Essay on Head Coverings, Essay · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Contains a brief Expoſition of the Sixteen firſt Verſes of 1 Cor. 11.
Verſ. 1. BE ye followers of me, even as I alſo am of Chriſt.
Wherein you have theſe three things: 1. An Exhortation propoſed. 2. The Duty limited. 3. An Argument, or incouragement inſinuated. The Exhortation is general, Be ye followers of me. Which (perhaps) Janus-like, looks both forward and backward; and is a 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 remembring him in all things, and keeping the Ordinances, as he had delivered to them; wherein he praiſes them, ver. 2. yet with a But, ver. 3. whereunto he very 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, foreign, Be ye imitaters of me, like me in all reſpects, as far as you may, in ſpirit, in judgment, in practice and behaviour. Not as Chriſt would have his Diſciples imitate the Scribes and Phariſees: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 foreign, its evil acceptation. Be not ſo apiſh as to force your ſelves to an imitation of me in that which is naturally and ideopathice, peculiar to me, as in my tone, caſt of my eyes, &c. theſe things are fitter for Monkeys or Parrots, than for rational ſouls. Be not ſo wicked as to imitate me in my ſins, wherein I tranſgreſs, or fail of my duty, nor hope that my example ſhall juſtifie you in ſuch things. Make me your Pattern, not your Idol; but follow me as far as I follow Chriſt. To the Philippians he expreſſes it in more words: Thoſe things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and ſeen in me, do; and the God of peace ſhall be with you, Phil. 4.9. And more particularly in the former verſe: Whatſoever things are true, whatſoever things are honeſt, whatſoever things are juſt, whatſoever things are pure, whatſoever things are lovely, whatſoever things are of good report; if there be any vertue, and if there be any praiſe, think on theſe things. In theſe words I imitate Chriſt; and in theſe be ye followers of me. Thus is the duty limited. And then the argument or encouragement is 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 Apollos, or of Cephas; but to unite you all in the common center, Chriſt. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That the Miniſters of Chriſt ought to be examples of the believers in word, in converſation, in charity, in ſpirit, in faith, in purity, in all things, wherein Chriſt is to be imitated; that they may be able boldly to ſay, Be ye followers of us.
Inf. 2. That it is the duty of all Chriſtian people to follow their faithful Guides in all things, wherein they follow Chriſt, and no further.
Inf. 3. That in following the Doctrine and Examples of the Apoſtles, we follow the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. And are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner-ſtone, Eph. 2.20.
Ver. 2. Now I praiſe you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as I delivered them to you.
Wherein you have theſe two things expreſt, 1. His 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 condeſcention. 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 remembred 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, foreign omnia mea, all my affairs and concerns, and how I ſhall be provided for, and ſupplied in my Miniſterial work. But I rather think that this was leaſt in his thoughts; but that they remembred him in his Doctrine, Precepts, and Examples, what the had taught and left in charge with them to be obſerved; and how he had carried himſelf among them. 2. That they had kept the Ordinances as he had delivered them to them; that their remembrance was not only notional, but practical. They had obſerv'd and held faſt, not only the Ordinances which he had delivered, but as he had delivered them foreign, the Traditions in general, whether written or unwritten; all things that concern'd 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 remembred and kept intire, 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 praiſe-worthy; But there are ſome things which I cannot paſs without a reproof. I would have you know. Here he implicitely 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 begins to rectifie them in the foundation of their error, and to ſet them right as to their Judgments; knowing that it is in vain to urge a reproof upon the Conſcience, till the Judgment be informed. He doth not fall rudely upon them with hard words, or harder blows, to fright or club them into Conformity, but draws them with the Cords of a man, in that rational way, which is proper for rational Creatures. Doth not begin with the Affections, which is the way of the Devil and of the Beaſt; but with the Judgment, which is the ſurer way to fix them in what he is about to offer to them. That the head of every man is Chriſt, foreign, 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. foreign, both theſe terms muſt be explained, and the laſt firſt. Chriſt, not as God (though ſo he be the head, not only of every man, but of every Creature) for this would not ſhew that order of Subjection, or ſacred Hierarchie (if I may ſo ſpeak) which God hath placed in the myſtical Body; which is the thing the Apoſtle intends: nor can it be taken ſo in the next uſe of the word in the ſame Verſe; nor meerly as Man, for ſo he neither perform'd any of his Offices, nor had all things put by the 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, foreign. 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 firſt-born 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 fore-ſees, provides and diſpoſes of all, for the good, and according to the ſtate and capacity of every member in his body.
Queſt. But why is he ſaid to be the Head of every man? Is he not the Head of the Woman too, who are equally members of his body without, any diſtinction of Sex?
Anſ. The Anſwer is eaſie. He is indeed the Head of his Church, which is his body, Eph. 5.23. Coloſ. 1.18. in which the Woman is comprehended, as well as the Man. But (as I ſaid) the Apoſtle is here ſhewing the order of the Superiority and Inferiority, which God hath inſtituted in that foreign, the Frame or Fabrick of the myſtical body, wherein all the parts are ſitly joyned together and compacted in their ſeveral places and ſphears; ſo that in reſpect of order, Chriſt is the immediate Head of the Man, and Man the immediate Head of the Woman; but mediately or immediately, Chriſt is the Head of both. And the Head of the Woman is the Man. By this time I preſume there can be no great knot to untie here. We have another ſuch Propoſition as this, Eph. 5.23. The Husband is the Head of the Wife.
Q. Now perhaps ſome one or other may think it worth his while to demand, Whether Man or Woman in the Text, be juſt the ſame as Husband and Wife here?
Anſ. In the original indeed, the words are the ſame in both places, Man and Woman; but here tranſlated Husband and Wife, as in this place indeed it ought to be, and frequently elſewhere it is uſed; but not in our preſent Text, where it is evident the Apoſtle ſpeaks more generally of the Sex, not of the Relation; elſe muſt the Virgins and the Widows be exempted, and that not only here, but in all the following diſcourſe, which cannot be. And the Head of Chriſt is God. We are now come to the head of the Apoſtles Climax, the Fountain and Original of all Dignity and Superintendency, which is God; that is, the Father. Not God eſſential, for ſo he cannot be the Head of Chriſt as Mediator; for then he muſt be Head to himſelf, which is abſurd, but God Perſonal; and ſo Chriſt as Mediator is ſubject to the Father, My Father is greater than I, John 14.28.
Queſt. But if God the Father be Head of Chriſt as Mediator, how ſhall we underſtand that of the Apoſtle Chap. 15.28. And when all things ſhall be ſubdued unto him, then ſhall the Son alſo himſelf be ſubject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all? Here he ſpeaks as if he were not yet ſubject to him, nor to be, till he hath delivered up the Kingdom to him.
Anſ. I confeſs this is a knot that hath buſied many wiſer heads than mine; but yet we need not take it for a Gordian-knot: for the Apoſtle doth not deny that Chriſt, as Mediator, is ſubject to the Father, as he that is ſent and deputed is (eatenus) inferior to him that ſent and deputed him. But when he ſays, the Son ſhall be ſubject unto him that put all things under him; it is no more but this: He ſhall then lay aſide his Mediatory Office, and give up his Commiſſion unto the Father, by virtue of which all power was given him both in Heaven and in Earth, Matth. 28.18. that he ſhould reign as it were a vicarious King in the midſt of his enemies, Pſal. 110.1, 2. as he had ſaid before, v. 24. He ſhall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father. It is as when a King ſhall ſend forth his Son into any of his Provinces with a Plenipotentiary power to ſuppreſs a Company of Rebels, and to defend his good Subjects; and ſo to reign with full power as Lord and King over them; but when the Rebellion is ſuppreſt, and all things ſecur'd, he is to return and deliver up this Commiſſion to his Father, from whom he received it. This is the caſe here. 'Tis true, the Father rules now, but it is by the Son; but then this kind of Government, which is on the Sons ſhoulders, ſhall be laid aſide. And this is the Subjection the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of. Nor doth this deny the Eternity of Chriſts Kingdom. As the Father now reigns by the Son, ſo the Son ſhall reign for ever with the Father, but after another manner than now, That God may be all in all. There ſhall then be no more need of a Mediator, but the Children of God ſhall have immediate acceſs to their Father, and immediate fruition of him. Now they ſee him in the face of Jeſus Chriſt, but then face to face. Chriſt as God, ſhall reign eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Chriſt as man, ſhall be as he is, and ever from his firſt incarnation, was ſubject to him. Chriſt as Mediator or Vice-roy ſhall then ceaſe to be. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That the greateſt Commendations that are due to any Church here in this world, may juſtly admit of ſome But's.
