Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

Expand Messages
  • Cheryl
    Dear Gary, Nature itself does not change, but how it is observed and expressed does. If it didn t, we would all be wearing skins like those provided Adam and
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 31, 2002
      Dear Gary,
       
      Nature itself does not change, but how it is observed and expressed does.  If it didn't, we would all be wearing skins like those provided Adam and Eve.  History points to the fact that cultures express the light of nature differently.  Women in our culture who insist on dresses only as being appropriate would scandalize women from the Victorian or Regency era because they expose their ankles! 
       
      Cheryl
      PS.  Thanks for letting me know about Mr. Dodson's computer woes.
      ----- Original Message -----
       
      Dear Cheryl,

      I believe I need some clarification...

      Does your local Church believe that nature can change? Does it
      believe that nature can teach different things at different periods
      in time?

      Thanks sister,

      Gary

      P.S. - Mr Dodson's computer is being ravaged by a major worm and
      virus....



      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Cheryl" <cheryl@g...> wrote:
      > Dear Gary,
      >
      > I have read the entire chapter in English Popish Ceremonies over
      carefully several times.  If you pull Gillespie's argument out of
      its proper context, it appears to say what you claim.  However, if
      you follow the argument placed in its proper context, it says
      precisely the opposite.  So does Calvin's comments on headcovering.
      >
      > BTW, I emailed Mr. Dodson a while back and asked him for his take
      on these passages as you said he told you I should do, and I have
      yet to hear back from him. 
      >
      > Cheryl
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Gary Gearon
      >   To: covenantedreformationclub@y...
      >   Sent: Saturday, December 03, 1910 2:38 AM
      >   Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers
      >
      >
      >   Dear sister Cheryl,
      >
      >   Do not forget dear sister, that Gillespie states that **nature
      itself**
      >   teaches veiling.  This has a ring of continuity to me.
      >
      >   Gary
      >
      >   Cheryl wrote:
      >
      >   > To: <covenantedreformationclub@y...>
      >   > From: "Cheryl" <cheryl@g...>
      >   > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:00:12 -0700
      >   > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > Dear Patrick,
      >   >
      >   > Since you aren't on the other covenanters list that I own, you
      will
      >   > have missed the discussion about headcoverings.  According to
      Calvin,
      >   > Gillespie, Durham, Rutherford and others, headcoverings on
      women were
      >   > not an unalterable moral sign to be preserved for all time.
      >   >
      >   > Cheryl
      >   > ----- Original Message -----
      >   > From: seamrog1935
      >   > To: covenantedreformationclub@y...
      >   > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:53 PM
      >   > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers
      >   >
      >   > Did any of the Church Fathers besides Augustine teach Reformed
      >   > theology (soteriology, EP, headcoverings, Presbyterian
      Governance,
      >   > etc.)?  Thanks.
      >   >
      >   > Patrick
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >   > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >   >
      >   > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >   > ADVERTISEMENT
      >   > -
      >   >
      >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >   > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
      >   >
      >   >
      >   >
      >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >   ------------------------------------------------------
      >   [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
      >
      >
      >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >               ADVERTISEMENT
      >             
      >       
      >
      >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >   covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
      >
      >
      >
      >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • raging_calvinist
      Uh oh. You guys aren t thinking about banning clothes altogether, are you? ;) Seriously, though... Light of nature teaches the same thing, though sinful man
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 1, 2002
        Uh oh. You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
        are you?

        ;)

        Seriously, though...

        Light of nature teaches the same thing, though sinful man may or may
        not actually learn from light of nature by reason of their own sin.

        Light of nature teaches us that homosexuality is wrong to do.

        Light of nature teaches us that that women should remain silent in
        the assemblies.

        Light of nature teaches us that a man must dress like a man, a woman
        like a woman (do any doubt that the skins God gave to Adam and Eve
        were distinguishable in this sense, REGARDLESS of what they were made
        of?).

        Light of nature teaches that a man ought not to have long hair like a
        woman.

        Light of nature teaches that it is a shameful thing for a woman to go
        bald.

        Light of nature teaches that a woman should be covered.

        Now, regardless of whatever signification the headcovering may have
        that in and of itself makes it a thing indifferent (i.e., it is not a
        sin to take it off in the shower, to forgo putting it on when fleeing
        from fire, that it isn't a religiously significant ceremony, etc.),
        and regardless of the fact that it is a moral sign (i.e. it signifies
        something proper and decent and orderly), and regardless of the fact
        that it is a natural sign (i.e. it signifies something natural for
        the woman -- humility, modesty, submission to man), FURTHERMORE, it
        is taught by nature itself (which cannot be said of foot-washing,
        holy-kissing, a man taking his hat off in the presence of a king,
        etc), AND the Apostle himself recommends it.

        If your answers to the questions posed by the Apostle in
        1 Corinthians 11:13-15 are "no," "no," and "no," the problem is not
        that light of nature is now teaching something different. The
        problem is that sinful man has ceased to learn this lesson from light
        of nature.

