THOUGH the Practical part of Christian Theology be in­finitely more noble, more excel­lent, more usefull then either the mere Speculative or Polemical parts of it; though the Easiest and Plainest matters of our Religion be of the great­est importance to us; and consequently though those places of Holy Scripture which are most Intelligible and Practical, and contain in them the necessary du­ties relating to Faith and Manners be our chiefest concern, yet it is certain that the other parts of this Holy Book, even those which are Obscure and Con­troverted, are not unworthy of our thoughts and studies, Yea, These carry­ing some Difficulty with them, may on that [Page 2] very account justly call for our more serious disquisitions, and challenge our more intent enquiries. Questionlesse the explaining the Difficult passages of Ho­ly Writ is not only a very Entertaining and Delightfull undertaking, but such a one as will prove extremely Advanta­geous to the Christian Church, if it be performed aright. By this means we shall first be brought to admire and a­dore, and then to apprehend the pro­found Mysteries of the Bible; we shall learn by degrees to fathom its Vast Depths, we shall be invited to search yet Farther into its hidden Treasures and so at last to arrive to Greater and Larger Measures of that Divine Knowledge, which, next unto the Practise of Religion, is the most worthy accomplishment of a Christian m [...]ns life. For these reasons I will attempt to make an Enquiry into, and then to offer the Resolution of some Obscure and Difficult Texts which we meet with in the Writings of the New Testament.

I Begin first with this Notable pas­sage in the Evangelist S▪ Matthew, with which he closeth his second Chapter, He shall be called a Nazarene. There were two ways of interpreting this of old: [Page 3] First,Adv. Marcion. l. 4. Tertullian andDemonstr. Evang. l. 7. c. 1. Ensebius, and some other Ancient Fathers thought it was an allusion to the Nazarites, a Re­ligious and separate rank of persons a­mong the Iews spoken of in the Old Testament. And more particularly, S^t Ierom on the place tells us thatNazare­nus Sanct [...] interpreta­tur: San­ctam autem Dominum futurum om­nis Seriptur [...]commemerat. a Nazarine he [...]e is to be interpreted a Holy person, and that it is mentioned through out all the Writings of the Old Testa­ment that the Messias, our Lord Christ, was to be such, and consequently that it might well and truly be said that the Prophets foretold concerning him, that he should be called a Nazarene, i. e. a Holy Nazarite. The second way of inter­preting these words among the Antients was this, that they have reference to those places where Christ is called Net­zer, a Branch, as in Isai. 11. 1. & 60. 21. yea, S^t Ierom himself, who seem'd to have fixed on the former way of In­terpretation, is en­clined to think that this Prophecy Illud quod in Evangelio Matth [...]i omnes quaerunt Ecclesiastici, & non inveniunt ubiscriptum sit [quoniam Nazarenus vocabitur] eruditi Hebraecrum de h [...]c loco assumptum putant. Hieron. Comment. in Esai. cap. 11. v. 1. and again, Possu [...]us & aliter dicere quod etiam iisdem verbis jux­ta Hebraicam veritatem in Es [...]iâ scriptum sit [Exiet yirga de radice &c.] Comment. in Matt [...]. cap. 2. v. 23. was taken out of the first verse of the Eleventh chap­ter of Isaiah, and such like place that [Page 4] speak of the Branch. These were the Two Opinions of old concerning this Text, and they have been taken up by Modern Expositors both of the Church of Rome and of the Reformed perswa­sion. Among these latter are Grotius and Hammond (to name no more,) the first whereof merits that Title which the Greeks gave Alexander Aphrodisaeus, the Antientest Commentator on Aristo­tle, viz, [...], the Interpreter, by way of Eminency. For certainly no man hath excell'd him in giving the Li­terall sense and interpretation of Scrip­ture. For this he is Incomparable, and speaks more Good Sense in one line then some others in a dozen long Periods. The second of these Modern Expositors is our Countryman, one of the Great­est Divines and Criticks of this last Age, a person of equal Learning and Piety, and therefore worthy to be (what he most Eminently was) a Son, or rather one of the Fathers of the Church of England. The former of these Excel­lent Writers refers [...]. to the word Nazar seperavit, whence the Na­zarites are stiled, and so Christ (saith he) was foretold in the Old Testament to be an Abstinent Mortified person, a True [Page 5] Nazarite. The second refers the word Nazarene to that sacred and venerable title of [...] the Branch often applied to the Messias, and thinks that our Evan­gelist speaks of this here.

But I cannot Subscribe to either of these Excellent Persons in what they offer concerning the meaning of this word Nazarene. It is my perswasion that neither of these references were in­tended by the Evangelist, and my rea­son is this, because they are nothing at all to the purpose. Mark how the words are brought in, He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Pro­phets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Is it not plain to any common understanding that Nazarene refers to Nazareth, and that Christ should be called the former because he divelt in the latter? Certainly there can be nothing more evident then this, and therefore it is impertinent here to talk of his being Netzer the Branch spoken of in the Old Testament, or of his being a Nazarite, which is no where said of him. Or, if he were a Naza­rite in any sense (as Nazar may fig­nife a Holy Separate person, as our Lear­ned Lightfoot, and before him Beza and [Page 6] Heinsius have observed on this place) yet this is nothing to the purpose, be­cause that word hath no reference at all to the city Nazareth, which is he [...]e spo­ken of. I have therefore sometimes won­dred that very Learned men have con­tented themselves with these impertinent Notions, and that they could prevail with themselves to think that either of these were the true meaning of the place. Can any man reconcile this to sense that the places in the Old Testament which fore­tell of Christ as the Branch, or as a Nazarite, (if there were any such thing) were fullfilled in his dwelling in a town call'd Nazareth? Can any man of any accuracy of reason see the Accomplish­ment of the one in the other, or find any Affinity between these? But now if we take [a Nazarene] for one of the city Nazareth, or one that dwelt at Naza­reth, the words are plain and easily un­derstood, and any one may see the Ful­filling of the Prophecy here spoken of. This then is that which I offer as my sentiment concerning this Controverted Text, viz. that neither Christ being cal­led Netzar, not his being in any sense a Nazarite are so much as to be thought of in this place, because they are wholly [Page 7] impertinent and foreign here: but the true, genuine, and unforc'd meaning of the place is, that it was foretold of old by the Prophets that our Saviour Should be called a Nazarene, i. e. a man of Na­zareth, and accordingly when he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth, that which was thus spoken by the Prophets was fulfilled. Here is no straining of the words, here is no need of far fetched Cri­ticisms, but the sense of the Text is facile and obvious, and he that runs may read it and understand it.

But you will ask, where is it fore­told that he shall be call'd a Nazarene, i. e. one of Nazareth? Here then is the greatest Difficulty (if it may be called so) to prove that this was Pro­phesied concerning Christ Or rather, there are these two things to be proved before I can hope to gain the Readers assent to what I have offered: First I must make it appear that this was foretold by the Prophets, viz. that Christ should be call'd a Nazarene, i. e. a man of Nazareth; and Secondly I am obliged to shew that he actually was called so. Both these are very Evident, in so much that I cannot but wonder again that Ex­positors have overlooked a thing which [Page 8] is so plain and obvious. First, it was foretold that our Saviour should bear the Name of a Nazarene, and that first as it is a Name referring to a Place, and se­condly as it is a Name of Reproach, taken from his inhabiting in such a place.

