet it is a worship of the Body, as well as of the Soul. And though bodily exercises profiteth little, without true Godliness; yet while we sojourn in the body, God expects that the body as well as soul and spirit be offered up to him, and bear its part in his Worship. But of this more hereafter.  
In God's Worship there must be nothing tendered up to God, but what we have (expressly or consequentally) warrant for from the Word of God; therefore to worship him in body or mind, any otherwise than he hath required, is to adulterate, or profane his Worship, and to offer strange fire, and exposes the Worshippers to his just indignation.  
In the matters of Worship, the jealous God stands upon little things; that is, what we, perhaps, call little, as modes and gestures, 
Leu. 10.2. Cap. 9.27.  and other circumstances, he calls great. Nadab and Abihu erred only in the place from which they took their fire to offer, which should have been taken from the Altar, where God himself first kindled the fire from Heaven, and we know what this cost them. 
2 Sam. 6.7. Num. 15.35.  Uzzah did but touch the Ark, and with an honest intention in the general, no doubt; but for this he must die. For a poor man to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath-day, might have seemed to us as no great matter; yet it was as much as his life was worth, the sentence proceeding from God himself. 
1 Sam. 6.19.  The Bethshemites did but look into the Ark, and they must pay for this, with the lives of fifty thousand threescore and ten men.  
Though God hath allowed Christians a greater latitude in his Worship, and hath not left them bound under the yoke of Levitical Rites and servitude; yet far be it from him to allow them to be irreverent in his Worship, this were to destroy his Worship; for Worship and Reverence are almost synonimous terms, and so are their opposites.  
Matters of external order, decency, or reverence in the Worship of God, may not be determined by the will of man, but by the Law of Scripture and Nature; else what superstitions and novelties may not men introduce into the Worship of God, under the displayed banners of pretended order, decency, or reverence, as sad experience hath been long witnessing?   

CHAP. II. Contains a brief Exposition of the Sixteen first Verses of 1 Cor. 11.  Vers. 1. BE ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 
Wherein you have these three things: 1. An Exhortation proposed. 2. The Duty limited. 3. An Argument, or encouragement insinuated. The Exhortation is general, Be ye followers of me. Which (perhaps) Janus-like, looks both forward and backward; and is a transition and connexion between this and the former Chapter. He was last exhorting them to give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God; even as he himself did please all men in all things, not seeking his own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. And now, Be ye followers of me herein. Thus as it looks backward. Next he minds them of their remembering him in all things, and keeping the Ordinances, as he had delivered to them; wherein he praises them, ver. 2. yet with a But, ver. 3. whereunto he very pertinently premises this Exhortation, Be ye followers of me. Intimating that though they had followed him in some things, for which he praises them; yet not in all; which made it necessary to remind them of the duty, Be ye followers of me, of my Doctrine, and of my Example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be ye imitaters of me, like me in all respects, as far as you may, in spirit, in judgement, in practice and behaviour. Not as Christ would have his Disciples imitate the Scribes and Pharisees: 
Mat. 23.3.  All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works, for they say and do not. But take ye me for your Pattern in conversation, as well as in Doctrine.  
But then, having stated their duty so largely, and foreseeing what ill use they might make of it, he scarce stays to make a comma, but in the same breath limits his words, and sets them their just bounds, even as I also am of Christ: q.d. Be not so foolish as to imitate me in my Infirmities, as Alexander's Parasite did him; and as many others have ridiculously done. This were indeed to mock me, which vanity hath given the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, its evil acceptation. Be not so apish as to force yourselves to an imitation of me in that which is naturally and ideopathice, peculiar to me, as in my tone, cast of my eyes, etc. these things are fit for Monkeys or Parrots, than for rational souls. Be not so wicked as to imitate me in my sins, wherein I transgress, or fail of my duty, nor hope that my example shall justify you in such things. Make me your Pattern, not your Idol; but follow me as far as I follow Christ. To the Philippians he expresses it in more words: Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you, Phil. 4.9. And more particularly in the former verse: Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. In these words I imitate Christ; and in these be ye followers of me. Thus is the duty limited. And then the argument or encouragement is insinuated; in so following me you do indeed follow Christ; I follow him, and you follow me, and so we follow him both. I am your Pattern but at second hand, as I may make him a little more intelligible and imitable. Christ the Original, I the Translation; Christ the Text, I the Comment. To imitate Christ is both safe and honourable; and this is all I aim at. It is far from my design to prosolyte you to a faction that you should be of Paul, or of Apollo's, or of Cephas; but to unite you all in the common centre, Christ. Hence I infer,  
Inf. 1. That the Ministers of Christ ought to be examples of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, in all things, wherein Christ is to be imitated; that they may be able boldly to say, Be ye followers of us.  
Inf. 2. That it is the duty of all Christian people to follow their faithful Guides in all things, wherein they follow Christ, and no further.  
Inf. 3. That in following the Doctrine and Examples of the Apostles, we follow the Lord Jesus Christ. And are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. 2.20.  Ver. 2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you. 