Inf. 2. That plain inſtruction is the ſureſt way to a neceſſary Reformation.
Inf. 3. That God hath inſtituted a decent order of ſuperiority and inferiority in the myſtical body of Chriſt, which ought to be perpetually obſerv'd, and kept inviolate.
Ver. 4. Every man praying or propheſying having his head covered, diſhonoureth his head.
Now he comes more cloſe to the buſineſs, of which he charges them. Their guilt is implied, that they did not ſo pray and prophecy. The ſin is aggravated in this, That it was a diſhonouring of their head. Every man foreign. The Sex, in contradiſtinction to the Woman, as in the former verſe: Praying or Propheſying. Of Propheſying there are theſe two kinds obſerved in Scripture. 1. The revealing of ſecret and hidden things, either paſt, preſent, or to come, by ſome extraordinary inſpiration of the Spirit of God. 2. The ordinary preaching of the Goſpel, by ſuch as are lawfully deputed thereunto, 1 Cor. 13.9. Chap. 14.3. &c. And in this ſenſe eſpecially we are to take it here; becauſe that which the Apoſtle in this place intends, muſt be ſomething that is perpetual and univerſal to all the Churches; and therefore joyn'd with praying; which two comprehend all the other Acts of Gods ſolemn publick worſhip, as being the principal parts of it. Praying or Propheſying, that is, either immediately or mediately, comprehending both Speakers and Hearers; for the whole worſhip is the common and united act of the whole Congregation. All are ſaid to pray, when but one ſpeaketh; ſo all prophecy, though only one be the Speaker. On this account the Woman is put among them that prophecy, ver. 5. and yet we know, the Woman was not permitted to ſpeak in the Church, Chap. 14.34, 35. So then, Every man praying or prophecying, is as much as to ſay, every man that is engaged in the publick worſhip of God, or any part of it; having his head covered, foreign, 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, foreign, ſhameth and caſts a ſlight or reproach upon his head. And here lies all the difficulty of this verſe, viz. what we are to underſtand by his head. Some would have it to be his head natural or proper, which is ſpoken of juſt before, and ought to be uncovered in praying and propheſying; and ſo the diſhonouring is but to a mans ſelf. But others with much better reaſon ſay, it muſt be the Head myſtical or figurative, ſpoken of in the precedent verſe, which is Chriſt; and ſo the diſhonour reflects higher. And becauſe the pinch of the Queſtion lies in this, I ſhall endeavour the more to clear the truth of it. 1. If a mans being covered in the time of publick worſhip, did only reflect diſhonour upon his own head, and no one elſe concern'd in it but himſelf; it would have been too mean a thing for the Apoſtle to have buſied himſelf in it; to have appeared with ſuch a reproof, and to have entred it in ſacred Writ. Were not God intereſſed in the caſe, it would be but a prophane thing, and unworthy of the Divine Records. Therefore certainly there is ſome one more than man concern'd in this Diſhonour. 2. What tolerable reaſon can there be given of this Aphoriſm in the former verſe, where he lays down this for a maxim, The head of every man is Chriſt, and the head of the Woman is the Man, and the head of Chriſt is God; if it be not to ſhew us, as with a finger: what we are to underſtand by the head of the man here; for that's the poſition which he proceeds on, and improves in the following Diſcourſe, and here fetches his Argument from? 'Tis a diſhonour to Chriſt, who is the head of the man. The truth is, I know not where to ſeek a fuller and clearer Syllegiſm in all the Book of God, than this. The head of every man is Chriſt; Every man that prayeth or propheſyeth with his head coverd, diſhonoureth his head. Erg. I wonder what Sophiſtry can fairly avoid the Concluſion, viz. He that prayeth or propheſyeth with his head covered, diſhonoureth Chriſt. 3. The Relative foreign, which is joyned with foreign, will contribute much to the elucidation of the ſenſe. It is not made by the Poſſeſſive foreign caput ſuum, but by the Relative foreign ipſins, and that in the Genitive; which is as much as to ſay, he diſhonoureth him, that is, the head of him; who, as he had ſaid juſt before, is Chriſt. 4. It would appear from the Antitheſis in the next verſe, But every Woman that prayeth or propheſyeth with her head uncoverd, diſhonoureth her head. Whom can we reaſonably underſtand here by her head on whom the diſhonour is reflected, but the man, who he ſaid, is the head of the Woman? For the covering of the head was a token of ſubjection, as will appear by ſeveral places of Scripture; for which I refer you to the ſeventh verſe. Therefore the uncovering of the head is virtually and ſymbolically a denying of that ſubjection, which is a great diſhonour to him, whom the God of Nature and Order hath made her head. And the truth is, I wonder to ſee the learned Piſcator of another mind. Now if her head, ver. 5. muſt be expounded by ver. 3. ſo muſt his head too, ver. 4. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That Praying and Preaching are the great Goſpel-Ordinances which comprehend all other parts of Divine Worſhip.
Inf. 2. That for a man to have his head covered, while engag'd in the ſolemn publick Worſhip of God, is a diſhonour to Chriſt his Head.
Ver. 5. But every woman that prayeth or propheſyeth with her head uncovered, diſhonoureth her head; for that is even all one, as if ſhe were ſhaven.
Here we have the duty of the Woman, which lies diametrically oppoſite to that of the Man. For the different Sexs, are provided different Rules of Decency. That which is comely and honourable in one, is as unſeemly and ſhameful in the other. Every Woman, that is, in the publick Congregation, of which he here diſcourſes; that prayeth or propheſyeth: This cannot be underſtood of the extraordinary gifts of Prayer or Prophecy, which ſome very few of that Sex had attained unto, as Anna, Mary, the four Daughters of Philip; and in the Old Teſtament, Miriam, and Deborah, and Huldah, &c. for then by the ſame reaſon we muſt reſtrain it to the extraordinary Prophets of the Men in the precedent verſe; and ſo this Rule of Decency both for the Man and the Woman, muſt ceaſe with the ceſſation of theſe extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; and ſo the occaſion would have been too ſlender for ſo many words, and ſo ſharp a rebuke of ſo great an Apoſtle. Wherefore we muſt conclude, that the Apoſtle intended a common Rule of Decency for ordinary Worſhip, as the Baſis, or Reaſon ſtated, ver. 3. is ſufficient to evince. With her head uncovered. That is, without that ordinary covering, which ſhe uſes at other times, as her Age, Place, Condition, Cuſtom of the Country, or the Climate doth require. Diſhonoureth her head. That is, the Man, which ver. 3. was ſaid, (ſenſu pelitico) to be her head; for ſhould we take it for her head ſimply and properly, the diſhonour would be to her ſelf. But it is certain, the diſhonour reflects primarily and immediately on the Man, under whoſe Authority God and Nature hath put the Woman in ſubjection, and made the covering of the head, a token or badg of her inferiority and ſubjection, as appears by the Apoſtles diſcourſe here, and of which, more below. So that in uncovering her head, ſhe caſts off that Symbol of her ſubjection, and doth in effect deny the Mans Authority and Dominion. Whom then doth ſhe diſhonour, but the Man; while ſhe thus exalts her ſelf? As the Child is ſaid to diſhonour his Father in denying him due Reverence. '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 then I meaſure back by the ſame line of Reaſon, that it muſt alſo be Chriſt, the political or myſtical head of the Man, that is to be underſtood in the former verſe. Though it is true alſo, that with reference to this Symbol of Authority or Subjection, that is between the Man and the Woman, the Man ſeems to degrade himſelf, and to forfeit his Honour with the Woman, by having his head covered, and ſo he diſhonours himſelf. But this is not what the Apoſtle aims at. For that is even all one, as if ſhe were ſhaven. If ſhe be uncovered of her ordinary artificial covering, and therein change modes with the Man, and do that which is the Mans proper duty to do; ſhe were even as good put away her natural covering too, and be clipt or ſhaven, as the Man is; elſe ſhe looks like ſome odd monſtrous thing, which is neither Man nor Woman. The aſſumption we have in the next verſe. Hence I infer.