First, it was foretold as a Name de­rived from a Place, as it denoteth our Saviour to be one of Nazareth. But you will ask, where doth any Prophet say that he shall be an Inhabitant of Nazareth? I answer, This is not the very thing which the Text asserts: and the observing of it will lead us to the right understanding of the words. It is not said it was spoken by one particular Prophet, but by the Prophets: by whom may be understood not only those that were the Penmen of the S. Scripture (of whom afterwards) but others of a like Prophetick spirit, who used to foretell the Coming of the Messias, and parti­cularly to assign the Place of his gene­rall Abode, as well as that of his Birth and Crucifixion. And therefore though we find not in the Sacred Writings these express terms [He shall be called a Na­zarene,] i. e. he shall be, and be called One of Nazareth, yet S^t Matthew's words are true, that this was spoken by the [Page 9] Prophets, for it was the General Say­ing among them, when the Iews en­quired of them where the Messias's habi­tation should be the greatest part of his life, that it should be at Nazareth, a Town in Galilee. This was a Received Report among the Iews, and passed for a Prophetick Saying, and thence the Evangelist makes use of it, and applies it here very appositely when he was re­lating how Ioseph being warned of God turned aside into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Na­zareth. This, saith he, was spoken of long before by the Prophets, by the Ho­ly Men that discoursed of the Messia his Coming, and we have received it from them. For without doubt they had many things delivered to them from the mouths of Prophetick persons, which were transmitted from age to age. Thus we find S^t Iude quotes Enochs Prophecy, which he had only by Tradition, Be­hold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, v. 14. And S^t Paul makes mention of the Egyptian Sorcerers Ian­nes and Iambres, 2 Tim. 3. 8, whose Names are not found in Exodus, but were taken out of the Traditions of the Jews. In like manner our Evangelist [Page 10] quotes that here which was reported to have been said by certain Prophets of old, whose Predictions were delivered from one to another. It is not improbable that S^t Matthew had by Tradition such a Prophecy as in express syllables fore­told that our Saviour should be called a Nazarene, i. e. he should have his Name from Nazareth, the place where he was to dwell, for 'tis very likely that This, no less then the Place of his Na­tivity, Bethlehem, was predicted by some Inspired and Prophetick men.

The next thing I am to prove is that this Prophetick Rumour which prevailed among the Jews was actually fulfilled, i. e. that our Blessed Master was called a Nazarene, or one of Nazareth, as that Name hath reference to the place of his Habitation. It cannot escape our ob­servation that it is particularly recorded, and that sundry times, not only in the four Gospels but in the Acts of the A­postles, that Christ was called Iesus of Nazareth, and that this was a Name given him by all sorts of persons. He was called so by the Multitude, Luke 18. 37, and more Expresly and Emphatically in Mat. 21. 11. This (say they) is Iesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee: he [Page 11] had this Name given him by his Friends and Followers, by his Apostles and Disci­ples, as you read in Luke 24. 19. Iohn 1. 45. Acts 2. 22 & 4. 10 & I0. 38. & 26. 9. The same Name was attributed to him by his professed Ene­mies, Mark 14. 67. Iohn 18. 5. Acts 6. 14. and more especially by Pilate his Judge, who fixed this Title on the Crosse, Iesus of Nazareth King of the Iews, Iohn [...] and as for the o­ther Titles set over him, mentioned by the rest of the Evanglists, they were but Abbreviatures of this. Observe far­ther that the Angels of heaven called him by this Name, Mark 16 [...]6. and so did the Devils, Mark 1. 23. Luke 4. 34. Lastly, he is thus Named by Himself, Acts 22. 8. where we find that even from Heaven he was pleased to own this Title, I am Iesus of Nazareth, saith he to the surious Sauls Now, is not this very remarkable, and much to our present purpose, that his being of Nazareth con­stantly gave the Denomination to him? He hath his Name from no other place, unless it be from Galil [...]e, Mat. 21. 12. and Nazareth was part of that Galilee, so that in a manner it was the Same Name. He shall be called a Nazarene, [Page 12] said the Prophers; and behold, he was So, In Nazareth he was bred up, and thence he had his Name: which you see is most particularly and signally taken notice of in the Evangelical Writings: as it were to tell us that the Prophecy concerning this Name of Christ was real­ly fulfilled.

We have now passed the Boine, we have overcome that Great Difficulty (for so it was thought by some, and looked upon as insuperable) viz. the proving that Christ's being called a Na­ [...]arene (i. e. one of Nazareth) was in that very notion and sense both fore [...]old and fulfilled. Let us now proceed to Vanquish this seeming. Difficulty by O­ther Arguments. Secondly then, we are to consider this Name as it is a Name of Reproach, and so I shall shew that it was foretold by the Prophets, even the very Prophets who were Penmen of the Old Testament that our Lord should be called by this Name, and likewise that he was so called in way of Reproach. The first of these is to be proved only in a general way from the Old Testa­ment, where it is often declared that Holy and Righteous persons shall meet with Reproachfull words from the mouths [Page 13] of wicked men, that it is their usuall lot in this world to suffer in their Names and Reputations, to be scoffed at and de­famed by that sort of people, and to be represented as persons loathed and forsaken by the Divine Numen. More particularly of our Saviour 'tis said that he shall be a Despised and Contempti­ble person in the eyes of men. I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the People. All they that see me laugh me to scorn, they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, &c. Psal. 22. 6, 7. And again, For thy sake I have born reproach, shame hath covered my face, Psal. 69. 7. The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen up­on me, v. 9. They that sit in the gate speak against me, v. 12. It is univer­sally granted that David was a Type of Christ, and what he here saith is spo­ken also of Him whose Representative he was. This no man who is acquainted with the Bible, and the genius of it, will so much as think of denying; yea, he will acknowledge that that whole 22^• Psalm is more especially and peculiarly applicable to our Saviour, and 'tis cer­tain that he rehearsed either all or part of it when he hung on the Crosse. Of this [Page 14] Despised Iesus speaks that Evangelicall Prophet, His visage was marr [...]ed more then any man, and his form more than the Sons of men, Isai. 52. 14. He hath no form nor comelinesse: and when they Shall see him, there is no beauty that they should desire him. He is Despised and rejected of men: they hide as it were their faces from him: he is despised, and they esteem him not, ch. 53. v. 2, 3. Thus it was plainly foretold that Christ our Redeemer shold be despised and re­proached, and spoken against, in which General Predictions this Particular one is included, viz. that he should be de­spised and defamed because of the mean­nesse of the Place of his habitation: he shall be called a Nazarene, he shall be reproached and vilified by reason of his Education and Abode in that Town. Al­though the Prophesies which I have al­ledged are spoken generally and at large, yet this is clear and undeniable that if the Title of Nazarene was used by Christ's Enemies as a mark of their despising and rejecting him (which I shall make good anon,) then even this Particular Name was implied and contained in the General Prediction concerning him. Or, take it thus, though these Individuall [Page 15] words here set down by the Evangelist [He shall be called a Nazarene] are no where found in the Writings of the Pro­phets, yet the Sense and Meaning of them are there, which is sufficient: as in Acts 10. 42. S^t Peter alledges This as testified by all the Prophets, that through Christ's name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of Sins: and yet among all the Prophets there is not one extant that hath these words, which he here delivereth. He speaks not the very words, but the sense of the Pro­phets: and so doth S^t Matthew here, he tells us that it was spoken of by the Pro­phets that Christ shall be called a Na­zarene, which very words though they doe not occurre in any Prophetick Wri­ter of the Old Testament, yet the mean­ing and Import of them is to be found in those Writings, as I have shewed: for there we read that Christ, as well as his Followers, shall be despised and rejected, defamed and reproached, which is the true sense and meaning of these words [He shall be called a Nazarene.] Thus the written Word of God attests that he was to be called by this Name. But perhaps the Prophesies which were by Tradition spake expresly of this Ap­pellation, [Page 16] and foresignisied to the Jews that this individual Title of Nazarene should be made use of, and applied to the Messias when he came into the world; to which also it is likely S^t Matthew here refers, as hath been said before.