Wherein you have these two things expressed, 1. His Appellation, Brethren. 2. His Commendation; of which, 1. The Form, I praise you. 2. The Matter, That you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances, as I delivered them to you. The 3. is Latent and concealed, which is his Design, viz. to make way for his intended reproofs. The Appellation is full of sweetness and condescension. What an Honour is it, that these poor converted Gentiles should be owned as Brethren, by so eminent an Apostle of Jesus Christ: whereby he assures them of his love to them, his imposing no unnecessary things upon them, or Lording it over them, but serving in the same yoke of the Gospel with them, and their right to the same inheritance with him? The Commendation is full of Honour, Comfort and Prudence. Of Honour, as it came from an Apostle, and that not of the meanest note; and through him, from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Fountain of Honour. Their praise was of God, and not of man, full of Comfort, as it was a testimony and assurance, that they were so far right in their way to Heaven, and by Apostolical Approbation were confirmed in their hope. And full of Prudence, the aim of it being to encourage them in what was good, to insinuate into their affections; to make way for necessary and intended reproofs; and to remove the prejudices which might enervate the power and success of his Reprehensions; which seems to be his great design in it. In the Matter of his Commendations are these two things, 1. That they remembered him in all things. Sometimes by this Phrase, he signifies the remembrance of his wants, to supply them by their Charity, as 1 Thes. 3.6. But this is not likely to be his sense here, if we consider what he tells them 2 Cor. 11.7, and 9 though the Phrase indeed would seem to bear it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnia mea, all my affairs and concerns, and how I shall be provided for, and supplied in my Ministerial work. But I rather think that this was least in his thoughts; but that they remembered him in his Doctrine, Precepts, and Examples, what the had taught and left in charge with them to be observed; and how he had carried himself among them. 2. That they had kept the Ordinances as he had delivered them to them; that their remembrance was not only notional, but practical. They had observed and held fast, not only the Ordinances which he had delivered, but as he had delivered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Traditions in general, whether written or unwritten; all things that concerned them as a Christian Church, either in matters of Faith, Worship, Discipline, or Manners.  
Obj. But how can this large Commendation consist with this following reprehensions?  
Sol. 1. Either this must be restrained to the godly and sincere, who made it their business to walk in all things according to Apostolical institution or rules; or rather,  
2. It must be understood in connexion with the following exceptions. q. d. Ye have done well, and deserve praise in all things; holding fast the Ordinances of the Gospel for the main; only some few particulars I have to reprove you for, and endeavour to set you right in. Hence I infer,  
Inf. 1. That it is the duty and wisdom of all Christians, but especially of Ministers, to palliate their reproofs with all gentleness and deserved Commendations.  
Inf. 2. That all the people of God, however dignified or distinguished by God or man, are Brethren.  
Inf. 3. That all Apostolical Precepts and Traditions ought to be remembered and kept entire, according to their primitive Institution.  Ver. 3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and that the head of the Woman is the Man, and the head of Christ, is God. 
But; Now came his exceptions to his former general Commendations, q. d. I would gladly praise you in all things as far as ye are praiseworthy; But there are some things which I cannot pass without a reproof. I would have you know. Here he implicitly reproves their ignorance, and yet palliates the reproof, by laying the charge as low as possible he could. He doth not condemn them of presumption, or contempt, or wilful irreverence; but of weakness, and want of better instruction. Therefore he wisely gins to rectify them in the foundation of their error, and to set them right as to their Judgements; knowing that it is in vain to urge a reproof upon the Conscience, till the Judgement be informed. He doth not fall rudely upon them with hard words, or harder blows, to fright or club them into Conformity, but draws them with the Cords of a man, in that rational way, which is proper for rational Creatures. Doth not begin with the Affections, which is the way of the Devil and of the Beast; but with the Judgement, which is the surer way to fix them in what he is about to offer to them. That the head of every man is Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which denotes not the species, but the Sex; the Man spoken in opposition to the Woman; as both the word and the following Antithesis, do undeniably evince: Of every man, not restraining it to Christian men, as some do; but more generally, because all men, both in the Church and out of the Church, are put under this head Christ; though he be not head alike unto all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both these terms must be explained, and the last first. Christ, not as God (though so he be the head, not only of every man, but of every Creature) for this would not show that order of Subjection, or sacred Hierarchy (if I may so speak) which God hath placed in the mystical Body; which is the thing the Apostle intends: nor can it be taken so in the next use of the word in the same Verse; nor merely as Man, for so he neither performed any of his Offices, nor had all things put by the Father in subjection under him. But as Mediator, under which consideration, Relation and Capacity, the whole concern of the new Covenant is devolved upon him. The Head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This cannot be taken properly, but tropologically: and so he is the Head, either to every man in general, or in special, to every man that is related to him, as a member of his mystical body. In general, he is the head of every man. 1. In respect of Excellency and Dignity. Man, in respect of that Image, in which he was made, is the most excellent of all Gods sublunary Creatures. And Man, in respect of his Sex, more excellent than Woman; 
Psal. 45 2.  but Christ the most excellent of all men, Thou art fairer than the Children of men. 2. In respect of Inspection. The head is that which looks after, and provides for every part, and which manages all the concerns of the whole body; so doth Christ inspect all the affairs, counsels and transactions of the Children of men. 3. In respect of Domination. It is he that governs and rules all, who is exalted above all Principalites and Powers; and hath the Government on his shoulders, both in his Political and Spiritual Kingdom. Thus he is the Head of every man in general. In special, he is the Head of every man that is related to him, as a Member of his mystical Body; and that 1. In respect of Primogeniture. He is the firstborn among many Brethren. 2. In respect of Influence, both of vitality and activity, Eph. 4.15, 16. All the influences of Wisdom and Grace are from him 3. In respect of special Providence and Regency. It is he that foresee, provides and disposes of all, for the good, and according to the state and capacity of every member in his body.  