        John Calvin: "For it is good reason that there should be a
        difference between men and women. And although there were no law
        written, doth not even nature teach it us? And when Paul (1 Cor.
        11.5,) telleth us that women must come to the Church with their heads
        covered & not with their hair about their ears: he sheweth the same
        thing. What saith he? have we need to speak to you of such things?
        For if a woman were polled [her hair cut short], durst she shew her
        head abroad? A man may well be bold to shew his head bare, though he
        be polled: and shall a woman do so too? That were a shame, everybody
        would mock at her, and she should be fain to hide her head. Now since
        ye know this without any scripture or word written: do ye not see how
        God hath shown as it were a seed of modesty in you, to the intent
        that every man should have a regard to that which is comely for him?
        So then, let us mark that here God intended to shew us that
        everybody's attiring of themselves ought to be such, as there may be
        a difference between men and women. And truly we see what dangers doe
        ensue when folk go so disguised: many inconveniences do accompany
        them, & God is offended with them. Therefore the setting down of this
        law is not without cause. For they that love to go so disguised, do
        despise God: as for example, in these maskings & mummings, when men
        put themselves into women's apparel, and women put themselves into
        men's as ye know: what comes of it? Although no evil ensued thereof,
        yet the very thing itself displeaseth God. We hear what is said of it
        in this place [Deut. 22:5]. Whosoever doth it, is an abomination."

        Calvin again: "A law by which God is clearly drawing his people back
        from the impurities of the heathen ought not, therefore, to be
        considered a law of the state. To make the matter clearer, Paul sets
        forth the law of nature in a very minor manner: When he teaches that
        it is shameful and unbecoming for women to go into public places with
        their heads uncovered, he is telling us to take advice from nature as
        to whether it is proper for women to be in public with their hair cut
        short, and finally he concludes that nature does not allow it. If
        something is a part of the law of nature and cannot be changed, I do
        not see why it ought to be abolished on the pretext that it is a law
        of the state."

        Calvin (the prophet???): "[O]nce we have begun, and abandon ourselves
        to bad things, we will last come forth to such confusion that
        anything will be permissible. So if women are thus permitted to have
        their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be
        allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make
        their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so
        brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short, they will
        forget the duty of nature."

        How one can assert that Calvin agreed with the RPNA's current
        position is beyond me.

        Off to worship... Good Lord's Day to you all.

        gmw.
      • Cheryl
        ... From: raging_calvinist Uh oh. You guys aren t thinking about banning clothes altogether, are you? Cheryl: Heh heh. Of course not. Would you care to
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 1, 2002
           
          ----- Original Message -----

          Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
          are you?
          Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
           
          Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
           
          Cheryl

           
        • jrschuiling
          Hey Jer, I was wondering where this quote comes from, I can t seem to find it in the AGES Calvin collection? ... ourselves ... have ... be ... Also is it
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 1, 2002
            Hey Jer,

            I was wondering where this quote comes from, I can't seem to find it
            in the AGES Calvin collection?

            > Calvin (the prophet???): "[O]nce we have begun, and abandon
            ourselves
            > to bad things, we will last come forth to such confusion that
            > anything will be permissible. So if women are thus permitted to
            have
            > their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually
            be
            > allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make
            > their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so
            > brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short, they will
            > forget the duty of nature."


            Also is it proper for a man to look at or talk to woman who is not
            his wife who does not have her head covered? I mean is going out in
            public like going to the beach? Also I was wondering if you had
            gotten a chance to read that book on headcoverings and such that you
            had mentioned a while back, and if so was it any good?

            Thanks again dear brother,
            Jason
          • raging_calvinist
            If your answers to the questions posed by the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 are no, no, and no, the problem is not that light of nature is now
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
              'If your answers to the questions posed by the Apostle in
              1 Corinthians 11:13-15 are "no," "no," and "no," the problem is not
              that light of nature is now teaching something different.'

              Forgive me, I wrote in haste. Should read "yes," "no," and "no."

              gmw.
            • raging_calvinist
              Hey Jason! Great to hear from you again! I miss you around here, brother. ... It appears in Calvin s sermon on 1 Corinthians 11. Three sermon s on this
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                Hey Jason!

                Great to hear from you again! I miss you around here, brother.

                > I was wondering where this quote comes from, I can't seem to find
                > it in the AGES Calvin collection?

                It appears in Calvin's sermon on 1 Corinthians 11. Three sermon's on
                this chapter have been published under the title "Men, Women, and
                Order in the Church." Great little book.

                > Also is it proper for a man to look at or talk to woman who is not
                > his wife who does not have her head covered? I mean is going out in
                > public like going to the beach?

                We live in an age where modesty has been largely forgotten, and
                nature is pretty much officially "cast off." Because of this, it
                would nearly impossible to avoid seeing or speaking to someone who is
                not in some stage of immodest dress. It would, therefore, become
                nearly impossible to avoid all contact and conversation. I don't
                think it is necessary -- though we need to always be careful as to
                where our eyes are roaming.