The next thing to be proved is that this Prophecy was actually fulfilled, And here first more generally (taking this Name for a Name of Reproach and Ignominy) we can prove that it was fully accomplished in that our Saviour was actually reproached, miscalled, defamed, when he was here upon earth. They traduced his Birth and Parentage; they derided him for his supposed Fathers Trade, and perhaps his Own, as if it were some great blemish, some unpardo­nable crime to be of an Honest Calling. His Life was accused of Debauchery and Prophanesse, he was aspersed as a Glut­ton and a Wine-bibber, he was re­proached as a wilfull Violatour of the Sabbath; yea, whatsoever he said or did was matter of their Obloquy and Slan­der. All ranks of men conspired to re­vile the Blessed Iesus. He was mock­ed at by the Sanhedrim, by their Great Doctors and Rabbies, men of Beard and Gravity: he was also shouted at by the [Page 17] Giddy Multitude, by the Common Rab­ble, and baser sort of People. The Priests fiercely cried out against him, and treated him as ignominiously as they u­sed to do the Scape-Goat when it was to be packed away into the wildernesse. The Laity indeavoured to surpasse their Instructers, and doubled their spight a­gainst the Holy Iesus. Nay, his own Relations disgraced and abused him, some of his Kindred looked upon him as no other then a Distracted and Phren­tick person, and accordingly they came in hast from Nazareth to lay hold on him, and confine him. He is not only besides himself, but he is Possessed, if you'l believe the Pharisees: he doth all his Miracles by Art Magick, by a Con­federacy with the Prince of Devils and Apostate Spirits. In the Jewish Consi­story he is impeached of Blasphemy; in the Civil Court, of Sedition and Trea­son: and lastly, when he hung upon the Crosse, they charged him with Despair and utter Distrust of God. Thus from his first entrance into the world till his going out of it, he was the constant subject of mens Slanders and Reproaches. This Prophecy therefore in the Text was in the general fulfilled, in that he was thus egregiously [Page 18] reproached and traduced. This Prediction [He shall be called a Nazarene] is made good, for he was called by all those Names which signifie Disgrace and Re­proach, and This is one of them.

Besides, it was accomplished in a ge­nerall way, in as much as Christs Disci­ples and Followers were treated after the same manner: for what was done unto them is interpreted to be done unto Christ Himself. This I suppose will not be de­nied, and therefore we are only briefly to recount the ill usage in this kind which they met with. In the Evan­gelical History we are informed that the Apostles and Disciples of Iesus were a despised sort of men, that they were most unworthily aspersed and vilified, that they were loaden with all Oblo­quies and slanders. S^t Paul speaking of himself and his fellow Apostles, acquaints us, that they were reviled and defamed, made as the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things, 1 Cor. 4. 12, 13. And those that succeeded these First Worthies of the Church sared no bet­ter. It was considently reported by their Enemies that they worshipped, an Asses head, whence they had the Name [...]f Asinarii. It was sayd that they met [Page 19] together before the Sun rose to mur­der their own infants, and that they then crammed themselves with their warm flesh, and glutted themselves with their reeking bloud: and that when this was done, these Canibals, these Devourers of their own kind proceeded to acts of Filthinesse and Incest; yea, and that at all other times they lived in the pra­ctise of the most Flagitious sins, the most Execrable villanies. From the writings of the Pagans, and of those that Apo­logized for the Christians, we are ascer­tained that all manner of Falsities were invented by the Enemies of Christianity, and thrown upon the Professors of it. These poor vile abject Creatures stood exposed to the shock of their injurious tongues, and received all the filth which their Exulcerated minds could vomit forth upon them. To give you an example of the Highest Improvement of these mens Malitious Reviling, they had the impodence and effrontery to fasten upon the Christians even the Commission of those villanies which they acted them­selves: thus when Nero had set Rome on fire, he laid the fact upon these In­nocents, as both Tacitus and Suetonius cell us. It came to this at last, that [Page 20] the very Name of Christian, without any addition whatsoever, was a sufficient Re­proach. When they called any man a Christian, it was as much as to say he was a Criminal of the Highest Nature. Thus in generall the Prophecy here men­tioned by the Evangelist is accom­plished, the Christians, and in them Christ himself, were despised and reject­ed; they had all the Names and Marks of Reproach fastned upon them. Though they were aggrandized by the most Ho­nourable Titles given them by God, yet they were debased and vilified by the Worst of Apellations conferred upon them by men. In this large sense the Prophecy is true, they were called Nazarenes; they, as well as our Lord himself, the Great and Noble Institutour of Christianity, were loaded with Con­tumelies and Reproaches.