Inf. 1. That for a Woman to habit or attire her ſelf like a Man, is a ſin; & vice verſa.
Inf. 2. That for a Woman to have her head uncovered in the ſolemn publick Worſhip of God, is a diſhonour to the Man, whom God hath made to be her Head.
Ver, 6. For if the Woman be not covered, let her alſo be ſhorn; but if it be a ſhame for a Woman to be ſhorn or ſhaven, let her be covered.
Here by the way, I obſerve, That the Apoſtle makes a clear diſtinction between the Natural and Actificial Covering; and that when he ſpeaks of covering or uncovering the head, he intends only the artificial covering, which is various, according to the Countrys or Climates men live in; and therefore oppoſes it here to ſhaving off the hair, which is the covering which nature hath provided; and that nature needs. This diſtinction may be of uſe hereafter. The main buſineſs of this verſe, is to ſtate his Argument a turpi & indecoro, thus. If it be a ſhame for a Woman to be ſhorn or ſhaven, it is a ſhame to be uncovered in the Worſhip of God; But it is a ſhame for a Woman to be ſhorn or ſhaven: Erg. The Major he had prov'd in the former verſe, foreign, for that is even all one, as if ſhe were ſhaven. It is as ſhameful for the Woman to be uncovered, as it would be to be ſhaven or ſhorn. And if you will not take the Apoſtles word for this (which yet I ſhould take for a greater matter) his Reaſon is eaſily underſtood; becauſe in the one as well as in the other, the Woman tranſgreſſes the Rules of her Sex, and aſſumes that which is peculiar to the Man; and ſo diſhonours him whom God hath made to be her head, by caſting off the token of her due ſubjection and inferiority to him. For if ſhe change habits and modes with the Man in one thing, ſhe may as lawfully do it in another. The Minor he proves in the following verſes from the Law of God, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Eccleſiaſtical Cuſtom. Some buſie Critick or other, perhaps, may ask me, Why the Apoſtle uſes both theſe words here, foreign, ſhorn or ſhaven, and whether they be exegetical ſerving only to explain one another; I ſay no; becauſe they ſignifie two things. The one is to clip or ſhear, as men do with Sizzars; the other to ſhave as with a Raſor. By theſe two words then he expreſſes both the uſual ways of taking off the hair, either from the head or face. This then may ſerve to aggravate the caſe, q. d. For a Woman to be uncovered, and conſequently for a man to be covered in the ſacred actions of Gods Worſhip, is as ſhameful a thing, as for a Woman to be trim'd head and face with Sizzars or Raſor, as a man is. Another Queſtion will be, On whom this ſhame reflects? And 'tis quickly anſwered: As it is a ſin in general, it reflects many ways. There is no ſin but reflects ſhame and guilt upon the ſinner; ſo the Woman ſhames her ſelf, and ſhames her Sex too; yea, every ſin reflects diſhonour upon God, againſt whom it is committed, and whoſe Law is thereby tranſgreſſed. But that which we have to enquire, is, Who the the immediate Object of this ſhame or diſhonour is? and when I have askt one Queſtion more, a Child ſhall anſwer this. When the Maſter is depoſed, and made to ſerve, and the Servant rules; when the Servant ſhall ſit down, and the Maſter wait, Who is that is diſhonoured, the Servant or the Maſter? So then, if the Woman be not covered, let her alſo be ſhorn; or (if you will give me leave to uſe the Engliſh Proverb, which is the neareſt of any that I know to the caſe) Let her wear the Breeches too; which (though it would be an ugly ſight, and very ill become the Woman, yet) every one will ſay, is a diſgrace to the Man. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That a breach of the Law of Decency in one part of it, is interpretatively a breach of the whole.
Inf. 2. That it is a good way to aggravate ſuch ſins, as we look upon as ſmall, with the ſhameful Conſequences of them.
Ver. 7. For a Man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the Image and Glory of God; but the Woman is the Glory of the Man.
Here the Apoſtle aſſerts it to be the Mans duty to be uncovered. In what rank or file of Duties ſoever any one may place it, though perhaps among the Minores, yet ſure it muſt be too great a preſumption to disband it quite, or ſet it any where beneath the Title and Dignity of a Duty. I confeſs, I cannot but ſmile at the quaint Criticiſm of the Reverend Piſcator here,Piſcat. ſckol. in lac. upon the word foreign velare, which he ſays, is more than tegere or operire; and therefore fancies that the Covering, which is here forbidden to the Man, is ſome odd kind of Dreſs, which veils or mopps up his head, and face and all; but as for any other covering, as Hat, or Cap, or Bonnet, &c. which doth not hide the face, he thinks this Text hath no quarrel with. But (ſaving the reverence of ſo learned and good a Servant of Chriſt) I muſt needs reply, 1. I know not among what ſort of people this blind faſhion was ever in uſe, unleſs it were the Phariſaei Mertarii; who (they ſay) to advance the eſteem of their Humility and Penitence, had their Caps made like a Mortar, covering face and all, as though they were going to pay their laſt Devotions at a Gallows. But among the Cerinthians, I never heard of any that did affect that antick garb; therefore cannot in reaſon imagine, that the Apoſtle ſhould go about to reprove it in them. 2. This verſe muſt be expounded by verſe 4. as Piſcator himſelf confeſſes, where the word foreign is not uſed, but foreign, to wear any thing upon the head; which Periphraſis he ſeems to chuſe on purpoſe, that it might reach all kinds of acquired Coverings, and to anticipate all quarrels about it. 3. What is here forbidden to the Man, is commanded to the Woman; but if this be the kind of Covering that is forbidden to the one, and commanded to the other, then all thoſe Women ſin, that dare once ſhew their faces in the publick Congregations without a veil over them; and ſo thoſe are in good Condition that wear Hoods, provided they pull them down over their eyes (which it may be, ſome prudently do for the help of their Devotion, or toprevent the enſnaring of others eyes) but wo be to thoſe poor Country-women, whoſe Condition in the world allows them but a Hat; or, it may be, not ſo much to cover their heads with. But that it is the duty of the Woman ſo to blind-fold her ſelf, I think the Doctor himſelf would not affirm. For as much as he is the Image and Glory of God. Having aſſerted the Duty, he now gives the ground or reaſon of it. The Image of God, at leaſt, as he was at firſt created, and therein his Glory, or the Image of his Glory. That which God glories in, ſay ſome, as the 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 preheminence and ſuperiority which God hath given him over the Woman, is ſhe foreign the Image or Reſemblance of this Glory of God. Therefore ſhe ought to be coverd in token of her ſubjection to the Man, and in obedience to that God who hath made them both: but the Man ought to be uncovered, becauſe he ows no ſubjection to her. But the Woman is the Glory of the Man; or that which the Man hath to glory in; both in reſpect of her Creation; the matter of it being part of the body of Man, and the end of it made for Man, as in the next verſes; and in reſpect of her ſubjection to Man, as Children are ſaid to be the Glory of their Parents, and Subjects the Glory of their Prince.