                The beach.... I love the ocean. I love to feel the sand between my
                toes, hear the roar of the waves, smell the sea, taste the saltiness
                of the water... I'm landlocked in PA, but every once in a while I get
                an "ocean jones" where I have to get to the Atlantic, just to be
                there for a few hours. I HATE the fact that there are practically
                naked people everywhere. But to answer your question, my wife has
                been known to be spotted at the beach wearing her snood!

                > Also I was wondering if you had gotten a chance to read that book
                > on headcoverings and such that you had mentioned a while back, and
                > if so was it any good?

                Oh... that's right. You know, I never ordered that book. Partially
                because there were some other higher priority books I needed, and
                partially because some of the other stuff on the website on which I
                found that book advertised was, well, weird -- they claim to be a mix
                of Rabbinical and Puritan influences. Now, that should make for a
                book that has some interesting and useful quotes, but I passed on it
                for the time being.

                > Thanks again dear brother,

                I love you, man!

                gmw.
              • Gary Gearon
                Cheryl, I think it would be more appropriate for the people who are talking behind the scenes, to come to the covenantedreformationclub, since they are the
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                  Cheryl,
                   
                  I think it would be more appropriate for the people who are talking "behind the scenes," to come to the covenantedreformationclub, since they are the innovators (this has never been ruled on before the PRCE).
                   
                  Respectfully yours in Christ,
                   
                  Gary
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Cheryl
                  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                   
                  ----- Original Message -----

                  Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                  are you?
                  Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                   
                  Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                   
                  Cheryl

                   


                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Gary Gearon
                  Dear sister Cheryl, What is your Church s opinion of Calvin s quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                    Dear sister Cheryl,
                     
                    What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                     
                    What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                     
                    I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                     
                    For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                     
                    Gary
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Cheryl
                    Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                     
                    ----- Original Message -----

                    Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                    are you?
                    Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                     
                    Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                     
                    Cheryl

                     


                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Gary Gearon
                    Dear Cheryl, Does your Church practice the common cup for Lord s Supper? Thanks, Gary ... From: Cheryl To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                      Dear Cheryl,
                       
                      Does your Church practice the "common cup" for Lord's Supper?
                       
                      Thanks,
                       
                      Gary
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Cheryl
                      Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                       
                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                      are you?
                      Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                       
                      Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                       
                      Cheryl

                       


                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    • Cheryl
                      Dear Gary, I don t have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany. The particular sermon that you take
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                        Dear Gary,
                         
                        I don't have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany.  The particular sermon that you take these quotes from classes headcoverings under policy which Calvin says is changeable.  But why don't you ask Nick about it?
                         
                        Cheryl
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:56 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                        Dear sister Cheryl,
                         
                        What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                         
                        What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                         
                        I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                         
                        For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                         
                        Gary
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Cheryl
                        Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                         
                        ----- Original Message -----

                        Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                        are you?
                        Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                         
                        Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                         
                        Cheryl

                         


                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • Cheryl
                        Dear Gary, Seeing that you were once a member of the RPNA and therefore obviously know the answer, what is your purpose in asking this question? Cheryl ...
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                          Dear Gary,
                           
                          Seeing that you were once a member of the RPNA and therefore obviously know the answer, what is your purpose in asking this question?
                           
                          Cheryl
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:01 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                          Dear Cheryl,
                           
                          Does your Church practice the "common cup" for Lord's Supper?
                           
                          Thanks,
                           
                          Gary
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Cheryl
                          Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                           
                          ----- Original Message -----

                          Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                          are you?
                          Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                           
                          Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                           
                          Cheryl

                           


                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        • Gary Gearon
                          Dear Cheryl, I do not know the answer. Thanks, Gary ... From: Cheryl To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                          Message 12 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                            Dear Cheryl,
                             
                            I do not know the answer.
                             
                            Thanks,
                             
                            Gary
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Cheryl
                            Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                            Dear Gary,
                             
                            Seeing that you were once a member of the RPNA and therefore obviously know the answer, what is your purpose in asking this question?
                             
                            Cheryl
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:01 AM
                            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                            Dear Cheryl,
                             
                            Does your Church practice the "common cup" for Lord's Supper?
                             
                            Thanks,
                             
                            Gary
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Cheryl
                            Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                             
                            ----- Original Message -----

                            Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                            are you?
                            Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                             
                            Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                             
                            Cheryl

                             


                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          • Gary Gearon
                            Furthemore, dear sister... Calvin made the below comments, knowing full well that he thought that headcoverings were alterable, when he made the comment. I do
                            Message 13 of 16 , Sep 2, 2002
                              Furthemore, dear sister...
                               
                              Calvin made the below comments, knowing full well that he thought that headcoverings were alterable, when he made the comment. I do not belive he suffered from amnesia. He gives examples of emergencies only, or if she were alone (I think, but could be incorrect), that would necessitate such an alteration. To say anything more than that is based merely on emotion and arbitrariness (not accusing you of this...I believe you are interested in the Truth). Also, is the "nature itself teaches it" quote of Gillespie's, alterable as well, in your Church's opinion???
                               