But more particularly, we are to prove the Accomplishment of this Prophecy, by shewing you that this individual Name of Nazarene, or one of Nazareth, was used as a Reproachfull Appellative towards Christ and towards his Follow­ers. We must know then that though Nazareth be called a City in this place of S^t Matthew, yet all agree that it was [Page 21] a Mean and Poor one, and rather de­served (if we look upon it in it self) to be called a Village. Which is no un­usuall thing in Scripture, where we find places that have the Name of Cities are also called Villages, as in Ios. 19. 7. 1 Chron. 4. 32. And in the New Testa­ment, Small Towns or Villages are some­times stiled [...], Mat. 9. 35. Mark 1. 38. Of Bethlehem we may Particularly observe that 'tis called [...] a City, in Luke 2. 4. but [...] a Village, in Iohn 7. 42. We meet with the like in other Authors: So Bethsura is called a City byAntiqu. Iud. l. 12. c. 14. Iose­phus, and in the same place [...] a Village or Town. Thus Nazareth, though it have the name of a City, yet it was but a mean Town, or rather a Village: whence it was said in a Proverbial way, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Iohn 1. 46. It was, as ap­pears by this Common Saying, a sorry Contemptible place, and yielded no in­habitant of any Note and Worth, un­lesse you will reckon Mecanicks and Poor Tradesmen to be such. A Na­zarene, a man of Nazareth, was gene­rally a Despised person among them. Hence it may be reasonably inferr'd that [Page 22] those who had a mind to disgrace and defame our Saviour Christ, used to re­proach him with a Title taken from this poor little Town, and to call him a N [...] ­zarene, a man that belonged to that little Village, and consequently was some pi [...]ifull fellow. But this, you will say, is Conje [...]ture only. I deny it, and give this reason for it, viz. because it is plainly grounded on Scripture. For we read in Acts 24. 5. that [...] Paul was accused by that Sp [...]uce Orator Tertallus, for being a Ring-leader of the sect of the Naza­rens, i, e. of the Christians, who were called so from Christ Iesus of Nazareth their first Founder and Master. He be­ing bred in that so [...]ry Town, was in way of contumely called a Nazarene by those that disliked his doctrine and institutions. And from Him his followers derived that Name, and had it frequently given them by those that hated their way of Religion, especially when they solemnly undertook to accuse them before Great Ones, as Ter [...]ullus did the Apostle her [...] before Filix. That Christ and those who professed Christianity were usually branded with the name of Galil [...]ans (they being of that Country for the most part) is evident from L [...]ke 23. [...] [Page 23] Acts 2. 7. yea, the Name lasted till some hundreds of years after Christ, as may be gather'd from Iulian the Apostate's crying out, (when he was struct by an unseen hand,) O Galilaean thou hast van­quished me, meaning without doubt the Blessed Ies [...], who was now seated at the [...]ight hand of God in heaven. Not only [...] Paul is called a [...]. In Philopatr. Bald Pate Ga­lil [...] by Lucian, but all the Primitive Christians were generally stigmatized with the title of Galilaeans by Iulian, P [...]rp [...]yrius, and other enemies of the Christian Religion. Now, this must be said with truth, that when they called Christ a Galilaean, and when they gave his followers that name, it was the same as if they had called them Naz [...]rens, because Nazareth was so noted a place in Galilee. But, which is yet closer to our present business, the Primitive Christians were more particularly and [...]mphatically stiled Nazarens from that Town of this Name in Galilee, where Iesus was brought up and dwelt the greatest part of his life. This is with great evidence restified and confirmed by Epipha [...]i [...]s, who not only tells us that there was a [...]ort of Hereticks called Nazarenes, out that the Orthodox Chri­stians [Page 24] also bore that name, Heass [...]res [...] that these were commonly known by the name of [...], &c. Adv. H [...] ­res. l. 1. Hares. 29. Nazarenes, and that they had no other Noted Name among their Adversaries and Opposers. Yea, at this day the Iews call the Christians [...] Notzerim, as we are informed by [...] on Acts 24. 5. and there is no body I believe, will think that [...] falsifies, when he saith the [...] at this day stile the Christians Naza­renes. Grot. in Acts 24. 5. It is un­deniable then that both Christ and his followers bore the name of Nazarens, and thus was fulfilled than which was spoken by the Prophets, (i. e. either generally by those that were W [...]iters of the Old Testament, or particularly and expressly by some Other Propheets that were of great note among the Jews▪ and whose Sayings were delivered down to posterity) viz. that Christ should be called a Nazarene. He was really and truly called so. Among other Ignomi­nious Names This very Perticular one of Nazarene, i. e. a man of [...], was frequently given him. For this word [...] here, and in Mark [...] and other places (what ever some have fancied of it) is as much as [...], [Page 25] one of Nazareth. The former word is but an Abreviature of this latter, which is no unusuall thing in the stile and language of Scripture, as those who are conversant in the Hebrew and Greek Text know very well. Indeed the last Syllable eth in Nazareth is but a bare termination, and this (as all Gramma­ [...]ians will confess) isThence it is sometimes Nazara, as well as Nazareth, according to that of Iuvencus, lib. 1.—ubi Nazara felix. Variable, and consequently the Adjective from this Substantive may be [...], or [...] (as it is in Mark [...]. 24. & [...] 4. 34) as well as [...] the eth being not of the Essence of the word. The Text then may be either rendred thus, He shall be called a Na­zare [...], or a Nazarene (as we find it translated) or a Nazarethite. It is not material which of these words we use: only it is to be remembred that we are to understand by it One of Nazareth, one of that Small contemptible Village, one that was under valued and despised because of his rise and habitation there. Such was our Blessed Lord and Saviour, He was scorn'd and contemned as a poor silly Villager. But our Inspired Author as­sures us that it was foretold by the Pro­phets that he should be despised and re­proached, and spoken against; in which [Page 26] General Predictions is included the se [...]se and meaning of this Particular one. He shall be called a Nazarene: for this call [...]ing him a Nazarene or one of Naza­reth, is an evident token of their [...] him, and is a dow [...]ight [...]eproach­ing and speaking agai [...]st him.

Thus I have given you my thoughts concerning this Text of Scripture, and have attempted to offer to you the Plain and Genuine meaning of it: [...] far as I can judge; it is impertinent and incoherent, it is [...] and ridiculous, to Interpret it in either of the senses mentioned in the beginnig of this Dis­course. If we doe so, the Connection of the words is Illogicall, Irrational and Absurd. This is my present appreh [...]sion of this place▪ and if I be mistaken, let it be remembred that I have been offe­ring a Notion about a Controverted Text, not deciding a Point of Faith, and consequently there is no great dan­ger in the mistake.