Quest. But why is he said to be the Head of every man? Is he not the Head of the Woman too, who are equally members of his body without, any distinction of Sex?  
Ans. The Answer is easy. 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 showing the order of the Superiority and Inferiority, which God hath instituted in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Frame or Fabric of the mystical body, wherein all the parts are sitly joined together and compacted in their several places and spheres; 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 than 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 suppressed, and all things secured, he is to return and deliver up this Commission to his Father, from whom he received it. This is the case here. 'Tis true, the Father rules now, but it is by the Son; but then this kind of Government, which is on the Sons shoulders, shall be laid aside. And this is the Subjection the Apostle here speaks of. Nor doth this deny the Eternity of Christ's 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 Viceroy 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 observed, 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. etc. 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 joined with praying; which two comprehend all the other Acts of God's solemn public 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 prophesying, is as much as to say, every man that is engaged in the public 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 aught to be uncovered in praying and prophesying; and so the dishonouring is but to a man's 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 man's being covered in the time of public worship, did only reflect dishonour upon his own head, and no one else concerned 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 entered it in sacred Writ. Were not God interessed in the case, it would be but a profane thing, and unworthy of the Divine Records. Therefore certainly there is some one more than man concerned 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 show us, as with a finger: what we are to understand by the head of the man here; for that's the position which he proceeds on, and improves in the following Discourse, and here fetches his Argument from? 'Tis a dishonour to Christ, who is the head of the man. The truth is, I know not where to seek a fuller and clearer Syllegism in all the Book of God, than this. The head of every man is Christ; Every man that prayeth or prophesyeth with his head covered, 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 joined 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 engaged in the solemn public 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 shaved. 
Here we have the duty of the Woman, which lies diametrically opposite to that of the Man. For the different Sexes, 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 public 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, etc. 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 herself. 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 badge 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 Man's Authority and Dominion. Whom then doth she dishonour, but the Man; while she thus exalts herself? As the Child is said to dishonour his Father in denying him due Reverence. 'Tis true, 'tis a sinful and shameful thing for any one to deny the honour that is due to a Superior, the shame reflects upon himself; and so it doth upon the Woman in this case. But it is the Man that is the immediate object of the dishonour, though she be the Subject of it. 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 than 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 shaved. If she be uncovered of her ordinary artificial covering, and therein change modes with the Man, and do that which is the Man's proper duty to do; she were even as good put away her natural covering too, and be clipped or shaved, 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 herself like a Man, is a sin; & vice versa.  
Inf. 2. That for a Woman to have her head uncovered in the solemn public 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 shaved, 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 Countries 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 shaved, it is a shame to be uncovered in the Worship of God; But it is a shame for a Woman to be shorn or shaved: Erg. The Major he had proved in the former verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for that is even all one, as if she were shaved. It is as shameful for the Woman to be uncovered, as it would be to be shaved 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 busy Critic or other, perhaps, may ask me, Why the Apostle uses both these words here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shorn or shaved, and whether they be exegetical serving only to explain one another; I say no; because they signify two things. The one is to clip or shear, as men do with Scissors; the other to shave as with a Razor. By these two words than he expresses both the usual ways of taking off the hair, either from the head or face. This than 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 God's Worship, is as shameful a thing, as for a Woman to be trimmed head and face with Scissors or Razor, as a man is. Another Question will be, On whom this shame reflects? And 'tis quickly answered: As it is a sin in general, it reflects many ways. There is no sin but reflects shame and guilt upon the sinner; so the Woman shames herself, 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 inquire, is, Who the the immediate Object of this shame or dishonour is? and when I have asked 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 Man's 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 acquaint 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 mops up his head, and face and all; but as for any other covering, as Hat, or Cap, or Bonnet, etc. which doth not hid 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 antic 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 choose on purpose, that it might reach all kinds of acquired Cover, 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, than all those Women sin, that dare once show their faces in the public 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 woe 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 blindfold herself, 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 Masterpiece 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 pre-eminence 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 covered 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 owes 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. 'Tis true, God ought to have been worshipped in Innocency, and the Woman was even then inferior to the Man; but there was then no need nor use of veils, till by the fall, sin and shame required it.  
3. That the Woman was put in greater subjection to the Man after the fall, than she was before, is evident from Gen. 3.16. Thy desire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall rule over thee; which was more than ever he had said before. And in testimony of this subjection, it is rational to conclude, that there was some token given perpetually to be observed; that the Woman might always 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 thyself, and under whose Protection thou shouldest have hid thyself, 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 testify the Woman's subjection and inferiority to the Man, ver. 3, 6, 7, 10. So then the covering of the head is, and aught 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. We never find that God or Nature did so appoint the Man to signify 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 signify the subjection and reverence that is due from the Woman to the Man; and therefore unworthy to be used as a token of that which man owes to God. Though a universal subjection of soul and body be due to God, and all possible Reverence and Devotion, yet it must be expressed by such outward tokens as God appoints. Man is God's glory, the Woman is Man's; but gloria Dei revelanda est, gloria autem hominis occultanda, velari ergo debet mulier, non vir. God's Glory must be open and revealed, but man's Glory (especially having forseited it by harkening to the Woman) must be covered and veiled; therefore the Woman ought to be covered, not the Man.  
3. Should the same Symbol 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 Symbol.  
Quer. And here, perhaps, some body or other may start another Query; Whether the Woman 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 Woman, 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 Countries, and among some people) in civilibus, between man and man.  