                              " future customs are corrupted when the headcovering is removed from women's heads in society" (Calvin paraphrase - GG)
                               
                              Love you in Christ,
                               
                              Gary
                               
                              P.S. - I am sure Nick would be welcomed into this group. I speak highly of him to all, and all know he is my friend, although I obviously disagree with him on what "nature teaches itself" in regard to headcovering.
                               
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Cheryl
                              Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                              Dear Gary,
                               
                              I don't have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany.  The particular sermon that you take these quotes from classes headcoverings under policy which Calvin says is changeable.  But why don't you ask Nick about it?
                               
                              Cheryl
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:56 AM
                              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                              Dear sister Cheryl,
                               
                              What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                               
                              What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                               
                              I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                               
                              For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                               
                              Gary
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Cheryl
                              Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                               
                              ----- Original Message -----

                              Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                              are you?
                              Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                               
                              Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                               
                              Cheryl

                               


                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            • Cheryl
                              Dear Gary, You know as well as I do that the RPNA believes that how the circumstances of what nature teaches is alterable and furthermore that this is also
                              Message 14 of 16 , Sep 3, 2002
                                Dear Gary,
                                 
                                You know as well as I do that the RPNA believes that how the circumstances of what nature teaches is alterable and furthermore that this is also what Gillespie and other notable lights in the Scottish Church believed.  For the benefit of those who were not privy to the discussion on the covenanters list that I run, I will copy and paste Gillespie's arguments, as laid out by Nick, below.  BTW, Gary, you were notably silent on what Durham and Rutherford, both of whom made published statements as to the customary and alterable nature of headcoverings and who did so without being disciplined by the Church of Scotland, also had to say on the topic.
                                 
                                Here is a quote from Rutherford :
                                Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinketh it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received: but certainly is not Adoration: Though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth: all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or reverence, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor 11:4. “Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head”: But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and Pray and Prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it (The Divine Right of Church Government, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89, 90, emphases added).
                                 
                                In regards to Calvin and Beza, I quote the following:
                                 
                                 Speaking of decorous arrangements which take away confusion in the church, Calvin says on page 1207 of Institutes Of The Christian Religion (Westminster Press edition):
                                There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the sacred supper of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:21-22), and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads (1 Cor. 11:5).
                                After addressing matters related to proper order and decorum as mentioned above, Calvin goes on to say:
                                But because he [God—RPNA] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity if the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                What is Calvin's conclusion?
                                Lastly, because he [God—RPNA] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                If Calvin believed that the headcovering was an unalterable law of God, in all times and circumstances, then why did he say it "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age...." and that ".... it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones?" This is inexplicable except upon the presupposition that he understood 1 Corinthians 11 to be speaking from a cultural perspective. If the headcovering is an unalterable law of modesty, then what do the "customs of each nation and age" have to do with the headcovering?

                                There are some who would try to evade this conclusion by stating that Calvin was speaking here only of extraordinary times and situations when a woman may not be covered. We trust that all who read Calvin in context will easily ascertain that when he says the headcovering "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age" he did not mean in extraordinary situations only. The customs of each nation and age are hardly extraordinary. In fact, it is because they are customs that we would class them as ordinary.
                                 B. The Geneva Bible Notes

                                The notes of the Geneva Bible make the same point as Calvin has made above. Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head",) the notes (which were written later by Beza, Calvin's successor) state:
                                {3} By this he [Paul—RPNA] gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance.

                                {b} It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection (emphases added).
                                The Geneva Bible was used in the Protestant kingdoms for a very long time, only to be eventually supplanted by the King James Version in English speaking nations. Its popularity makes it certain that this note was read by many persons within Geneva and elsewhere. This note from the Geneva Bible could not make the cultural argument in 1 Corinthians 11 any clearer. If the divines of Geneva truly believed that 1 Corinthians 11 was "not" to be interpreted with a cultural presupposition, then why is this note never questioned, condemned, or corrected by subsequent Genevan Divines and Assemblies; and why are these comments even included within the most widely used Bible of the reformed people within Geneva? Why was there no uproar in Geneva over such a blatant cultural interpretation of Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 11?

                                In our judgment, it was because there was general agreement in Geneva upon the way that1 Corinthians 11 ought to be understood and applied. Though they themselves in Geneva adopted the headcovering in both society and public worship, they did not understand this passage of Scripture to necessitate its use in all times, nations, and circumstances. Thus, the Geneva Notes by Beza and the words of Calvin are written from the same cultural perspective.

                                Note also that like the comment made by Beza in the Geneva Notes regarding the changed meaning of the sign of the headcovering, George Gillespie's comment quoted previously likewise corroborates the words of Calvin and Beza: "in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection" (rather than a sign of authority as in 1 Corinthians 11;4).