IN this Chapter the Apostle treats of these two things, First, of the Decent Habit of men and women in their publick meetings, from the begin­ning to the 17th v. Secondly, of the Right Administration of the Lords Sup­per, to the end of the Chapter. Un­der the first head he reproves the Co­rinthians because the Men among them covered their heads, and the Women un­covered theirs when they prayed or pro­phesied. And here let us see in what manner the Apostle reproves and re [...]utes this practise. First, before he comes directly to it, he premiseth and s [...]leth [Page 28] the Grand Order or Constitution which is appointed by God, viz. that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God, v. 3. That is, Christ as he is Mediatour is subordinate to God the Father, and man is next in dignity to Christ, and the woman to the man. Christ Iesus is the Head to whom the Man is immediately subject, and ought to be Govern'd by: and though Christ be the Head of the Woman also, yet it isViro medi [...]te veluticapite subordinato. Estius in loc. with the interposition of Man, who is as it were her Subordinate Head. This is the true series of the mans Su­periority over the Woman, which S^t Paul layeth as the foundation of his Reproof in this Chapter. Christ is subject to his Father, as he is man, and as he is the Minister of mans Redemption: the Man is subject to Christ, and the Wo­man to the Man. Upon this foundation he raises This superstructure afterwards, that a Man ought to uncover his head, and a Woman to Cover hers in the Congregation, that the former may not dishonour Christ, no [...] the latter her Hus­band: for by one the man shews his [...]reedom and Dominion, by the other the Woman testifies her subjection, And [Page 29] here the Apostle lays open the Disor­der and Faultinesse of the Christian Co­rinthians as to this particular. He com­plains that that Divine Order before mentioned was not strictly observed by them: for whereas the Woman ought to be subordinate to the Man as her Head and Governour, they used a Custom which was contrary to it. It was This, the Women among them after the Hea­thenish way layd aside their Veils in publick and religious Assemblies, and ap­pear'd with their naked heads: and the men took the womens Veils, and co­vered their heads and faces with them. The Un [...]itness and Unreasonableness of which practise (besides that it was a Pagan usage, especially among the Priests and Pr [...]estesses) the Apostle de­clares in those words, (v. 4) Every man praying or prophesying with his head cover'd dishonours his head, i. e. he dis­honours Christ. He acknowledgeth by this Covering that Christ is not set by God over him as Chief Govenour, that he is not Supreme on earth: and conse­quently he detracts from his own True Worth and Eminency, and disgraces his Sex, as if not Christ but some other were his Head. To be Vncovered is a [...]ign [Page 30] of his Superiority, but a Covering on the head is a token of Subjection: there­fore it is against the Dignity of his Sex and of Christ likewise, whom he should represent, as a Man, thus to be Covered. And as for the Other sex, Every wo­man, saith the Apostle, v. 5. that pray­eth or prophesieth with her head uncove­red dishonoureth her head, i. e. her Hus­band, or her Own Head by shewing it openly naked. The meaning is, she doth that which is contrary to Divine Order and Natural Modesty, for by putting on her Veil she ought to acknowledge her Inferiority and Subjection to her hus­band; but she throwing that aside acts in opposition to it, and at the same time she appears in an Immodest guise in the place of Solemn Worship. It follows in the same verse, For that (i. e. having her head uncovered) is even all one as if she were shaven, which is most Inde­ [...]orous and Shamefull. Baldness or Sha­ving is Unnatural, and therefore Hatefull in a Woman, for she should rather no [...] ­rish her hair; of which afterwards. This may give some Light to that in Deut. 21. 11, 12. When thou seest among the Captives a beautifull woman, and hast a desire to her, that thou [...]ouldest have her [Page 31] to thy wi [...]e, then thou shalt [...] her home to thy house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, or [...]ather; according to the Hebrew, make her nails, and let them grow. The Design is to make the captive Maid Deformed, that the person who was taken with her might have the heat of his affection abated towards her. In order to this she must [...]ot only let her nails grow, but shave her head, which is a S [...]ame and Defor­mity, contrary to the [...] the Comely Adorning of the head, of which I shall speak anon. And it is added, v. 3. She shall put off the rayment of her cap­tivity, i. e. the Hansome Attire she was in when she was taken captive, and she must put on Mournfull Sordid Apparel a full month, as you read in the next words. All which sheweth that she was to be kept up in the mans house (who took her in war) in a Neglectfull, yea Deformed plight, and that shaving her head was part of that Deformity: and consequently that this is Uncomely and Disgracefull, yea Loathsome and Un­sufferable in that Sex. Therefore our Apostle subjoins, v. [...]. If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, i. e. for her to be without a Veil, without [Page 32] a Covering on her head, is no less Un­seemly, yea Detestable, then if she were shorn: she may as well be without any hair at all. But (as he goes on in the same verse) if it be a shame to be shorn or shaven (as most certain it is, seeing the having of long hair is her Glory, as you read afterwards) let her be co­vered. Thus much for the Woman. As for the Man, he ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the Image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man; v. 7. Which is an­other Argument to prove the aforesaid Order or Constitution, viz. that Man is more immediately and properly the Image of God, the representation of the Di­vine Excellency, and therefore must be Uncovered. In comparison of the Wo­man he is the Glory of God, and that primarily, but the Woman is but the Image and Glory of the Man. Again, the Apostle argues from the O [...]iginal of Man, v. 8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, i. e. Man hath this Prerogative to be immediately from God, but the Wo­man was from Man. He argues also from the End as well as the Origine of Man, v. 9. Neither was the man [Page 33] created for the woman, but the woman for the man; as much as to say, the woman was made to be a Meet Help, to be Administring and Subservient to Man: consequently she is not superiour to him, but she is to behave her self Submissively, and therefore to cover her head, which is a sign of that Submission. The Apostle pleads for this behaviour as due also in respect of the Angels, v. 10. For this cause the woman ought to have power on her head because of the Angels; the explication of which I shall remit to another place. But although this was the rate of S^t Pauls Divinity, yet in the two next verses he doth a little moderate his discourse, and qua­lifie what he had said in the 8^th and 9^th verses, to which this ought to be an­nexed. Because he might seem to have been somewhat too Harsh to the Women, he prudently and cautiously mitigates and tempers his former Argument here, that it may not redound to the dispa­ragement of the Sex. Nevertheless (saith he,) neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the wo­man is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman: but all things of God, [Page 34] v. 11, 12. Having thus salv'd his harsh doctrine, he proceeds to a new Topick, namely the Natural Congruity and De­cency of the thing it self which he had been urging. And here he appeals to Themselves, and their Own Judgement concerning the matter he is speaking of, and reproving them for, viz. Mens praying with their heads covered, and Women, with theirs uncovered. Iudge in your selves (faith he:) Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? v. 13. It is so Reasonable a thing which I speak of, and now require of you, that I submit it to the Natural sentiments and decision of your own minds. And here the words of the Text are brought in, Doth not Nature it self teach you that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him? But (on the contrary, v. 15.) if a woman have long hair, it is a glo­ry to her.

By this short Descant on this part of the Chapter you may perceive the De­sign and Scope of the words which I am now to treat of, Concerning men or womens wearing their Hair. Expo [...]itors have exceedingly varied in their indea­vours to Joyn these words with the for­mer: many things very much Strained [Page 35] and Misapplied are said by them; But up­on a deliberate view of the whole, I take This to be the True and Natural Cohe­rence of the words; They are brought in here by the Apostle as a Reason of the Precept he gave them, viz. that Women must be Ve [...]led or Covered, and Men Uncovered when they pray. To perswade and convince them of the Reasonableness of this Command he ap­peals to Nature, and tells them that This teacheth them that very thing which he enjoyns them: and This disalloweth of that which he forbids them. As if he had said, your selves may in your own minds and consciences judge of the De­cency of Mens uncovering their heads when they pray, and of the contrary In­decency of this practise in Women. I have shewed you that these are founded on the Appointment of Heaven, the Or­der of our Universal Governour, the Principles of Nature, the Law of Rea­son, and the Distinction which ought to be between the Sexes. This is no [...]nfrequent thing that your duty is com­mended to you even by the dictates of your Reasonable Nature. Several things which may be urged upon you are of this fort, the very Natural Light which [Page 36] you are indued with, suggests the obser­vance of them. As now, because I am speaking of Covering or Vncovering the head, I will instance in a thing which is nearly related to it, viz. the Manner of wearing the hair of the head, What is commendable in Men, and what in Women as to this matter▪ Here the very Light of Nature shines upon you, and directs you what to do. If you will consult your selves, and the Natural suggestions of your minds, you shall plain­ly discover what is your duty. Even na­ture it self teacheth you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him: but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her.

But all persons that have Commented and Treated on these words doe not so easily agree about the meaning of them: Yea, there is a very great Disagreement among them. And the reason is, because they give different senses of these two Principal words, [Nature] and that o­ther which we translate [to have long hair.] The only Difficulty therefore lying in these two words, I will enquire 1. What is meant by Nature. 2. What is meant by having long hair, or rather what the Greek word, which is here so rendred, truly signifies.