Ob. But now the next Queſtion ought to be, How came this covering of the head to be a token of ſubjection? and if it be ſo, why ſhould not the Man be covered too, in token of ſubjection to his head Chriſt?
Sol. This indeed is two Queſtions at once. I ſhall begin with the firſt, How this covering of the head, became a token of ſubjection?
1. We need not be very inquiſitive how it came to be ſo, if we can prove from the Scripture that it is ſo; whether it were by Divine appointment or natural inſtinct, it is all one as to the caſe in hand.
2. For my own part, I think it was not ſo in the ſtate of Innocency; but it was ſin and ſhame, as the occaſion, that brought it into the world. 'Tis true, God ought to have been worſhipped in Innocency, and the Woman was even then inferior to the Man; but there was then no need nor uſe of veils, till by the fall, ſin and ſhame required it.
3. That the Woman was put in greater ſubjection to the Man after the fall, than ſhe was before, is evident from Gen. 3.16. Thy deſire ſhall be to thy Husband, and he ſhall rule over thee; which was more than ever he had ſaid before. And in teſtimony of this ſubjection, it is rational to conclude, that there was ſome token given perpetually to be obſerved; that the Woman might alway be put in remembrance of her ſin, in diſobeying her Maker, and enſnaring the Man, and ſo pulling the yoke upon her own neck.
4. That this token of having the head covered, was of very early uſe in the world, we have ſeveral intimations in Scripture, Gen. 20.16. Behold he is to thee a covering of the eyes; which is a proverbial ſpeech, alluding to the known Cuſtom which was then among the Women. Thus Abimelech reproveth Sarah. The ſame is this; He is thy Husband unto whom thou oweſt thy ſelf, and under whoſe Protection thou ſhouldeſt have hid thy ſelf, as a Subject under the wing of her Sovereign. So Gen. 24.65. when Rebekkah came to meet Iſaac, ſhe throws on her veil, in token of her ſubjection to him, as well as of her modeſty. But by the Apoſtles diſcourſe, and argumentation all along theſe verſes, we are now treating of, it is moſt evident, that the very end and ſignification of this Ceremony, is to teſtifie the Womans ſubjection and inferiority to the Man, ver. 3, 6, 7, 10. So then the covering of the head is, and ought to be the token of her ſubjection.
The other Queſtion, or part of the Queſtion, is, Why ſhould not the Man be covered too, in token of his ſubjection to his head Chriſt? To which I anſwer,
1. VVe never find that God or Nature did ſo appoint the Man to ſignifie his ſubjection to Chriſt by ſuch a Ceremony; therefore to preſume upon it without any warrant, is Superſtition.
2. This token of covering the head, is ordained to ſignifie the ſubjection and reverence that is due from the VVoman to the Man; and therefore unworthy to be uſed as a token of that which man ows to God. Though a univerſal ſubjection of ſoul and body be due to God, and all poſſible Reverence and Devotion, yet it muſt be expreſt by ſuch outward tokens as God appoints. Man is Gods glory, the VVoman is Mans; but gloria Dei revelanda eſt, gloria autem hominis occultanda, velari ergo debet mulier, non vir. Gods Glory muſt be open and revealed, but mans Glory (eſpecially having forſeited it by hearkning to the VVoman) muſt be covered and veiled; therefore the VVoman ought to be covered, not the Man.
3. Should the ſame Symbole of reverence and ſubjection be obſerved by the one, as by the other, it would be a Confuſion; the ſeries and order of this Subordination would not be diſcerned; therefore as the immediate Object of this veneration is different, and as the Subject is different too, in reſpect of Sex and Degree, ſo is the ſign or Symbole.
Quer. And here, perhaps, ſome body or other may ſtart another Query; VVhether the VVoman ought not to worſhip God in the Congregation as well as the Man?
Sol. I know nothing that ever I ſaid to the contrary: They ought to worſhip God with the ſame internal, ſpiritual religious Devotion; the common Object of Divine worſhip being the ſame to both; but yet with this difference of external habit, which relates immediately to the Man, who is her head, and that for the reaſons already given, and alſo for thoſe that follow. The covering of the head in general denotes guilt and ſhame, as well as ſubjection; and therefore appointed to the VVoman, who was firſt in the Tranſgreſſion. The uncovering of the head, ſignifies Power and Rule, and therefore appointed to the Man. But obſerve (to prevent another Quarrel) this is only in ſacris, between God and Man, though it be otherwiſe (at leaſt in ſome Countrys, and among ſome people) in civilibus, between man and man.
To conclude this verſe then, we have here the Apoſtles Argument (both for the Mans being uncovered, and the VVomans being covered; for what proves one, proves both) from the Creation in General. The Man is the Image and Glory of God, the VVoman the Image and Glory of the Man; therefore this difference in external habit or attire, ought to be obſerved, when they appear before their Maker to worſhip him.
Ob. Yet once more; VVas not the VVoman made in the Image of God, as well as the Man?
Anſ. Yes, as to the internal Qualities of her ſoul, as Knowledge, Righteouſneſs and Holineſs, but with this difference;
1. The Man is thus formed of God immediately, the VVoman mediately of the Man; and therefore may truly be called the Image of the Man.
2. The Man is the more principal and perfect Image of God; on which account the VVoman is called the weaker Veſſel.
3. And which is moſt to the purpoſe. The Man was made in the Image of Gods Superintendency and Dominion;Vir operiens caput, non ſeipſum modo, ſed ctiam Deum ded…corat. Synop. in loc. but ſo was not the VVoman. Tis true, ſhe ſhares in the Dominion over the Creatures, but it is with, and by, and under the Man. VVherefore God having committed this Authority unto the Man, and appointed him the ſign and token of it, he ought to defend it; nor may he reſign it to any other, till by Death he reſign up ſoul and all to him that gave it; and to do otherwiſe, is Treaſon againſt the King of Heaven. The further proſecution of this Argument a creatione follows, in the next verſes. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That God hath given the Man Power and Authority over the Woman, which he ought prudently and faithfully to preſerve.
2. That the ſubjection and obedience of the Woman to the Man, is the Mans natural Right and Glory, and the loſs of it his ſhame.
Inf. 3. That the reaſon of the Mans being uncovered, and of the Womans being covered in ſacred actions, is founded on that order of Superiority and inferiority, which God hath by Creation eſtabliſh'd in them.
Inf. 4. That for men to violate the Law of their Creation, is a diſhonour to their Creator.
Ver. 8. For the Man is not of the Woman; but the Woman of the Man.
In this he purſues and amplifies his former Argument from the Order and Law of the Creation. Firſt the Man, then the Woman; and of the Man was the Woman. So that here are two things to prove the ſuperiority of the Man, and the ſubjection of the Woman. 1. The priority of Creation; He was her Senior in the world, and therefore ought to bear rule over her. 2. The fundamentality of her being, was in the Man; and that both as to matter and ſubſtantial form. The Woman is of the Man. The whole humane nature was created in Man, and did exiſt in him without the Woman, and before ſhe was, Of this living Man, God takes a living part, and forms the living Woman. All that Parents conveigh in the act of Generation (viz Matter and Form) to their Children, did God ſeparate (though in another and miraculous manner) from the Man, to form the Woman of. It is not neceſſary here to meddle with that Controverſy concerning the original of the rational Soul; whether it be propagated as the ſouls of other Animals are, or immediately created, or whether it be in a middle way between both, or partaking of both, as ſome will have it. This is enough to move the Apoſtles aſſumption, That the Man being firſt created, and of him the Woman; therefore he ought to have the preheminence. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That priority of being is a natural priviledge, which claims Reverence and Reſpect.