To conclude this verse then, we have here the Apostles Argument (both for the Man's being uncovered, and the Woman's being covered; for what proves one, proves both) from the Creation in General. The Man is the Image and Glory of God, the Woman the Image and Glory of the Man; therefore this difference in external habit or attire, aught to be observed, when they appear before their Maker to worship him.  
Ob. Yet once more; Was not the Woman 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 form of God immediately, the Woman 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 Woman is called the weaker Vessel.  
3. And which is most to the purpose. The Man was made in the Image of God's Superintendency and Dominion; 
Vir operiens caput, non seipsum modo, sed ctiam Deum ded●corat. Synop. in loc.  but so was not the Woman. 'tis true, she shares in the Dominion over the Creatures, but it is with, and by, and under the Man. Wherhfore 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 Man's natural Right and Glory, and the loss of it his shame.  
Inf. 3. That the reason of the Man's being uncovered, and of the Woman's being covered in sacred actions, is founded on that order of Superiority and inferiority, which God hath by Creation established 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, than 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 aught 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 convey 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 pre-eminence. Hence I infer,  
Inf. 1. That priority of being is a natural privilege, which claims Reverence and Respect.  
Inf. 2. That to whom we any way own our Being's, we own our Obedience.  Ver. 9 Neither was the Man created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man. 
Here he carries on his Amplification from the end of the Creation. 'Twas for the Man's 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 aught always to be acknowledged a superior 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 profane 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 Commonwealths, 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 Domestic Government upon the hands of a Woman, as often it doth, she not only may, but aught 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 God's 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 aught: 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 badge and token of Desolation. So here the power, that is, the veil or covering, the token of the Man's 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 than 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 Man's 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 Woman's Reverence, as was said before.  
Ob. But is not this to patronise an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshipping of Angels?  
Ans. No more than the other did patronise 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 testify 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 aught 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 Worship.  
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 always prompting to evil, and taking all occasions to that end; therefore the Women ought to be veiled, 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. 'Tis true, 'tis an horrible, heathenish, shameful wickedness for any Woman to attire herself 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 intent this sort of Angels here, seems not very probable; because then, it's likely, he would have called them Devils or evil Angels, as they are always called by some such name, when they are spoken of in Scripture, as Instruments of evil.  
Those that will rather take the word figuratively, refer it either to Men, or to God himself.  
1. To Men, so indeed we find the word often used for the Priests and Prophets of the Lord, the Governors of the Church, and Preachers of the Gospel, Mal. 2.7. The Priest's 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 Governors 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, etc. 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 herself 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 grudge 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 Man's Authority, and the Woman's 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 conjoined 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 joined 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; 'tis 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 rigour with all the sweetening Considerations we can.  Ver. 13. Judge in yourselves, 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, than 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 redeemed from the ruins and dregs of the most savage barbarism, as to have any natural sentiments of what is comely or uncomely. Judge in yourselves. Here his Rhetoric and his Logic meet together, both to convince and persuade. He will force them to yield the Argument, or forfeit their Judgement and Reason. Is it comely: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is it a handsome 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 Woman's part?  
Ans. 1. Because the Man's part is necessarily understood, and concluded from it.  
2. He chooseth 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 itself, as in the natural consequences of it. His Argument then will be reduced 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 fancies 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 itself, and in its proper place, use and season, is not so in the Worship of God; much less can that be comely in God's Worship, which is not 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 God's Worship, where the greatest Reverence and Decency is required. 'Tis true, those things which God hath particularly appropriated to his Worship, may not be profaned by a common use; though we may not say, such things are ugly out of God's Worship, yet the profanation 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 God's 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 doctrine the Commandments of men. That which hath but Man's Authority in God's 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 God's Indignation against this thing, is, that he had not commanded it, Hes. 5.11. Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgement, because be willingly walked after the commandment. And what Commandment was this? Be sure 'twas none of Gods; then they would not so willingly have walked after it; nor would God have been offended at their walking so. It must needs be some commandment of men. Most Interpreters understand it of the Commandment of Jeroboans, who made Israel to sin by his own idolatrous Inventions and Additions to the Worship of God; yet doubtless the Inventor 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, Expressly, or Consequentially.  
1. Expressly, 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, reverend 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 itself 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. 'Tis strange to see what a coil 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 Woman's, but the Text itself, 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 Crowd 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 itself, 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 choose, and how to make a right Judgement, 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 clipped 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 carelessly 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 man's 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 Woman's 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 changed, 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 Man's neglect of himself in indifferent and trivial matters; a shame which hath not its soundation so much in the thing itself, as in the opinion of those that judge it to be shame, as was the case of David's 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 Samson, 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 Lawgiver may dispense 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, outrun 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, laudable ornament to the other; and the Reason follows, for her hair is given her for a covering. And who gave it her for a covering, but he that gave her her hair and her being too? 'Tis true, he that gave hair to the Woman, gave the like to the Man; but not to this end, or for this use; Not that this covering is enough for the Woman (though it had been enough to answer its end, as a symbol of her subjection to the Man, had she abode in innocency) but this shows that her head ought to be covered proportionably, as all her other parts are, and the head especially; because vature itself 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 yourselves, 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 public 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 accoutred 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 truth's 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 form 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 proved, 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 stiffly 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, 'tis but a frivolus thing; if any one seems he hath any thing to object, I have done; 'tis a business that is not worth the arguing; any one may do as he seems best, whatever I have said to the contrary. Certainly, if this had been his mind, he had done much better, both for the Church's peace, and his own credit, to have took his pen and scratched 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 custom; 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 will 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, aught 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 God's solemn public Worship, is a disorderly, irreverent, uncomely, unnatural, shameful, schismatical, antiapostolical and unchristianlike 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 explicit signs and demonstrations of Reverence and Veneration, which are proper to both. For ye are bought with a price, therefore glorify 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 itself; 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 God's Worshippers, with her head uncovered, or attired after the manner of the Man, is a very uncomely and unchristianlike 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 extremes 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 profane irreverence, and contempt of God's Ordinance, to be otherwise. Though indeed there be some, who of late have learned 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 show 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 fantastical fashion was first learned, 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 allege thus, That it is in itself a matter of indifferency, and to be determined by the custom 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 Man's Conscience, upon pain of Damnation; yet that it is a matter of meey indifferency, I utterly deny; which if it be not already sufficiently proved, 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 loath to have their ill manners corrected; pray have us excused; thus and thus we have been used to do, and are ashamed now to do otherwise. 'Tis indeed a hard matter to teach an old Tretter to p●●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 observed 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 aught 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 than had he miserably bassied 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 justify 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 custom of the Apostolical and Primitive Churches.  
