Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Friends,
The James Durham quote previously given was ambiguous and not that clear. These two are much more clear:
The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise concerning Scandal (Edinburgh, 1659), ch. 6, pp. 25-26
“Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offense, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former reasons clear. As (1), if the matter is of light concernment in itself, as how men’s gestures are in their walking (suppose in walking softly, or quickly, with cloak or without) men ought to do, or abstain, as may prevent the construction of pride, lightness, etc., or give occasion to others in any of these. Of such sort was womens’ praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign.
[Note that Durham puts Corinthian head-coverings on par with gestures and garments.]
Yet if it is necessary, there is nothing little, as Moses will not leave a hoof (Ex. 10), or Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it looked like fawning on an accursed enemy. Of this sort also are offenses in the fashions of clothes, as some men’s wearing of ribbons, and such like, which being of small concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by offense.”
Heaven upon Earth, in the Serene Tranquillity & Calm Composure, in the Sweet Peace & Solid Joy of a Good Conscience... (Edinburgh, 1685), sermon 2, on Acts 24:16, p. 27
“…for when the Word determines not, conscience (though misinformed) casts the balance to the side which it judges to be necessary; As for instance, if a man think it a sin to hear the Word with the head uncovered, he is oblidged to cover his head, and contrarily;
For conscience there casts the balance: but when the thing is unlawful on the matter, it may bind him up, while it remains in an error, so as he cannot without sin counteract its dictate; but it never oblidges him to sin.”
These quotes have been on my page, 'The Post-Reformation Scottish Church on Head Coverings in Public Worship' linked in the original post.
The value of evaluating and debating one Scot's view is little, when one may look at more than 15 from that era on my page (plus other sources), which gives a much broader view of the 17th century Scottish Church. I did not cherry-pick the quotes. All that I found I put on the page, and all of them agree with head-coverings as a variable custom.
The James Durham quote previously given was ambiguous and not that clear. These two are much more clear:
The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise concerning Scandal (Edinburgh, 1659), ch. 6, pp. 25-26
“Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offense, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former reasons clear. As (1), if the matter is of light concernment in itself, as how men’s gestures are in their walking (suppose in walking softly, or quickly, with cloak or without) men ought to do, or abstain, as may prevent the construction of pride, lightness, etc., or give occasion to others in any of these. Of such sort was womens’ praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign.
[Note that Durham puts Corinthian head-coverings on par with gestures and garments.]
Yet if it is necessary, there is nothing little, as Moses will not leave a hoof (Ex. 10), or Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it looked like fawning on an accursed enemy. Of this sort also are offenses in the fashions of clothes, as some men’s wearing of ribbons, and such like, which being of small concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by offense.”
Heaven upon Earth, in the Serene Tranquillity & Calm Composure, in the Sweet Peace & Solid Joy of a Good Conscience... (Edinburgh, 1685), sermon 2, on Acts 24:16, p. 27
“…for when the Word determines not, conscience (though misinformed) casts the balance to the side which it judges to be necessary; As for instance, if a man think it a sin to hear the Word with the head uncovered, he is oblidged to cover his head, and contrarily;
For conscience there casts the balance: but when the thing is unlawful on the matter, it may bind him up, while it remains in an error, so as he cannot without sin counteract its dictate; but it never oblidges him to sin.”
These quotes have been on my page, 'The Post-Reformation Scottish Church on Head Coverings in Public Worship' linked in the original post.
The value of evaluating and debating one Scot's view is little, when one may look at more than 15 from that era on my page (plus other sources), which gives a much broader view of the 17th century Scottish Church. I did not cherry-pick the quotes. All that I found I put on the page, and all of them agree with head-coverings as a variable custom.