Inf. 2. That to whom we any way owe our Beings, we owe our Obedience.
Ver. 9. Neither was the Man created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man.
Here he carrys on his Amplification from the end of the Creation. 'Twas for the Mans ſake that the Woman had her Being, that ſhe might be a help meet for him; but that which is the end, whereunto the means is appointed, is more excellent than the means; therefore ſo is the Man more excellent, and ought always to be acknowledged a ſuperiour to the Woman. Thus he reaſons both from the order and the end of the Creation, That the Woman ought to be covered in the worſhip of God, and the Man to be uncovered; for that's the Propoſition he is ſtill proſecuting. And hitherto he hath managed his Argument from the firſt inſtitution of things, which is the ſame Method he takes again in this Chap. where he reproves them for their prophane abuſe of the Lords Supper, from verſ. 18. to the end; where after he had laid open their ſin, he labours to ſet them right, by reducing them to the firſt Inſtitution of it, ver. 23. So you ſee he hath done here; when he would reconcileate that Reverence and Honour to the Worſhip of God, and that decency and order among the Worſhippers, which began to be violated, he pleads with them from the firſt Inſtitutions of the God of Nature. Hence I infer.
Inf. 1. That the Woman, that is not according to her place and condition in the World, uſeful unto Man, doth not anſwer the end of her Creation.
Inf. 2. That for the Woman to exerciſe Authority or Dominion over the Man, is wickedly to rebel againſt the Laws of her Maker; and to pervert the very end and deſign of her Being.
If any peeviſh Frop ſhould be ready now to cry Treaſon, Treaſon; as if I had denied unto Queens and Princeſſes in Kingdoms or Common-wealths, or unto Miſtreſſes in Families, any of their juſt right of Royal or Deſpotical Rule and Government over their Subjects and Servants: I ſhall ſtop his mouth with this; That he underſtands not the Queſtion. Where the Providence of God caſts the right of Civil or Domeſtick Government upon the hands of a Woman, as often it doth, ſhe not only may, but ought to manage that Authority and Truſt, according to her place and capacity, as amply and as freely, as if it were in the hands of a man. For ſhe doth not thus rule by the virtue of her Sex, but by virtue of that power, which by the wheel of Gods Providence, is lawfully and juſtly come into her hands; not as ſhe is a Woman, but as ſhe now ſtands in the place of a Man, to thoſe that are under her; or as ſhe is impowered and allowed by the Man, under whom ſhe is ſo to do. But a few words are enough for ſo trifling an Objection.
Ver. 10. For this cauſe ought the Woman to have power on her head, becauſe of the Angels.
This verſe may look either forward or backward, or (Janus-like) both ways. For this cauſe, that is, either the cauſe now already aſſigned; and ſo it is but the Concluſion of his former Argument, and belongs to it: or for this cauſe, which now follows; and ſo it is but his tranſition to another medium for the proof of the ſame thing. Ought the Woman to have power on her head; foreign debet, the ſame which was ſaid before, ver. 7. concerning the Man; and which makes it to be duty. So ought: therefore if ſhe do otherwiſe, ſhe ſins. To have power on her head. To obtain the true ſenſe of this Phraſe, we muſt examine theſe two words, Power and Head. Power, this may be taken figuratively or properly; figuratively by a Metonymy, for the ſign of Power, not her own; but that power, which the Man hath over her. This figure is common in Scripture, Ezek. 7.27. The Princes ſhall be cleathed with deſolation, i. e. with Sackcloth, the badg and token of Deſolation. So here the power, that is, the veil or covering, the token of the Mans Power, and of her Subjection. Beſides, it is obſerved, that the word which the Hebrews uſe for a veil, foreign Cant. 5.7. and Iſa. 3.23. ſprings from a root that ſignifies to have Power and Authority; on which account, ſome tranſlated foreign in the Text, not power, but a veil; as alſo in ſome Verſions it is ſound. Or elſe Power may be taken properly and without a figure; but then it muſt be paſſively, not that Power which ſhe exerciſeth; but the power which ſhe is under. Her head. this alſo we may take either with a figure, or without. With a figure, and ſo her head is the Man, as ver. 3. and then the ſenſe is thus. She ought to have, that is, acknowledge,Vid. ſynopſ. in loc. that the power of ruling and governing her, is in the Man. Or without a figure, her own proper head; and then the Power muſt be taken for the covering or ſign of that power, under which ſhe is. So that when all is done, the ſenſe is the ſame; viz. ſhe ought to acknowledge the Man's Power or Dominion, under which God hath ſet her; and in token of it, to have her head covered. Becauſe of the Angels. Here we have another Medium to prove his Aſſertion by. But before we improve it Argumentatively, we muſt firſt explain it. And a great pother is made by Expoſitors, what we were beſt to underſtand by the Angels here. Some will have it literally, and others will caſt a figure for it. Of thoſe that will have it literally, ſome are for the good Angels, others for the bad; thoſe that are for the good Angels, think the Apoſtle argues thus,
1. Thoſe bleſſed Angels are our Superiors, both by the order of their Creation, and the Superexcellency of their Nature; therefore both man and Chriſt too, as Man, is ſaid to be made a little lower than the Angels, Heb. 2.7, and 9. ſo that, if the Argument of Priority and Superiority, hold good with reference to the Man, as he had reaſoned before; the ſame Argument is good ſtill, to prove the ſame Reverence to be due, in reſpect of the Angels, and that both from the Man, and from the Woman; becauſe the Angels are before and ſuperior to them both, though not with the ſame external ſign or token of the Reverence; God having made the token of Mans Reverence, the uncovering of the head (for this uncovering of the head, is not only a token of his power over his Inferior, but of his Subjection to his Superior) and the covering of the head, the token of the Womans Reverence, as was ſaid before.
Ob. But is not this to patronize an foreign, worſhipping of Angels?
Anſ. No more than the other did patronize an foreign, or worſhipping of the Man. A civil Reverence and Homage is due to Creatures, which are our Superiors, at all times; nor ought to be neglected, when we come before God in ſacred things. Though God be the alone Object of religious Worſhip and Adoration, yet we muſt not be rude and barbarous towards others; this would reflect diſhonour upon God himſelf; for Superiority and Authority is a Ray of the Divine Majeſty, ſhining in the Creature; and therefore on this account ought to be acknowledged by us.
2. Theſe bleſſed Angels are our Inſpectors, eſpecially in the actions of Divine Worſhip; they are preſent, as Witneſſes to take notice of the Diſorders and Indecencies of the Worſhippers, as well as to guard and defend them in their Worſhip. And this, they ſay, was one ſignification of the Cherubim-work in the Temple; ſo the Argument runs thus. If the Woman ought to be covered, to teſtifie her Reverence and Subjection to the Man, much more ought ſhe to have regard to the holy Angels, who are always preſent in the Aſſemblies of the Saints, and ought to be had in Reverence, both for their own glory, and as they are appointed of God to this Office, and ſet as Inſpectors or Overſeers of his VVorſhip.
3. Theſe bleſſed Angels are our Examples and Patterns, Iſa. 6.2. The Seraphims were repreſented in the viſion of the Lord with ſix wings; with two of which they covered their faces, in Teſtimony of their Reverence and Subjection to their Lord. But what that this was for our Example any otherwiſe than in general to give our Superiors, and eſpecially to God, that Honour and Reverence that is due, I think will be ſomewhat hard to prove.