Ob. 2. Others object, That the Reformed Churches in other Countries observe no such thing, but generally practise the contrary in their Assemblies; but if it were a duty, why should not they practise 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 inquire. 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 judgements 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. 'Tis true, 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 carcase without life; the badge of Formality, the cloak of Hypocrisy. But yet that bodily exercise which is joined with the inward Spiritual Exercise, Veneration, Affection and sincere Devotion of the soul, and is properly and aptly expressive of it, is both profitable and acceptable. The case is the same as that of St. James, between Faith and Works; either being alone is dead and unprofitable (that is, where both are required) but in conjunction they are amiable and absolutely necessary to the right performance of the duty.  
3. If it be unnecessary, because a bodily exercise, than all bodily exercise must be condemned, by the same Law, as unnecessary in the Worship of God. The giving of Alms, the visiting the Sick, the going to hear, the using of the voice in Prayer, Preaching, Singing, Hearing, Reading, Conference, and the like; or the bowing the knee before God, and many other things, are all but bodily exercises; and if therefore unnecessary, this will at once throw all the visible worship of a Deity out of the world, and turn it into mere Atheism. But,  
4. God hath required us to glorify him with our bodies, as well as with our Spirits, 1 Cor. 6.20. and on this account, because both are Gods; both are his, and by both he will be worshipped. Nay our bodies as well as our souls, are the members of Christ, ver. 15. and the Temple of the Holy Ghost, ver. 19 therefore it were very impious to deny him the Worship of both. But this is more than enough for so triffing an Objection.  
Ob. 4. Others there be that will allow it to be necessary, by the Rules of Decency and Reverence, to be uncovered in prayer, and in singing and perhaps in reading of the Scriptures too, but not in preaching: And their reason is, because in preaching we have not the pure word of God, but mixed with men's own private opinions and improvements.  
Ans. 1. The truth is, I cannot but blush to look upon the wickedness of this Argument; and the more, that any men of sobriety and learning should own it. It's a sign the cause is bad, when such poor shifts are made to uphold it. But  
2. As for the venting of men's private opinions in their preaching. I answer thus; 1. So they may, and often do in their praying too; and yet it seems the Argument will not be allowed in that Ordinance, though the reason of the Argument be the same. 2. Either those private opinions which they vent are true or false; if they are true, then are they one where or other expressly or consequentially contained in the Scriptures, and so are a part of the sense of Scripture, and the very mind and will of God; though it may be impertinently applied. If they be false, they ought to be reproved, and disciplined according as such errors do deserve. But it is an hard case, if there be no other way to correct another's impertinencies or extravagancies, but by our own irreverence and indecencies.  
3. I would know what other reason can be given, why men should be uncovered in time of praying or singing, etc. but this, because it is the Ordinance of God, whose Worship we are bound to reverence both with body and soul. If this be not the reason, I would fain learn what it is. And if so, I would as willingly understand by what Rule in Divinity it is found, that preaching is not altogether as much God's Ordinance, as praying, or singing, or any other. For my own part I ever took Preaching to be the great Ordinance of the Gospel; for I never heard that Christ sent forth his Apostles to sing, or to pray; though these indeed be included as parts of his Worship, but always sent expressly to preach; the Denomination of their office being taken a Majori. Now if one Ordinance be to be reverenced, because it is sacredly instituted, shall another which is more expressly instituted, be profaned as unholy? In prayer and singing, we speak to God, or of God; in Preaching God speaks to us: is there not as great a Reverence due, when God speaks to us, as when we speak to him? Shall I speak to my Prince uncovered, but as soon as my tale is out, clap on my Hat while he speaks to me, as if I owed the honour to my own words, not to his? Methinks the bare mention of such unavoidable absurdities, should be enough to make the frivolous Objectors blush.  
4. It seems very strange and audacious, that Preaching should be excluded, while the Apostle himself hath expressly joined it with Praying; I wonder out of what arbitrary Court this Bill of divorce first issued, for the putting asunder what God had joined together; or how it came to pass, that prophesying hath so forfeited its Honour! What hath Preaching done, that the Greeks scorn it, as foolishness and babbling? The Jews look on it as a stumbling-block; and Christians themselves so degrade it and rob it of its due Reverence and respect? what hath preaching done to deserve this? Why! it hath beaten down the strong holds of the Devil in the World, and erected the Kingdom and Sceptre of the Lord Jesus Christ; and for this will the Devil be revenged on it, as he is able; because he cannot banish it out of the World, he will pour what contempt he can upon it. But it is sad, that such as call themselves Professors, should be his Instruments in so cursed a Design.  