                                Thus both Scotland and Geneva had the same customary practices (for men at least). Both were the opposite of the practice instituted by Paul in Corinth. In Corinth, male covering was dishonourable and intimated subjection. In Geneva and Scotland, it was honourable signifying authority. Did Genevan divines understand 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be speaking from a cultural context? Based upon the evidence above, we do not see how it could reasonably be questioned.
                                End Quote  The above is found at http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm
                                 
                                 
                                You also ignore the fact that the Scottish Church disciplined adulterers on more than one occasion by having the women and men uncover their heads at the front of the church during services.  Are you suggesting that the church disciplined people by forcing them to further sin in this particular matter?
                                 
                                English Popish Ceremonies:

                                "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:

                                "Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "

                                "Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."

                                A few questions:

                                Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?

                                A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.

                                Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?

                                A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.

                                Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:

                                1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')

                                2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.

                                The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.

                                Gillespie further defines:

                                "And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."

                                In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                "Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248

                                Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:

                                1. Natural signs

                                2. Customable signs

                                3. Voluntary signs

                                None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).

                                E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).

                                Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.

                                The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:

                                "Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."

                                Next paragraph:

                                "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.

                                 

                                Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).

                                So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:

                                1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).

                                2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).

                                Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.

                                Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 7:51 PM
                                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                Furthemore, dear sister...
                                 
                                Calvin made the below comments, knowing full well that he thought that headcoverings were alterable, when he made the comment. I do not belive he suffered from amnesia. He gives examples of emergencies only, or if she were alone (I think, but could be incorrect), that would necessitate such an alteration. To say anything more than that is based merely on emotion and arbitrariness (not accusing you of this...I believe you are interested in the Truth). Also, is the "nature itself teaches it" quote of Gillespie's, alterable as well, in your Church's opinion???
                                 
                                " future customs are corrupted when the headcovering is removed from women's heads in society" (Calvin paraphrase - GG)
                                 
                                Love you in Christ,
                                 
                                Gary
                                 
                                P.S. - I am sure Nick would be welcomed into this group. I speak highly of him to all, and all know he is my friend, although I obviously disagree with him on what "nature teaches itself" in regard to headcovering.
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Cheryl
                                Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                Dear Gary,
                                 
                                I don't have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany.  The particular sermon that you take these quotes from classes headcoverings under policy which Calvin says is changeable.  But why don't you ask Nick about it?
                                 
                                Cheryl
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:56 AM
                                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                Dear sister Cheryl,
                                 
                                What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                                 
                                What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                                 
                                I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                                 
                                For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                                 
                                Gary
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Cheryl
                                Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----

                                Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                                are you?
                                Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                                 
                                Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                                 
                                Cheryl

                                 


                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              • Gary Gearon
                                Dear Cheryl, I believe, dear sister, that you are saying that something other than a veil, may be used to signify a woman s submission to her husband, should
                                Message 15 of 16 , Sep 3, 2002
                                  Dear Cheryl,
                                   
                                  I believe, dear sister, that you are saying that something other than a veil, may be used to signify a woman's submission to her husband, should the "circumstances" warrant such, and the church commands it. Is this correct? That is, that the long hair on a woman, could teach another type of outward sign, than the veil?
                                   
                                  In regard to Durham and Rutherford, are you saying that a man wearing a headcovering, is a light of nature issue? Please feel free to forward this to Nick, if you like. No one is denying that veiling is alterable, this is not the issue. For example, women were not born with artificial veils, they were born with natural bodily (hair) veils. Obviously, the artificial veil must be alterable, or you could never practice good Christian hygiene, in washing this outer garment.
                                   
                                  God's peace to you, dear sister.
                                   
                                  For Truth's sake,
                                   
                                  Gary
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Cheryl
                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:04 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                  Dear Gary,
                                   
                                  You know as well as I do that the RPNA believes that how the circumstances of what nature teaches is alterable and furthermore that this is also what Gillespie and other notable lights in the Scottish Church believed.  For the benefit of those who were not privy to the discussion on the covenanters list that I run, I will copy and paste Gillespie's arguments, as laid out by Nick, below.  BTW, Gary, you were notably silent on what Durham and Rutherford, both of whom made published statements as to the customary and alterable nature of headcoverings and who did so without being disciplined by the Church of Scotland, also had to say on the topic.
                                   
                                  Here is a quote from Rutherford :
                                  Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinketh it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received: but certainly is not Adoration: Though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth: all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or reverence, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor 11:4. “Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head”: But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and Pray and Prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it (The Divine Right of Church Government, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89, 90, emphases added).
                                   