Thoſe that will have it to be the bad Angels, ſenſe it thus: When the Sons of God come to preſent themſelves before the Lord, Satan, by his evil Angels, is wont to come among them, Job 1.6. who is alway prompting to evil, and taking all occaſions to that end; therefore the Women ought to be veil'd, that they may not by their open beauty, be occaſions of luſt, or of wanton glances, from thoſe whoſe eyes are foreign, 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 horible, heatheniſh, ſhameful wickedneſs for any Woman to attire her ſelf ſo, in any reſpect, either by covering or uncovering, as that ſhe may miniſter fuel to the Luſts of others, and a Demonſtration it is of a Woman that values not the Reputation of her modeſty. I would there were not too much of this, even among ſome of the Profeſſors of this wanton, laſcivious Age. I do not cenſure every thing that may accidentally feed luſt in others; for where but reigns, it will take occaſion, where there is no juſt occaſion given; but that which doth properly give occaſion to luſtful thoughts or motions, and may be prevented. But that the Apoſtle ſhould intend this ſort of Angels here, ſeems not very probable; becauſe then, it's likely, he would have called them Devils or evil Angels, as they are always called by ſome ſuch name, when they are ſpoken of in Scripture, as Inſtruments of evil.
Thoſe that will rather take the word figuratively, refer it either to Men, or to God himſelf.
1. To Men, ſo indeed we find the word often uſed for the Prieſts and Prophets of the Lord, the Governours of the Church, and Preachers of the Goſpel, Mal. 2.7. The Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, for he is the Meſſenger (or the Angel) of the Lord of Hoſts. So Chap. 3.1. John the Baptiſt is called the Meſſenger, or the Angel (for it is the ſame word) ſent to prepare the way of the Lord. And Chriſt himſelf, the Meſſenger, or Angel of the Covenant, Eccleſ. 5.6. Neither ſay thou before the Angel, that it was an error; that is, before the Prieſt, who is to take cognizance of thy vows. So Rev. 2. and 3. the Miniſters and Governours of the ſeven Churches of Aſia, are called the Angels of thoſe Churches: and then the Argument will run thus. If the Woman be bound to pay her Reverence to the Man in general, much more to thoſe men whom God hath made chief in the Congregation, and ſet, as it were in his ſtead, to repreſent him as his Ambaſſadors to the Churches.
2. Some refer it more immediately to God himſelf, thus; God himſelf is preſent in the Aſſemblies of his Saints, inſtructing, convincing, converting, comforting, aſſiſting, protecting, &c. by the intermediation and miniſtration of his bleſſed Angels. For all Gods works ad extra, both in the Church, and out of the Church, are done by their Miniſtry. The Law was given by the diſpoſition of Angels, Act. 7.53. And ſo the Goſpel, which is called the Promiſe, was ordained by Angels in the hand of the Mediator, Gal. 3.19. Therefore the name of God, and the name of Angels, is often uſed promiſcuouſly in Scripture, for one another, Act. 7.35. It is ſaid, The Angel appeared to Moſes in the Buſh; but Exod. 3.6. ſays, it was God, that is God by his holy Angel. So it was the Angel that appeared to Manoah and his Wife, Judg. 13.2. which is underſtood to be the Lord himſelf, that is, by his Angel, ver. 22. Now according to this ſenſe the Apoſtle argues thus: If the Woman ought to behave her ſelf with all due Reverence to be covered, in token of her Subjection to a mortal Superior, how much more ought ſhe to reverence the glorious preſence of the holy God, who by his bleſſed Angels is always in the midſt of the Congregation of his people? Or thus: The holy God, who is always preſent in the Aſſemblies of his people by his Angels, will be offended to ſee the Woman with her head uncovered, or the Man with his head covered; (for both theſe ſtand together under the ſame Condemnation, though only one of them be here expreſſed) but the holy God cannot be offended with any thing, but with ſin. Erg. for the Man ſo to be covered, or the Woman uncovered, is ſin. This Argument lies ſo clear in the Text, that I think I need not beſtow any labour on Major or Minor, to rub them any brighter. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That God by his holy Angels, is inviſibly preſent in the Aſſemblies of his Worſhippers.
Inf. 2. That external, as well as internal Reverence, is due to the worſhip of God, on the account of the holy Angels.
Ver. 11, 12. Nevertheleſs, neither is the Man without the Woman, neither the Woman without the Man in the Lord. For as the Woman is of the Man, even ſo is the Man alſo by the Woman; but all things of God.
In theſe two verſes he improves his former diſcourſe, by way of Counſel and Comfort Of Counſel to the Man, That he remember the need he hath of the Woman. Though God hath made him her Superior, yet not to Lord it with rigour over her, but to exerciſe his Authority with humility and love. Of Counſel and Comfort to the Woman, that ſhe do not grudg at that inferiority of place in which God hath ſet her: and for her Comfort minds her, That God hath not put her altogether in the condition of a ſervant to the Man, but ſo as in the ſame reſpect ſhe is equal with him, at leaſt in the Lord, and in the matters of her Soul. Nevertheleſs: whatever I have ſaid of the Mans Authority, and the Womans Subjection, Neither is the Man without the Woman, neither the Woman without the Man. Though God hath ſubordinated one to the other, he hath not divided them one from the other; though one be above the other, yet one cannot ſubſiſt well without the other; though there be a difference of Sex, and a difference of place and degree, yet are they conjoyn'd as one in the Lord; they are equal in Chriſt, as joynt-members of his myſtical body. The Woman as much as the Man, redeemed by the ſame blood, ſaved on the ſame terms, and their ſouls of the ſame preciouſneſs. They are not without one another, but are joyned together as one fleſh, in the Lord, or by the Lord; not only by the Law of Faith, but by the Law of the Creation. They neceſſarily depend one upon the other. If either of the Sexes ſhould periſh, the other muſt periſh too, and cannot long ſurvive. For as the Woman is of the Man: that is, as to her firſt Original, as was ſaid before, ver. 8. even ſo is the Man alſo by the Woman. Not as it was with Adam, who had his being by immediate Creation; but men now are continued in the World by natural generation, which cannot be without the Woman. Though the Man were at firſt the ſole Parent, or inſtead of Parent to the Woman, yet now the Woman is half-parent to the Man. The Man is by the Woman, both as to his being, nutrition, education and well-being. But all things of God. That is, all theſe things, both the Man and his Superiority, and the Woman and her Subjection. They are Creatures of his forming, and of his diſpoſing; '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 rigor with all the ſweetning Conſiderations we can.
Ver. 13. Judge in your ſelves, is it comely that a Woman pray unto God uncovered?
Or (which is all one) That a Man pray unto God covered? and if not pray, then not prophecy; for the reaſon is the ſame in both; as ver. 4, 5. Here is another Argument taken from the common ſenſe of all men, at leaſt of ſuch as are ſo far redeem'd from the ruines and dregs of the moſt ſalvage barbariſm, as to have any natural ſentiments of what is comely or uncomely. Judge in your ſelves. Here his Rhetorick and his Logick meet together, both to convince and perſwade. He will force them to yield the Argument, or forfeit their Judgment and Reaſon. Is it comely: foreign, is it a handſom ſight, is it becoming the excellent Majeſty of that God, with whom we have to do? Is it not piece of ſhameful, irreligious, daring irreverence, That a Woman pray unto God uncovered? Though only praying be mentioned, propheſying alſo is included; that is, That a Woman be preſent in the Congregation, where theſe ſacred actions are in performing.
Ob. But if he intends both, why doth he mention only the Womans part?
Anſ. 1. Becauſe the Mans part is neceſſarily underſtood, and concluded from it.
2. He chuſeth this (perhaps) to the greater advantage of his Argument. The foulneſs of a ſin is not ſometimes ſo apparently ſeen on one ſide, as on the other; nor in it ſelf, as in the natural conſequences of it. His Argument then will be reduc'd to this, That which is uncomely, diſorderly or irreverent, ought not to be admitted, or tolerated in the worſhip of God; but for a Man to worſhip God in the Congregation with his head covered, or a Woman with her head uncovered, are both alike uncomely, diſorderly, and irreverent. Erg.