Ob. 5. Others, it seems, argue after this fashion: This uncovering of the head in Divine Worship, is a thing that hath been so abused, and rested in by a company of dead Formalists, and so zealously affected by such as dote on foolish and superstitious Ceremonies, that to show our dislike of their ways, we think it expedient to act contrary to them in this thing also, and not to symbolise with their Superstitions.  
Ans. Had I not heard it from some that pretended to sobriety, I could not have expected such an Objection from any but a madman. For,  
1. By this Rule we must cast off every thing that belongs to the external Worship of God; yea, and the Worship itself too, because it hath been abused by such as are formal and superstitious. To argue the unlawfulness or inexpediency of a thing, from the abuse of it, would make mad work in the world; for what good thing is there, that hath not been by some or other abused?  
2. As for such things as are of our own device and appointment in the Worship of God, for the more orderly and profitable performance of it; if any thing of that nature, in length of time, come to be generally abused, and lose their first end and use, and cannot be restored to their true intention and service, it is expedient to lay them aside, and to supply the defect by that which is more proper to reach the good end; and by this measure all humane institutions ought to be dealt with. But the matter in question is no Humane, but a Divine institution, and that express; therefore he that will cut this off from the public Worship of God, had need first to cut it out of his Bible.  
3. To rest in the bare external and outward Ceremonies of Worship, is gross formality; and for a man to pray or 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 myself into the guilt of irreverence, to escape the contagion of another's formality? This is the Devils work, to hurry men from one extreme 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 show my dislike of superstitious men? God forbidden, I will rather bless God for any thing that is right in those, that in other things I descent 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 showed before. Therefore he doth not absolutely forbid all covering, but only that which is inconsistent with that Reverence which we own 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 cover, as Wigs or Caps; which may be in the stead of the natural, so that the fantastical 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 wigs, or Caps, and all, in compliment to one another; this would be a acquaint 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 God's 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 extreme to another, upon that fall of Episcopal Ceremonies, which was in England almost forty years ago; since which time especially, this piece of profanity hath obtained 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 Nonconforming, 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 observed, as their Patterns in it; yea, some have adventured to reprove it publicly too; though the capricious humours of the people have kicked at it; and such as think themselves wiser than their Teachers, have made ill use of it, and been ready to show what fantastical 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 judgement 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 another Quarrel about his Worship, Mal. 1.8. Offer it now unto thy Governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? If the best that we have, must be taken for an offering to a Governor 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 Supreme Governor 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 fantastical Gestures, and acquaint Goggles into the Worship of God, which are used in men's 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 Governor.  
2. There are Ceremonies in God's 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, etc. which signify the Reverence that is due to God in his solemn Worship, and yet the same Ceremony is lawfully used also toward the Magistrate; so that though it be in itself a civil Ceremony, yet in the Worship of God it is sacred. And yet for all this it doth not follow, that all civil Ceremonies are so; but only such as God, by the Law of Scripture or Nature, hath made necessary or proper to express the inward Reverence and Worship of the mind by.  
3. Both Scripture and Nature (as hath been showed before) hath claimed this Ceremony in question, as due to God's solemn Worship; therefore it is a Wickedness to neglect it. Now the Argument runs thus: If Reverence be due to the presence of a Magistrate, much more is it due to God, whom he doth but represent, and by whom it is that he rules; and if those external shadows and signs of Reverence, which Nature and Custom hath made proper to signify the Reverence of the mind by, be due to a Creature, much more is that which God and Nature hath made proper to express it by, due to God; Or, if you will, thus: The Worship that we offer unto God, must be performed, as in the presence of that God whom we worship (unless we hope to go behind his back to Worship him) therefore if his visible presence would make us to be uncovered, his spiritual and invisible presence should do no less. Yea, Christ is visibly present in his Ordinances, though not personally, yet Representatively, as the King is in all his Courts of Judicature by his Officers that represent him; so that what is done in the presence of Christ's Ordinances and Officers, is done in his presence. And if by the Angels, 1 Cor. 11.10. we are to understand the Messengers of the Gospel, (as some will have it) than this is but the same Argument which the Apostle here urges, and must be allowed.  
2. Let every one that yet resolves to be of a contrary practice in this particular, consider how he can be assured, that he doth not sin in it. If it be matter of duty to be uncovered, than it is sin to be covered; and if it be sin, it can be no little sin (were there any such thing) it being an irreverent profanation of God's solemn Worship, of which the Holy God is always wont to be so very jealous. If it be such a sin, and wilfully persisted in after admonition, with what confidence can such Worshippers hope for acceptance with God? or indeed to escape his just vengeance? And who is there that would not tremble thus to mock and dare the Almighty? Therefore the only way is to tell us, as they do, that this is no matter of Duty, but of Liberty; and thus the Question is easily answered, when it is well proved. We will not trouble our Brains at present, to conjecture by what unheard-of Medium they are ever like to make it probable; but rather advise the Objectors to consider, whether their security be such, as they dare venture the wrath of God, the loss of all their religious Duties, and of their souls too, upon it. They suppose it to be a matter of liberty; it is their Opinion; yet they hear there is something to be said against it, and therefore but an Opinion and questionable; yea, they find some that are as confident, that it is a matter of Duty. We no where find it commanded to be covered, but here expressly forbidden by the Apostle, if we understand him aright. Well! we will suppose the case to be doubtful, and the Question shall be, which is the safer way; for in dubiis tutior pars est eligenda. Will any one that hath any regard to his soul, judge it safer to adventure upon a supposed Liberty (and that in so easy a task as uncovering the head) which is not where asserted in Scripture? or to comply with that which seems (though it did but seem) to be an express command? If it be matter of Liberty, than there is no sin on either hand. But what if this supposition should be found false at last, and the great Judge determine against it? Where are the forward Objecters then? surely he is worse than a mad man that will adventure his soul at so cheap a rate.  