[Page 37]First, let us enquire what is meant by Nature. Nature here teacheth us something, but we cannot tell what that is which it teacheth, unless we know what Nature is. And in order to that, we must acquaint our selves how this word [Nature] is taken. It sometimes signi­fies the Natural and Inbred Corruption of mankind. Thus we are said to be by Nature the Children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. i. e. by our Common Degeneracy and Apostacy in Adam we are liable to the wrath of God. And so generally in the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers the word is taken, it denotes the Cor­rupt Nature of man, the original De­pravation of the sons of men. But see­ing the Apostle here speaks of some­thing which is Good and Laudable that Nature teacheth, thence we may infer that This is not, and cannot be the meaning of the word in this place. There are Three other significations of it, and one or more of them must undeniably be understood here.

First, it is taken for the Law of Nature in General, Natural Light or Knowledge, the Inward dictates of Rea­son in a mans breast. Thus the Gen­tiles doe by nature the things contain'd [Page 38] in the Law, Rom. 2. 14. i. e. they have a Rational Principle in them which prompts them to do those things. This hath its name both in Greek and Latin from its [...]: Natu­ [...], à na­se [...]do. being born with a man, it is the Innate and Congenite property of the Rational soul of man. And because God is the God of Nature, and it is He that hath planted in our minds Rea­sons of Good and Evil, therefore this becomes a Divine Law, and is set up in mens hearts as such. What is dictated by Right Reason or the Law of Nature may be said to be dictated by God Him­self. Therefore S^t Chrysostom on this place faith, that [...]. Homil. in 1 Cor. 11. when Nature is said to teach us, the Apostle doth as good as say, God teacheth for it is He that hath contrived and framed Nature.

Secondly, It is taken for that Parti­cular Law or Dictate of Nature which teacheth a Difference of Sexes: as in Rom. 1. 26, 27. Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: likewise the men left the natural use of the women. Here it is evident that [...] & [...] & [...] signifie the Discrimina­tion of the Sex, and what is suitable or disagreeable to this Discrimination. Na­ture [Page 39] here must needs signifie the Distincti­on of Sex, i. e. the Particular Law of Nature concerning that Distinction, and not the Law of Nature in General; for though other sins, as Fornication and Adultery, are against the Laws of Na­ture and Reason as well as This, yet This is against the Law of the Sex, and the Distinction of man and woman, which is a Particular and Individual Law of Na­ture, and wholly different from those others. You will also find This to be the signification of the word [...] in Lexicons and Glossaries from very Good Authors, as Thacydides, Iosephus, Philo, &c. Salmasius proves [...] to be Sexus: and answerably to this meaning of the word [...] & [...] are un­derstood in Diodorus Siculus, Iosephus and others.

Thirdly, the word [...] may be ren­dered Castom: and this unquestionably is sometimes the meaning of the word in Good Greek Authors. The Verb [...] is as much as solet, and thence the Verbal Nown [...], which is derived thence, signifies Custom. But this is not the proper and genuine signification, but is only a Derivative sense, because what is Natural is usual and common; [Page 40] and again, what we Use our selves to doth as it were become Natural to us; thence Custom is said to be a second Nature, yea, a [...]. Long and Inveterate Custom is stronger then Nature it self. So that ac­cording to this threefold acception of the word, there is a threefold Opinion concer­ning the meaning of the Text. 1. Some hold that it is a Law of Natural Rea­son that a man should not have Long Hair, i. e such hair as women have. So Vorstius and Poimenander (two Bel­gick Divines) understand the words, and their Countryman Grotius is not wholly averse to it, for he is willing to grant that it is a Custom founded on Natu­ral dictates. Doth not Nature it self teach you, that &c. i. e. Doth not the Jnbred and Natural Light in your minds dictate this to you? 2. Others say the Text speaks of that Particular Law of Nature which teacheth there must be a Difference between Sexes. So Sa [...]ma­sius and Revius interpret the place. Doth not Nature it self teach you, that &c. i. e. the Sex, the Difference of Sex, the Distinction of man and woman teacheth you this, it being the Law of Nature to put difference between man and woman as to Clothes, and Wearing [Page 41] the hair. 3. Some hold that it is Custom only which teacheth this. Thus Cal­vin, Grotius, Hammond understand the words: but it is not well agreed among them whether it was a Particular or a General Custom, whether it was a Cu­stom among all Nations, or some only. Thus far we have considered the First Principal word in the Text.

The Other word [ [...]] which is rendred here [to have long hair] is variously taken also: which is the other reason why this place is so difficult to be understood. The word [ [...]] is as much as [gloriari, superbire] in very sufficient Authors; but because it is evident that That cannot be the mean­ning here, I will pass it by. The other two significations of the word are per­tinent in this place. [...] signifies either barely to Nourish the hair, and let it grow at length, or to Bind it up in a neat manner, to dress, trim and a­dorn it. These are the two noted sig­nifications of this Greek word. Accor­dingly I will consider the Apostles words 1. as they may be meant of Long Hair: 2. as they may be understood of Hair that is Tied up, Trimmed and Adorned.

First, taking [ [...]] for [having [Page 42] long hair,] let us enquire in the First place whether C [...]stom teacheth us that we ought not to wear such hair; Se­condly, let us see whether Natural Rea­son teacheth this: and Thirdly, what the Distinction of Sexes dictates in this case.