Ob. But you may ſay, this is a dangerous Argument, till it be agreed by what Judge or Rule it ought to be determined, what is comely or decent in the Worſhip of God.
Anſ. That which is now ſtarted, is one of the Games of the times; I ſhall not purſue it at length, nor do I hope to add any thing to what hath been, by one and another already better done on the caſe. All that I ſhall ſay at preſent to it, I ſhall reduce to theſe three poſitions.
1. Should every thing paſs for decent and comely, that any one phanſies or judges ſo to be, there would certainly be very few or no indecencies, or matters of uncomelineſs, found among men; for every ones own ways and conceits (though never ſo ugly) are right and beautiful in their own eyes; and ſo the fouleſt abſurdities, and groſſeſt fooleries, yea, and impieties too, muſt paſs for decent and lovely, becauſe there is ſome or other that will have it ſo.
2. Every thing that is decent and comely enough in it ſelf, and in its proper place, uſe and ſeaſon, is not ſo in the Worſhip of God; much leſs can that be comely in Gods Worſhip, which is no where elſe comely. The firſt part of this poſition, I think no one will deny. It is decent enough for a man to whiſtle after his Cart, or to lift up a ſhout in harveſt, or to ſtrip himſelf naked to ſwim; but that any of theſe, or the like, are decent in the Worſhip of God, no ſober man can think. The other part of the poſition is but the neceſſary conſequence of this. That which is every where ugly, is much more ſo in Gods Worſhip, where the greateſt Reverence and Decency is required. 'Tis true, thoſe things which God hath particularly appropriated to his Worſhip, may not be prophaned by a common uſe; though we may not ſay, ſuch things are ugly out of Gods Worſhip, yet the prophanation of them is ugly, becauſe ſinful; but whatever God hath appointed, is therefore decent becauſe he hath appointed it. This is the Apoſtle's Argument here; for the Woman to be uncovered or attire her head like the Man, or for the Man to be covered, or put on the Knots and Treſſes of the Woman, as if they were agreed to exchange Sexes, is a moſt uncomely thing in Nature; therefore much more in the ſolemn Worſhip of God.
3. There is none that can make any thing comely or decent in the Worſhip of God, but God himſelf who requires the Worſhip. For whatſoever is comely in Gods Worſhip, is ſo, as he approves or accepts it; what he rejects cannot be accounted comely in his Worſhip; but what he hath not appointed, he rejects. And to prove this, we can have no better evidence, than his own words, wherein he declares what he approves, and what he rejects, Matth. 15.9. In vain do they worſhip me, teaching for dectrine the Commandments of men. That which hath but Mans Authority in Gods Worſhip, is a vanity; Jer. 7.31. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The only reaſon that is mentioned here of Gods Indignation againſt this thing, is, that he had not commanded it, Heſ. 5.11. Ephraim is oppreſſed and broken in judgment, becauſe be willingly walked after the commandment. And what Commandment was this? Be ſure 'twas none of Gods; then they would not ſo willingly have walked after it; nor would God have been offended at their walking ſo. It muſt needs be ſome commandment of men. Moſt Interpreters underſtand it of the Commandment of Jeroboans, who made Iſrael to ſin by his own idolatrous Inventions and Additions to the Worſhip of God; yet doubtleſs the Inventer and Impoſer thought theſe things to be decent and comely; and ſo it ſeems did the people too; but God thought them not ſo, they were no Commandments of his. Now God hath commanded all the matters of his worſhip, and conſequently all that is to be accounted decent or comely in it, one of theſe two ways, Expreſly, or Conſequentially.
1. Expreſly, but theſe are not the things in diſpute at preſent; though they are not wanting that dare wreſt and diſpute againſt ſome of the plaineſt expreſſions of his will.
2. Conſequentially or Collaterally; ſo all thoſe Circumſtances of worſhip are commanded, which are neceſſary to the orderly, ſerious, reverent and moſt edifying performance of it; yet this neceſſarineſs or expediency is not left to the Arbitration of man, but muſt be determined pro hic & nunc, by the nature of the things, and the preſent diſpenſation of Providence, and the general experience of the moſt ſpiritual and beſt diſcerning Chriſtians. That which the worſhip of God, or any part of it may be decently, orderly, ſpiritually and edifyingly performed without, is not neceſſary in that worſhip, or part of worſhip; and if not commanded, then ſuperſtitious and ſinful. And ſo far for this Digreſſion. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That the pure ſpiritual ſimplicity of Goſpel-worſhip, allows no external uncomelineſs or irreverence in it.
Inf. 2. That what the common ſuffrage of men determines to be uncomely in nature, or in civil Converſation, is much more ſo in the worſhip of God.
Inf. 3. That it is the duty of Women to pray unto God, as well as of Men.
Ver. 14, 15. Doth not even nature it ſelf teach you, that if a Man hath long hair, it is a ſhame unto him? But if a Woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.
This is but the illuſtration of the Argument of the former verſe, and not the ſtating of a new Queſtion, as ſome may opine. 'Tis ſtrange to ſee what a coyle is kept among Interpreters about the ſenſe of this Paragraph, as if they had a mind ex fulgore dare fumum, to veil not only the Womans, but the Text it ſelf, or as if they had a humour to trip and wreſtle, rather than to follow the Ball. I ſhall take little notice of one or other, but paſs through the Croud as quietly as I may, about my buſineſs. And to make my way clear, theſe three terms of the Text muſt be explained. 1. What the Apoſtle means by Nature. 2. What by having long hair. 3. What by ſhame.
1. The firſt Queſtion is, what the Apoſtle would have us to underſtand by Nature. Some ſay the Law of Nature, others, the Law of Nations; others, the light of natural Reaſon; others, general and ancient Cuſtom; others the natural inclination; others, the Sex it ſelf, Male and Female, into which nature hath divided mankind. Others take it for that order which God hath appointed and found in Nature. Now if we would know whether of all theſe to chuſe, and how to make a right Judgment, we muſt attend to the ſcope of the Apoſtles Diſcourſe. He hath been all along proving that this difference of habit is founded ab origine, in the difference of Sex, by the God of Nature, and ſo by him made one of the Laws and Conſtitutions of Nature, for the diſtinguiſhing of one Sex from the other, that there might not be confuſion, and for the teſtifying of that place of Superiority or Inferiority which they ſtand in toward one another. It is Nature, or rather the God of Nature, that gives the Woman her hair for her natural covering, and the ſame nature it is that teaches us ſo to judge in this caſe.
2. The next Query is, What we ought to underſtand by having long hair, foreign. And here we ſhall find them as little agreed, as in the other. Some take it for wearing the hair long; and of theſe, one will have it clipt all off cloſe by the head; another will have it juſt to cover the ears; another more adviſedly allows it to cover the temples and the neck; others are for a greater length, uſque ad habitum, but underſtand it of decking and adorning the hair, and never quarrel at the length, ſo that it be worn careleſly and ſlovenly; and that which proſelyted them to this opinion, was the derivation of the word foreign, which, they ſay, comes from the Verb foreign, curare to trim or trick up a thing with curioſity. Now for my part, I do not find that the Apoſtle tells us either here or any where elſe, what the ſtandard or juſt ſize for length, muſt be of the mans hair; (yet he might well conclude, that without an exact Rule to an hairs breadth; ſo many heads were never like to agree upon't) yet I think the nearer it comes to the ordinary length of the Womans hair, the further it is from the Apoſtles Rule. Nor do I think (though our Engliſh word Comb be derived from the Greek foreign) that the Apoſtle doth forbid any man to comb his head, nor to powder it neither, nor yet to put on borrowed hair, when the defects of nature make it neceſſary or expedient: for if all other parts of the body may lawfully aſſume ſomething of ornament, as well as bare covering, I know not why the head alone ſhould be neglected and devoted to a perpetual ſlovenlineſs; yet it is moſt certain, that as far as any adorning of the head, or any other part whether of Man or Woman, ſavours of Pride, or fantaſtical effeminacy, it is ſinful and ſhameful. The ſcope makes the ſenſe plain enough. The Apoſtle doth all along oppoſe the attire of the Man to that of the Woman, particularly as to their heads, which ought not to be the ſame, nor yet chang'd, either as to the natural or artificial covering; as the Man ought not to cover his head with the artificial or aſſumed attire, after the manner of the Women, ſo neither with the natural.