                                  In regards to Calvin and Beza, I quote the following:
                                   
                                   Speaking of decorous arrangements which take away confusion in the church, Calvin says on page 1207 of Institutes Of The Christian Religion (Westminster Press edition):
                                  There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the sacred supper of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:21-22), and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads (1 Cor. 11:5).
                                  After addressing matters related to proper order and decorum as mentioned above, Calvin goes on to say:
                                  But because he [God—RPNA] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity if the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                  What is Calvin's conclusion?
                                  Lastly, because he [God—RPNA] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                  If Calvin believed that the headcovering was an unalterable law of God, in all times and circumstances, then why did he say it "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age...." and that ".... it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones?" This is inexplicable except upon the presupposition that he understood 1 Corinthians 11 to be speaking from a cultural perspective. If the headcovering is an unalterable law of modesty, then what do the "customs of each nation and age" have to do with the headcovering?

                                  There are some who would try to evade this conclusion by stating that Calvin was speaking here only of extraordinary times and situations when a woman may not be covered. We trust that all who read Calvin in context will easily ascertain that when he says the headcovering "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age" he did not mean in extraordinary situations only. The customs of each nation and age are hardly extraordinary. In fact, it is because they are customs that we would class them as ordinary.
                                   B. The Geneva Bible Notes

                                  The notes of the Geneva Bible make the same point as Calvin has made above. Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head",) the notes (which were written later by Beza, Calvin's successor) state:
                                  {3} By this he [Paul—RPNA] gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance.

                                  {b} It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection (emphases added).
                                  The Geneva Bible was used in the Protestant kingdoms for a very long time, only to be eventually supplanted by the King James Version in English speaking nations. Its popularity makes it certain that this note was read by many persons within Geneva and elsewhere. This note from the Geneva Bible could not make the cultural argument in 1 Corinthians 11 any clearer. If the divines of Geneva truly believed that 1 Corinthians 11 was "not" to be interpreted with a cultural presupposition, then why is this note never questioned, condemned, or corrected by subsequent Genevan Divines and Assemblies; and why are these comments even included within the most widely used Bible of the reformed people within Geneva? Why was there no uproar in Geneva over such a blatant cultural interpretation of Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 11?

                                  In our judgment, it was because there was general agreement in Geneva upon the way that1 Corinthians 11 ought to be understood and applied. Though they themselves in Geneva adopted the headcovering in both society and public worship, they did not understand this passage of Scripture to necessitate its use in all times, nations, and circumstances. Thus, the Geneva Notes by Beza and the words of Calvin are written from the same cultural perspective.

                                  Note also that like the comment made by Beza in the Geneva Notes regarding the changed meaning of the sign of the headcovering, George Gillespie's comment quoted previously likewise corroborates the words of Calvin and Beza: "in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection" (rather than a sign of authority as in 1 Corinthians 11;4).

                                  Thus both Scotland and Geneva had the same customary practices (for men at least). Both were the opposite of the practice instituted by Paul in Corinth. In Corinth, male covering was dishonourable and intimated subjection. In Geneva and Scotland, it was honourable signifying authority. Did Genevan divines understand 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be speaking from a cultural context? Based upon the evidence above, we do not see how it could reasonably be questioned.
                                  End Quote  The above is found at http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm
                                   
                                   
                                  You also ignore the fact that the Scottish Church disciplined adulterers on more than one occasion by having the women and men uncover their heads at the front of the church during services.  Are you suggesting that the church disciplined people by forcing them to further sin in this particular matter?
                                   
                                  English Popish Ceremonies:

                                  "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                  Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:

                                  "Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "

                                  "Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."

                                  A few questions:

                                  Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?

                                  A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.

                                  Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?

                                  A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.

                                  Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:

                                  1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')

                                  2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.

                                  The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.

                                  Gillespie further defines:

                                  "And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."

                                  In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                  "Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248

                                  Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:

                                  1. Natural signs

                                  2. Customable signs

                                  3. Voluntary signs

                                  None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).

                                  E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).

                                  Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                  Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.

                                  The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:

                                  "Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."

                                  Next paragraph:

                                  "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                  Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.

                                   

                                  Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).

                                  So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:

                                  1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).

                                  2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).

                                  Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.

                                  Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 7:51 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                  Furthemore, dear sister...
                                   
                                  Calvin made the below comments, knowing full well that he thought that headcoverings were alterable, when he made the comment. I do not belive he suffered from amnesia. He gives examples of emergencies only, or if she were alone (I think, but could be incorrect), that would necessitate such an alteration. To say anything more than that is based merely on emotion and arbitrariness (not accusing you of this...I believe you are interested in the Truth). Also, is the "nature itself teaches it" quote of Gillespie's, alterable as well, in your Church's opinion???
                                   
                                  " future customs are corrupted when the headcovering is removed from women's heads in society" (Calvin paraphrase - GG)
                                   
                                  Love you in Christ,
                                   
                                  Gary
                                   
                                  P.S. - I am sure Nick would be welcomed into this group. I speak highly of him to all, and all know he is my friend, although I obviously disagree with him on what "nature teaches itself" in regard to headcovering.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Cheryl
                                  Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                  Dear Gary,
                                   
                                  I don't have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany.  The particular sermon that you take these quotes from classes headcoverings under policy which Calvin says is changeable.  But why don't you ask Nick about it?
                                   