I. If Custom be meant by [...] here, let us examine what Custom there is for Long Hair, and that first among the Iews, secondly among the Gentiles. First, what was the Custom of the Iews? Among them the Divine Law forbad the Priests toLev. 21. 5. shave either head or beard. But though they were not to do this, yet they were not to wear their hair Long, but a middle way was prescribed them, that is, a Moderate cutting of the hair, as we read in Ezek. 44. 20. They shall not shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long, they shall only poll their heads. Neither Baldness nor too Long hair were to be used, both these Extremes were to be shunn'd in opposition to the Heathens (as you shall hea [...] afterwards) who sometimes cut off all their hair, at other times let it grow Neglected and Long. But a Decency and Moderation are here enjoyn'd the Priests, and they were to be Examples [Page 43] to the People. And it is likely the peo­ple did follow this Pattern at first, and wore their hair of a moderate length, although in this as well as in other things they afterwards swerved from the Rule, and were dispensed with because of the hardness of their hearts. Thus some of the Iewish people had very long hair, and the Pictures which we have of them represent them oftentimes so. But from the beginning it was not so, for it is probable that the same Law obliged the People and Priests, i. e. that they should neither shave their heads, nor wear their hair long. But it will be asked, where is this Prohibition? I answer, one part of it is expressly set down, and the o­ther is implied. All persons among them were forbid to shave, or cut close their hair, lev. 19. 27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. They are forbid here the Circular Cut of their hair, i. e. to cut the hair of their heads or beards after the superstitious manner of the Pagans, who used▪ (as several LearnedBonfrerius, Bochart, Groti [...], Heinsius. Writers inform us) to round the hair of their heads, that is, to cut it off all on the sides, and to leave on­ly a Lock behind, or a Tust at top, [Page 44] which they devoted to some God or Goddess. This particular way of Cut­ting the hair was used in the time of Mourning for the dead, as I gather from the next verse, where the making any cutting in the flesh for the dead is for­bid. Their Cutting themselves was a sign of their Excessive Lamentation for the deceased: and so this rounding the corners of the head (i. e. cutting the hair off on all sides) being joyned with it, is to be interpreted (I conceive) of Immoderate Mourning for the dead, La­menting as the Heathens used to lament their departed friends. And to confirm this Interpretation, you will find these two joyned together again in Deut. 14. 1. and in Ier. 16. 6. For otherwise you may remember that they made them­selves Bald at Funerals, and they did not offend in so doing. We read that this was the practise of the best among them. And they were invited to it by the Prophets, or rather by God himself. The Lord in that day called for Baldness, Isa. 7. 15. and so in Isai. 22. 12. Ier. 7. 29. Mic. 7. 18. They would not have been call'd upon to Lament after this manner, if it had been sinful. So then, this Baldness or Tonsure at [Page 45] Funerals and other Sad Occasions was not unlawfull among the Iews, only so far as it was Superstitious, and in imi­tation of the Idolatrous Gentiles. There­fore that Law in Leviticus chiefly re­spects the Idolatrous Custom of throw­ing thei [...] Hair into the Sepulchres of the dead, and devoting them to the de­parted souls, and such like practises a­mong the Pagans. But now from this particular Custom of cutting off their hair, or Shaving in case of Great Mourning, we may gather that at Other times they did not cut so close, for it is clear that if they did, they would have left no­thing to cut when the Mourning-Time came. It is reasonable therefore to con­clude that they generally wore their hair of a Moderate Dimension, and as they cut not close, or in that Spherical way before spoken of, so they ran not into the Other Ex [...]eam, viz. of indulging Uncut and Long Hair. And This is as evident as the other, for the pra­ctise of the Nazarites is a demonstration of it. These were a peculiar sort of De­votionists among the Iews who suffered their hair to grow, and wore it Long, and put it in fillets, or knots and locks, as the women then did. Samson was [Page 46] such a Nazarite. A razor shall not come upon his head, saith the Angel to Ma­no [...]h's wife. And God promised him that as long as he continued a Nazarite, and cut not his Hair, but let it grow; this should be a token to him of that Strength which God extraordinarily [...] him with ▪but he broke the Vow of Na­zarism and suffered his hair to be cut off. Some distinguish between Perpetu­al and Temporary Nazarites: among the former they reckon this Samson, Sa­muel, and John the Baptist, among the latter Absalom (who cut his hair the thirtieth day of his Vow,) and S^t Paul, who had made a Vow not to shave for a time; but this being expired he cut his hair after a solemn manner, as was the Custom, and is expressed in Acts 18. 18. Having shorn his head in Cen­chrea, for he had a vow. (Though it is thought by some that this refers to A­quila just before mentioned, and not to S^t Paul.) And such were the Nazarites spoken of in Acts 21. 23, 24. Yea D^r Lightfoot is of opinion that these Corin­thians, some of them at least, in a su­perstitious humour affected Nazaritism, and that this was the occasion of the Apostle's reproving them for their Long [Page 47] Hair. But though it be the received opinion that there were some Perpetual, and others Temporary Nazarites, yet I am not satisfied about it; I rather think that they were All left to their liberty to vow as they pleased, and that some observed the Vow a longer, and others a shorter time. He that [...] Num. 6. (which Chapter is wholly spent in setting down the Law of Nazarites) will be perswaded to think so, especially if he well weigh the 17, & 18. v. Thence it will appear that it is a mistake that some Nazarites never cut their hair: From this place it is clear that none of them (for This is an Universal Law con­cerning Nazarites) nourished their hair Continually, but that after such a cer­tain time they cut it off, and devoted it to God. All Nazarites might after a set season dispose of their Hair. But that which I infer from the premises is this, that the Law of Nazaritism con­cerning Long and Uncut Hair (thoug [...] but for a time) proves that the wea­ring of Long Hair was not the common us [...]ge of the Jewish people. If it was peculiar to few, and that by Vow, then it was not the practise of the general body of the Nation. The Nazarites [Page 48] abstain'd from cutting their hair: there­fore others (who were not obliged by the Law of Nazaritism) did cut their hair, and suffered it not to grow Long. Nazarites by Vow wore Long Hair, therefore those who were not tied by that Vow (as the Generallity of the Jewish people) took up another usage. Long Hair was a thing Unusual and Ex­traordinary in those Religious and Sepa­rate persons: therefore it was the Usual Custom not to have long hair. These I take to be very Rational Inferences. This was the first thing I undertook, to acquaint you what was the Custom of the Iews. And here there is some­thing more to be seen and gathered then among Other People of the world, be­cause besides the Law of Nature, they had the Law of God to direct them in this as well as in other things.