3. The other Queſtion is, What we are to underſtand by ſhame, foreign? In this Interpreters cannot be of a mind neither. Some will have it be ſuch a ſhame, as is without ſin, or ſuch a diſgrace as proceeds from a Mans neglect of himſelf in indifferent and trivial matters; a ſhame which hath not its ſoundation ſo much in the thing it ſelf, as in the opinion of thoſe that judge it to be ſhame, as was the caſe of Davids Meſſengers to Hanun, 2 Sam. 10.4, 5. when Hanun had cauſed their beards to be ſo miſuſed. But this (I doubt) is to make too light a matter of it. That which is a ſhame to Nature, which is contrary to the foreign of a Chriſtian, muſt needs be ſin, and no ſmall ſin, eſpecially in the worſhip of God. Therefore ſome make this to be of the ſame nature with thoſe ſins of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 1.26, 27. a changing of the natural uſe of one Sex with the other.
Ob. But if the wearing of long hair be a ſin againſt the light and dictates of Nature, this will condemn the Nazarites, of whom Chriſt himſelf was one, who were not only allowed, but required by the Law of God, to let the locks of the hair of their heads grow all the days of their Separation, Numb. 6.5. And of this ſort of Votaries, ſome were Nazaraei ſeculi for the whole term of their lives, as Sampſon, John the Baptiſt and Christ; and others Nazaraei dierum, who ſeparated themſelves by a vow unto the Lord for a certain number of days, commonly thirty days.
Anſ. 1. This was by divine appointment; and who queſtions, but that the great Lord and Law-giver may diſpence with his own Laws, and make what particular exceptions he pleaſes, without aboliſhing, or any way infringing the binding force of his Law to others.
2. Yet we do not ſay, That it is ſimply long hair the Apoſtle is here declaiming againſt, but the wearing it more muliebri, after the manner of the Woman. And yet I am of the opinion, that the Nazarites themſelves were good enough to be known from the Women by the wear of their locks, as well as by other things. Should I enter into a prolix diſcourſe of long hair, I might ſpend more time than the Argument is worth; and beſides, out-run the intent of my Text, which mentions it only by the by.
But if the Woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. That which is a ſhame to the one (you ſee) is a glory, a lawful, decent, laudible ornament to the other; and the Reaſon follows, for her hair is given her for a covering. And who gave it her for a covering, but he that gave her her hair and her being too? 'Tis true, he that gave hair to the Woman, gave the like to the Man; but not to this end, or for this uſe; Not that this covering is enough for the Woman (though it had been enough to anſwer its end, as a ſymbole of her ſubjection to the Man, had ſhe abode in innocency) but this ſhews that her head ought to be covered proportionably, as all her other parts are, and the head eſpecially; becauſe uature it ſelf intimates it, and thereby teaches it. But now to reduce this to the Argument in the former verſe, where he was reaſoning ab indecoro. Judge in your ſelves, is it comely? The aſſumption he proves in theſe two verſes, by the indications of Nature, q. d. the very works of God in nature are ſufficient to convinceus, that the Woman ought to be covered; and then by the ſame reaſon and rule of oppoſition, that the Man ought to be uncovered, at leaſt in the ſolemn publick worſhip of God. Hence I infer,
Inf. 1. That Chriſtians ought not to diſregard the moral dictates and indications of nature.
Inf. 2. That it is a ſhameful, unnatural thing, for men to pride themſelves, or to glory in the curioſities of hair, after the manner of Women.
Inf. 3. That length of hair is given of God unto the Woman, not only for her covering, but for her ornament, though not for pride or levity.
Inf. 4. That for men and Women mutually to interchange modes and faſhions in wearing their hair, is unnatural and abominable.
Ver. 16. But if any man ſeem to be contentious, we have no ſuch custom, neither the Churches of God.
We are now arrived to the concluſion of this Diſſertation of the Apoſtle, where, for a cloſe, we meet with three well accoutr'd Arguments more in a breaſt; But if any man ſeem to be contentious. Thus he ſpeaks by way of Anticipation, if any one hath a mind to quarrel, foreign to maintain his contrary opinion; not for truths ſake, but for ſatisfying of his ill humour, that he may ſeem to prevail by his Sophiſms and Fallacies, and will not acquieſce in theſe our Arguments and Determinations, as every one will do that is not of a contentious ſchiſmatical Spirit. Here we have one Argument more inſinuated, which may be formed thus: To diſpute againſt a clear truth, or plain duty, is the property of a contentious, wrangling perſon; but to diſpute againſt what hath been here aſſerted and prov'd, is to diſpute againſt a clear truth and a plain duty. Erg. We have no ſuch Cuſtom. What Cuſtom? Some will tell you, No cuſtom to be contentious, or to inſiſt peremptorily or ſtifly upon frivolous matters. I believe it, this were indeed a great ſhame for an Apoſtle, a Planter and Pillar of the Churches, to be once guilty of it; much more to make a Cuſtom or Trade of it. But what is this to his purpoſe? Can we imagine that he would tell them thus, Well! notwithſtanding all the Medimns I have uſed, and all the words I have waſted, to prove my Argument, 'tis but a frivolus thing; if any one ſeems he hath any thing to object, I have done; 'tis a buſineſs that is not worth the arguing; any one may do as he ſeems beſt, whatever I have ſaid to the contrary. Certainly, if this had been his mind, he had done much better, both for the Churches peace, and his own credit, to have took his pen and ſcratcht it all out again, and not to have troubled the ſacred Canon with ſo trifling a matter. But when he ſays we have no ſuch cuſtome; I think he tells them quite another thing. He here informs them what the Cuſtom and Practice of the Apoſtles was in the caſe, whereof he had been ſpeaking; and aſſures them, that he had herein laid no other burden upon them, than he himſelf, and all the reſt of his Brethren the Apoſtles, had always born, and took to be their duty; ſo that here in the cloſe of his diſcourſe, he ſeems to look back on the firſt verſe, where he began it, and ſo to knit up both ends together. Be ye followers of me: And then the ſecond Argument you have thus: It is the duty of all Chriſtians to follow the examples and practice of the Apoſtles in all things that are according to the wil of God; but this was the practice of the Apoſtles, and according to the will of God, as was proved before; Erg. Neither the Churches of God. That is, the primitive Goſpel-Churches planted by the Apoſtles. where we have the third Argument thus: That which was the general practice of the primitive Churches of Chriſt, by Apoſtolical inſtitution, ought to be the practice of all ſucceeding Churches; But this was the general practice of the primitive Churches, and that by Apoſtolical inſtitution. Erg. And now you have heard the Apoſtles ſenſe of the Queſtion, and our ſenſe of the Apoſtle: whence I conclude at once, That for a Man to have his head covered, or a Woman to have her head uncovered in the time and place of Gods ſolemn publick Worſhip, is a diſorderly, irreverent, uncomely, unnatural, ſhameful, ſchiſmatical, antiapoſtolical and unchriſtian-like practice. And thus much by way of Expoſition, wherein I hope I have not run beyond my Text.