                                  Cheryl
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:56 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                  Dear sister Cheryl,
                                   
                                  What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                                   
                                  What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                                   
                                  I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                                   
                                  For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                                   
                                  Gary
                                   
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Cheryl
                                  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                                  are you?
                                  Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                                   
                                  Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                                   
                                  Cheryl

                                   


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                • Cheryl
                                  Dear Gary, I forwarded your post to Nick as you suggested. Since the debate has already been engaged in publicly, I suggest that you bring your
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Sep 3, 2002
                                    Dear Gary,
                                     
                                    I forwarded your post to Nick as you suggested. 
                                     
                                    Since the debate has already been engaged in publicly, I suggest that you bring your questions/concerns to the table in the forum in which it all began.  You have yet to respond to the post you said you would respond to there anyhow.  Since you are a member of the Covenanter forum this presents no difficulty.  Nick and I would both like to see this dealt with publicly there.  I think Jerry would probably prefer that we take it there as well. 
                                     
                                    If we are interested in the truth, then let the truth be known.  Let's lay it all out on the table and examine all the arguments both pro and con and see which ones line up with the Scriptures.
                                     
                                    For those on this list who are not members of Covenanters,  and who would like to read what has been written thus far on the discussion over headcoverings, you can join at  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenanters/?yguid=95632121
                                    Look for the thread entitled: Ecclesiastical/Civil outward forms/habits, Message 451.
                                     
                                    Cheryl
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:12 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                    Dear Cheryl,
                                     
                                    I believe, dear sister, that you are saying that something other than a veil, may be used to signify a woman's submission to her husband, should the "circumstances" warrant such, and the church commands it. Is this correct? That is, that the long hair on a woman, could teach another type of outward sign, than the veil?
                                     
                                    In regard to Durham and Rutherford, are you saying that a man wearing a headcovering, is a light of nature issue? Please feel free to forward this to Nick, if you like. No one is denying that veiling is alterable, this is not the issue. For example, women were not born with artificial veils, they were born with natural bodily (hair) veils. Obviously, the artificial veil must be alterable, or you could never practice good Christian hygiene, in washing this outer garment.
                                     
                                    God's peace to you, dear sister.
                                     
                                    For Truth's sake,
                                     
                                    Gary
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Cheryl
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:04 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                    Dear Gary,
                                     
                                    You know as well as I do that the RPNA believes that how the circumstances of what nature teaches is alterable and furthermore that this is also what Gillespie and other notable lights in the Scottish Church believed.  For the benefit of those who were not privy to the discussion on the covenanters list that I run, I will copy and paste Gillespie's arguments, as laid out by Nick, below.  BTW, Gary, you were notably silent on what Durham and Rutherford, both of whom made published statements as to the customary and alterable nature of headcoverings and who did so without being disciplined by the Church of Scotland, also had to say on the topic.
                                     
                                    Here is a quote from Rutherford :
                                    Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinketh it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received: but certainly is not Adoration: Though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth: all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or reverence, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor 11:4. “Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head”: But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and Pray and Prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it (The Divine Right of Church Government, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89, 90, emphases added).
                                     
                                    In regards to Calvin and Beza, I quote the following:
                                     
                                     Speaking of decorous arrangements which take away confusion in the church, Calvin says on page 1207 of Institutes Of The Christian Religion (Westminster Press edition):
                                    There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the sacred supper of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:21-22), and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads (1 Cor. 11:5).
                                    After addressing matters related to proper order and decorum as mentioned above, Calvin goes on to say:
                                    But because he [God—RPNA] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity if the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                    What is Calvin's conclusion?
                                    Lastly, because he [God—RPNA] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
                                    If Calvin believed that the headcovering was an unalterable law of God, in all times and circumstances, then why did he say it "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age...." and that ".... it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones?" This is inexplicable except upon the presupposition that he understood 1 Corinthians 11 to be speaking from a cultural perspective. If the headcovering is an unalterable law of modesty, then what do the "customs of each nation and age" have to do with the headcovering?

                                    There are some who would try to evade this conclusion by stating that Calvin was speaking here only of extraordinary times and situations when a woman may not be covered. We trust that all who read Calvin in context will easily ascertain that when he says the headcovering "ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age" he did not mean in extraordinary situations only. The customs of each nation and age are hardly extraordinary. In fact, it is because they are customs that we would class them as ordinary.
                                     B. The Geneva Bible Notes

                                    The notes of the Geneva Bible make the same point as Calvin has made above. Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head",) the notes (which were written later by Beza, Calvin's successor) state:
                                    {3} By this he [Paul—RPNA] gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance.

                                    {b} It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection (emphases added).
                                    The Geneva Bible was used in the Protestant kingdoms for a very long time, only to be eventually supplanted by the King James Version in English speaking nations. Its popularity makes it certain that this note was read by many persons within Geneva and elsewhere. This note from the Geneva Bible could not make the cultural argument in 1 Corinthians 11 any clearer. If the divines of Geneva truly believed that 1 Corinthians 11 was "not" to be interpreted with a cultural presupposition, then why is this note never questioned, condemned, or corrected by subsequent Genevan Divines and Assemblies; and why are these comments even included within the most widely used Bible of the reformed people within Geneva? Why was there no uproar in Geneva over such a blatant cultural interpretation of Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 11?