3. That which doth necessarily and per se, bring the Ordinances of God into contempt, must needs be a very great evil; but for the Man to have his head covered in any part of the public Worship of God, is that which doth necessarily and per se, bring the Ordinances of God into contempt. Erg. I hope the Major will pass for Orthodox in any part of the World, whether Christian, Jewish, or Pagan. And I doubt not but the Minor will be proved to be altogether as true. Preaching is the Ordinance, and the great Ordinance of God; but this Ordinance it doth necessarily and per se bring into contempt. What is that keeps up the Honour and Credit of any thing in the World, but that visible respect and reverence that is paid it in the sight of men? The uncovering of the head is the great visible sign and token of Reverence; if this than be denied, how is the Reverence signified? And if there be no visible Reverence, what follows but visible contempt? and that as necessarily as darkness follows when light is gone. In vain is it to talk of the inward spiritual Reverence of the mind. For 1. where there is indeed this holy Principle, and good frame of Spirit within, it will naturally seek for vent, and express itself before men, in such ways, and by such means, as are commonly used, and taken to be the aptest and most proper to express it by. 2. Where there is this inward Reverence of the soul, it will seek (as all other gracious habits do) to propagate itself to others. He that loves and sears God, would have all others to love and fear him too; and he that reuerences God's Ordinances, would that all others should do the like; and therefore will be zealous and forward to teach and encourage them so to do by his example, as well as precept. But now who will say or believe that such a one doth reverence God's Ordinance, when they see no more sign of Reverence than if he were only among his fellows, or about his ordinary business in the World? and by this means others also are taught, not only to behave themselves with the same irreverence, and so run into the same guilt; but, which is worse, to have slight and base thoughts of God's Ordinance, yea, and of God himself too, who hath appointed it. When the Honour of an Ordinance is lost, the saving power of it is lost, and so becomes to the wicked a matter of scorn. So that besides the wrong that is done to God, how great is the wrong that is hereby done to souls! perhaps this hath not been the least thing that hath helped to bring both Preaching and Preachers into contempt in these our licentious days, while the elder sort have taught their children to behave themselves with less reverence in God's presence, than Parents or Masters will allow them in theirs. What more effectual course could be taken to breed up a new Generation of Scorners, and to join issue with the Devil, to banish the Authority of preaching from among men? that it should be the interest of any people so to do, is very strange!   

CHAP. V Concludes all with a serious and short address to the Non conforming Brethren, both Ministers and People.  
I Shall now shut up this Discourse (wherein I doubt I have not been very welcome to some of my Readers) with a few words to my Brethren, both Ministers and People.  
1. To those that are in the Ministry. Reverend and Dear Sirs! It is notoriously known, what hard things our Mother's Children, that are angry with us for not complying with all their imposing-humours in sacred things, have been long charging us with, and filling the ears of Authority with their harsh Declaiming against us, as a company of heady, highminded, schismatical, self-willed, and ungovernable Creatures; as if we were such as pleased not God, and were contrary to all men. And very uneasy it would be to bear it, did not the Conscience of our simplicity make it light. But while we talk of Conscience, and think to bear ourselves upon the Gospel-rights and Privileges of it, we do but abuse ourselves, and harden them; and prostitute the very name of Conscience to open contempt, while we plead Conscience to justify our Disobedience in the case of a sew harmless (as they say) and grey headed Ceremonies; and yet make no Conscience of that open profanity and irreverence, which the very light of Nature would teach the poor Heathens to condemn and abhor in their Worship. Partiality in the matters of Conscience, is one of the greatest Scandals and Reproaches of Religion, and that which gives the Adversary the greatest advantage.  
— pudet haec opprobria nobis,  
Et dici potuisse, & non potuisse refelli.  
I have long wished for a Rebuke to this irreverent, unscriptural practice, from some graver, and more venerable hand or other; For I said, days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But I have not found any that have hitherto meddled in this matter. And perhaps I shall be censured too, for being busier than doth become me; but that (as far as it respects myself) shall be put on the private score, and be one of my least concerns; yet this is that which is my defence. The Apostle himself hath spent no less than 16. Verses upon the case before me; and I have not spent half so many sheets. If then I must pass for a Trifler, let it be because I have said no more, or said it no better; which fault, I hope some wiser man or other will shortly mend; and I shall patiently submit to any reasonable Correction.  