                                    In our judgment, it was because there was general agreement in Geneva upon the way that1 Corinthians 11 ought to be understood and applied. Though they themselves in Geneva adopted the headcovering in both society and public worship, they did not understand this passage of Scripture to necessitate its use in all times, nations, and circumstances. Thus, the Geneva Notes by Beza and the words of Calvin are written from the same cultural perspective.

                                    Note also that like the comment made by Beza in the Geneva Notes regarding the changed meaning of the sign of the headcovering, George Gillespie's comment quoted previously likewise corroborates the words of Calvin and Beza: "in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection" (rather than a sign of authority as in 1 Corinthians 11;4).

                                    Thus both Scotland and Geneva had the same customary practices (for men at least). Both were the opposite of the practice instituted by Paul in Corinth. In Corinth, male covering was dishonourable and intimated subjection. In Geneva and Scotland, it was honourable signifying authority. Did Genevan divines understand 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be speaking from a cultural context? Based upon the evidence above, we do not see how it could reasonably be questioned.
                                    End Quote  The above is found at http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm
                                     
                                     
                                    You also ignore the fact that the Scottish Church disciplined adulterers on more than one occasion by having the women and men uncover their heads at the front of the church during services.  Are you suggesting that the church disciplined people by forcing them to further sin in this particular matter?
                                     
                                    English Popish Ceremonies:

                                    "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                    Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:

                                    "Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "

                                    "Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."

                                    A few questions:

                                    Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?

                                    A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.

                                    Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?

                                    A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.

                                    Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:

                                    1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')

                                    2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.

                                    The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.

                                    Gillespie further defines:

                                    "And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."

                                    In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                    "Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248

                                    Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:

                                    1. Natural signs

                                    2. Customable signs

                                    3. Voluntary signs

                                    None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).

                                    E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).

                                    Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.

                                    Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.

                                    The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:

                                    "Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."

                                    Next paragraph:

                                    "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.

                                    Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.

                                     

                                    Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).

                                    So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:

                                    1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).

                                    2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).

                                    Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.

                                    Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 7:51 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                    Furthemore, dear sister...
                                     
                                    Calvin made the below comments, knowing full well that he thought that headcoverings were alterable, when he made the comment. I do not belive he suffered from amnesia. He gives examples of emergencies only, or if she were alone (I think, but could be incorrect), that would necessitate such an alteration. To say anything more than that is based merely on emotion and arbitrariness (not accusing you of this...I believe you are interested in the Truth). Also, is the "nature itself teaches it" quote of Gillespie's, alterable as well, in your Church's opinion???
                                     
                                    " future customs are corrupted when the headcovering is removed from women's heads in society" (Calvin paraphrase - GG)
                                     
                                    Love you in Christ,
                                     
                                    Gary
                                     
                                    P.S. - I am sure Nick would be welcomed into this group. I speak highly of him to all, and all know he is my friend, although I obviously disagree with him on what "nature teaches itself" in regard to headcovering.
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Cheryl
                                    Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:27 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                    Dear Gary,
                                     
                                    I don't have the quote on hand on the moment, but will get it later when some brethren are back from Albany.  The particular sermon that you take these quotes from classes headcoverings under policy which Calvin says is changeable.  But why don't you ask Nick about it?
                                     
                                    Cheryl
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:56 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                    Dear sister Cheryl,
                                     
                                    What is your Church's opinion of Calvin's quote on future customs being corrupted when the headcovering is removed? I know one of the elders in my former Church, said Calvin was "exaggerating" here.
                                     
                                    What does your Church think about "Women keeping Silence" and women wearing headcoverings being classified together as "indifferent" by Calvin? I would ask your Church to meditate upon what a Feminist would do with this classification, using the logic of those who argue the alterability (they think it so, but it is really abolishment of nature's lecturing mankind). Is it not one and the same? I will send you a feminist commentary on this issue, if you like. 
                                     
                                    I do not believe that Custom is lord over Nature, but that Nature is lord over Custom. That is, God lord's it through Nature, and that man's corrupted Custom's (as Calvin explains it, and who you apparently do not agree with in regrad to his comments on future customs) do not lord it over God's chosen physical attribute in women (long hair).
                                     
                                    For Christ's sake, dear sister,
                                     
                                    Gary
                                     
                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Cheryl
                                    Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:23 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Church Fathers and Headcoverings

                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Uh oh.  You guys aren't thinking about banning clothes altogether,
                                    are you?
                                    Cheryl:  Heh heh.  Of course not. 
                                     
                                    Would you care to cross post this over to my list?  There has been a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes and I think they would welcome the chance to interact on this one.  You have permission from the owner to go for it. 
                                     
                                    Cheryl

                                     


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.