Sirs! when I hear that voice of God himself to his Servant Moses, from Exod. 3.5. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground; and the same to Joshua too, Josh. 5.15. I dare not make light of the external signs of Reverence in the special presence of the holy One, who hath declared, that he will be sanctified of all that come nigh to him. What was it that made those places holier than others, but God's special presence there, which alone was able to consecrate it? I do not think that one place is holier under the Gospel, than another, with what pompous Ceremonies soever men may pretend to consecrate it; nor that there is any Reverence due to one place more than to another, on the account of its supposed Consecration; but God's Ordinances, I am sure, are as holy as ever they were; and God is as much to be reverenced as ever. Holy and Reverend is that name of his, which he will never change. The uncovering of the feet was among some people a token of Reverence and Subjection, and used in sacris; whence they had their Nudipedalia sacra: and in token of their Reverence and Homage, this Ceremony was religiously observed. The uncovering of the head is with us a token of the same thing; therefore by a parity of reason, is due to Divine Worship. Is it not a shameful thing, and hard to be born by any that are tender of God's Honour, to see how every ill-mannered Boy, and daring Youth, that neither regard nor understand their Duty to God or Man, rush into the presence of the great Jehovah, with that wanton levity and unconcernedness, as if they were come about some of their own Puerilia, their Games and Sports; and behave themselves with that bold irreverence, which would be thought intolerable in the presence of their Superiors? as if the places of God's public Worship were the allowed theatres of Profanity, and rudest Liberty? And for all this, they will plead the toleration, yea, the example of their Seniors. Pudet haec opprobria, etc.  
Now Sirs! the guilt of this is charged on us, who are their Teachers. And the truth is, I know not how we can clear our selves, either to God or Man, without our utmost and faithful endeavours to remedy it; which now will be the more difficult, because by our long silence we have encouraged and settled them in it. But seeing the difficulty is much of our own procuring, this should be so far from discouraging, that it should quicken us to more. How can we expect that God shall bless his word in our mouths, while we can see it thus dishonoured, and be silent? And what though you may expect the unjust Censures and Frowns of some of your froward Hearers? it is not for the Messengers of the Lord of Hosts to fear the displeasure of men. Nay, in the discharge of your Duty, you have not only the peace of your own Consciences, but the promise of God's blessing. God may subdue men's wills to the obedience of the truth, beyond what you expect. For my own part, I bless God for the success I have had, and that with very little labour, and which hath encouraged me to recommend it unto others. And what if your Congregations should be the thinner? a handful of humble, serious, reverend Worshippers, are better than a multitude of proud, rude, profane, fantastical ones. Nor will this weaken the Interest you should uphold; a few that lap, are a safer guard, and surer of victory, than a whole Army of such as God doth not choose. Nor need you fear of making more Divisions, or raising fires among those, whose interest it is, especially at such a time, to be united. 'Tis men's lusts and imperious wills that make Divisions, and not God's Law, nor the zealous pressing of Duty. As for those that will departed on such a score, let them departed; we need them no more than the Wheat doth need the Chaff in the floor, or the good Figs needeth the bad. I know no good such Worshippers do in an Assembly, but hinder Prayers. God is now refining us, and let us be refined. But perhaps all these fears may be but false suggestions of the evil one, who is so pelased to see holy things profaned. For my own part, I can testify, that I have found the quite contrary of these fears. But I must consider to whom I am speaking. Pardon, Dear Sirs! this plainness and liberty of Speech. Verbum sat sapienti. I will say no more, I could say no less.  
2. To the people; If I have not yet answered all your Objections, I wish I knew them, that I might endeavour to answer them; but if I have answered them, I hope you will be persuaded. Sirs! Perhaps you still look on the matter I have been now employed in, as a small thing; and truly were it not that, wherein the Honour of God's Worship and Ordinances were interessed, it would for me pass for a small thing. Can we secure the glory of God, by taking the contempt to ourselves, it should be as little a thing, as you would have it to be. But alas! these arrows of scorn fly over our heads, and wound that which is above us. Oh Sirs! take heed, you have to do with a jealous God, and in a matter wherein his jealousy hath always been most tender. Never tell me of any awe or reverence you have upon your hearts, while I see no visible signs of Reverence to attest it. Judge in yourselves; is it a comely thing, that the Messengers of Christ that stand in his stead to you, and come on his message, and represent his person, should stand bare before you, (as indeed we ought to do) and you sit upon your seats covered, as if ye were set there to be our Judges, not our Hearers? as if we stood to beg your approbation, and not to teach, and admonish, and reprove you? Sirs! the credit of our Ministry is not ours, but Christ's; therefore we are bound to magnify our Office. Are we your Teachers? are not you then our Scholars? Shall the Master read his Lectures bare, and every Boy in the School be covered? Would this be a decent sight? But that which is not decent in Morality, is much more indecent in Religion. I confess I am ashamed that the World should know, that any of those that call themselves Christians, and Professors, should need so much ado to be reduced to Reverence and good Manners in the Worship of their God. Methink I would bespeak you, as the Servants of Naaman did their Master, 2 King. 5.13. If the Prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith unto thee, wash and be clean? If the Lord should bid you sell your Possessions, and lay down the price at your Teacher's feet; if he shall call you to mingle your Blood with your Sacrifices, will you not do it? how much rather than when he bids you to be uncovered in his Worship? Certainly he that will not uncover his head for-Christ, will hardly part with his head for him. 'Tis true, some will rather part with their blood, than with their ill humours; but with such Sacrifices God is not well-pleased. And now Reader! having thus briefly, in the name of Christ advertised thee, I shall leave thee to consider it; expecting either thy Obedience, or thy Reasons to the contrary. I shall 〈◊〉 all with the words of the Apostle, Heb. 12.28, 29. Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire.  
— siquid novisti rectius istis  
Candidus imperti, si non, his utere mecum.  
FINIS.