In the second place let us see the practise of the Gentiles. The Arabians, among whom I [...]b lived, used to shave their heads in time of Mourning and La­mentation, as you may gather from his practice, Iob 1. 20. And this was so notorious thatIn Thaliâ. Herodotus testifies of them that they were clipp'd as Apollo was, in a round figure, they cut off all [Page 49] the angles about their temples. These are thought by some to be [...] in Ier. 9. 26. & 25. 23. pr [...]cisi an­gulo, those that are cut off in the cor­ners, i. e. those that cut their hair round, and left no corners, viz. when they had a solemn occasion of Lamenting. From Arabia if you pass into Egypt, you may gather from their custom of letting their hair grow Long in time of Calamity and Sorrow, that they did not nourish Long Hair at other times. Thus [...] 2. cap. 36. Herodo­tus acquaints us that the Egyptians (con­trary to the Iews) in the days of Mour­ning let their hair grow Long on their heads. The truth of which is confir­med to us byGen. 41. 14. the Sacred Records, which tell us that Ioseph cut his hair when he was released from Prison, and was to goe into King Pharaohs presence. But Herodotus in the same place adds that the Egyptians used to shave their beards in time of Sorrow, though they let the hair of their heads grow. And therefore in the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks, where Hair cut off signifies Grief and Bondage, it must be understood of the Hair of the beard, not of the head. And as the people indulged not them­selves in an Excessive Length of hair▪ [Page 50] so neither did their Priests; for the [...]ore said Author relates that they were so far from this, that they were all of them Shaven, But the Grecians make the greatest figure here, and therefore I will in the next place shew what their Cu­stom and Practice was as to the wearing of their Hair. That these people of old were used to wear their hair Long we learn from their constant Epithet in Homer, [...]. Though it is certain that at first the Grecians were of another fashion. Short or Moderate­ly-grown hair was thought by them to be best, and accordingly they used them­selves to it: the Lacedaemonians especi­ally were noted for this. But if you would know how they came to alter their primitive usage, I am able to sa­tisfie you by offering. These following things to your thoughts. 1. It was a Philosophick humour to wear the hair long: which though it began at first with their Beards, yet afterwards it pro­ceeded higher, to the hair of their Heads. The reason was, because Gravity and Majesty were thought to be in this sort of Hair. And yet these very men, who of all others one would think should not be sickle and inconstant, ran from [Page 51] one Excess to a contrary one. Hence it is that in Aristophanes sometimes the Philosophers are laughed at as [...], at other times for being [...]; one while they appeared with long Locks flowing loosly on their shoulders, another while they were shorn to the very Skin: and both these Extreams were the effects of Sordin [...]ess and Co­veteousness, and because they had a mind to spare Charges. Some of the Philo­sophers wore short hair on their Heads, but Long Beards. But the Cynicks and Stoicks were all shaved close. 2. It may be the Poets had some influence here as well as the Philosophers: They general­ly described their Gods (excepting Apol­lo) with Long hair, and so the Limners drew [...]em; wherefore it is no wonde [...] th [...] Mortals were induced to imitate the Gods. 3. They indulged a great Length of hair because they thougt it Beautifull. This is a reason Eustathius gives of the Epithet in Homer before mentioned. It seems the Greeks very much affected Comliness and Beauty, and they perswaded themselves that these were augmented by their Dangling Locks; hereupon they were very solicitous to nourish them. 4. Another Reason [Page 52] (which may be thought to be almost in­consistent with the former) was this, they did it to strike Terrour into thei [...] Enemies. Thus particularly of the La­cedaemonians, Lib. 1. Herodotus reports that they began to wear Long hair and Beards when they turned Warriors, and he tells the particular Time, viz. when they began the war against the Argives. Nay, Xenophon relates that Lycurg [...]s▪ their fa­mous Lawgiver and Governor, would have them wear their hair long and dis­sheveld, to fright their Enemies. Hence the forenamed Commentator on Homer, when he gives an account why the Gre­cian souldiers tricked up themselves, and wore Long Hair, saith it was not only [...], but [...], not on­ly to make them look Beautifully but Formidably, to please their own eyes, and to affright their Enemies, to shew at once the Lustre and Terrour, the Bravery and Dreadfulness of War. But however the Grecians thought and acted in, those ages when they became Cor­ [...]upted, yet it is not to be questioned that the Thoughts and Actions of the Wisest among them were of a different kind. The Scholiast on Aristophanes re­cites it as an Athenian Law, that [...]. the [Page 53] Souldiers must not pamper themselves, neither wear hair long. And as for That Pretence of theirs for letting their hair grow to an exceeding great Length, viz. that they might thereby Affright their Enemies, it was afterwards found weak and insufficient, and the Grecians thought good to alter this custom; which was done upon occasion of the Abantes, a war­like people, and Skilful in arms, who be­cause they used to fight close, cut off the hair of their heads before, that their enemies might not take them by it when they fought. These men let their hair grow only behind, and therefore are cal­led Iliad. [...]. [...]. This was partly put in practise afterwards by Alexander the Great's Army in their Asian Expedition, that they might grapple with the Foe with the greater freedom. And for this reason all the Macedonian Souldiers sha­ved their heads, saithIn These [...]. Plutarch, that their enemies might have no hold of them in that part. 5. They were plea­sed to make the Difference of Wearing the Hair to be a mark of Difference between Freemen and Slaves. Especially among the Lacedaemonians the Freemen only did nourish their hair: whence that of Aristophanes, In A [...]ibus. [...], [Page 54] Thou being but a servant wearest long hair, which is a very Unsitting thing in thee. Of these Spartans 'Ev [...]. Rbet. l. 1. c. 9. Aristotle speaks, saying, It is a good and lauda­ble thing among them to have Long Hair, for it is a Badg of Liberty, where as Servants and Slaves were shaved. Thus you see how Long Hair became Modish among the Greeks: they had one pretence or other to commend this Fashion. Yet they could not but be sensible that this was an Upstart usage▪ and that they varied herein from their pristine custom. It may be from a re­flection upon this, and to make some amends, and to expiate as it were for this their folly, they afterwards brought up the custom of cutting their hair, and consecrating the f [...]st fruits of it to some God or Goddess. This was the first Notable thing they did as soon as they were grown Men, and came to a per­fect use of Reason. Nothing is more frequent in those Writers who give an account of the Manners and Customs of the Greeks then this, that it was a general use among them to nourish their hair till they were grown up in years, and then to poll it, and dedicate it to some Deity, as to Esculapius, or Bac­c [...]us, [Page 55] or Hercules, o [...] to the Nymphs, or the country Rivers where they were born, asHom. Iliad. [...]. Achilles did. Others consecrated their hair to Diana, but most persons dedicated it to Apollo, and laid it up in his Temple at Delphos, asPlutarch, in Thes. Theseus did. Pindar, Aeschilus, and others give testi­mony concerning this Consecrating their hair: which I conceive was an Expia­ting for their former wearing of it so long. But, alas! after these first-fruits of their hair (which they call'd [...]) were thus dedicated by them, and when they came to mens estate, they thought they might take liberty for the future, and indulge the Length of their locks, as they had done before. But then at certain times, as if they were conscious to themselves of their faultiness in wearing their hair after too Luxurious a manner, they corrected themselves for it when they grew more Sober, and had Occasion to Mourn and Lament. Then off went their Shaggy Locks; and their Bald Pates appeared: they seemed now by their Baldness to repent of the Con­trary Folly, and to bewail it by this Symbal of Grief. But behold again the [...]ickle humour of these men! They testi­fi'd their Mourning not only by Bald­ness, [Page 56] but by letting their hair grow Long. They imitated the contrary Cu­stoms of the Iews and Egyptians; the former of which shaved close in time of Mourning, the latter went with Neg­lected hair and Uncut. That the Gre­cians practised this latter, is expresly witnessed by Plutarch, who saith that [...] Quaest. Roman. if any Calamity happen'd among them, though the women were shorn, yet the men cut not their hair all the time. And as for the former, but Contrary usage,Lib. 1. Herodotus assures us that in his days the Argives (the Antientest Gre­cians) expressed their Sorrow and Mour­ning by cutting their hair off, and sha­ving their heads. Or, if this be questio­ned, because it is but a single Instance, the Reader may consultDe animal. sacr. Bochart, who will supply him with a great many. Now from these Contraries and Extreams we may certainly gather what was the usual and Ordinary Custom of the Greeks as to their hair. Their running out into Excess at those extraordinary times ac­quaints us that they were Moderate at other times. Though I must say this, there was a great Alteration as to this matter, in respect of the Age; for in one Age the Greeks were more inclined [Page 57] to wear Long Hair then in another, as might be proved from their Historians. It is certain that this was not their fault at first; they then wore their hair Mo­derately, but by degrees, and for several pretended reasons (as hath been shewed) they degenerated into the custom of Long Hair.

The practice of the Romans is next to be enquired into. They did some­times, as the Grecians, express their Grief by cutting off their hair: especially in time of great Danger they did this. In a storm at sea, when they were affraid of Shipwrack they shaved their heads, as appears from that of Iuvenal,

Petronius Arbiter and others confirm this usage, and perhaps this is the mean­ning of S^t Pauls words, Acts 27. 34. There shall not a hair fall from the head of any of you, i. e. the tempest at sea shall not be so great and dangerous that you shall have occasion to shave your heads, as the custom is in such cases▪ But this is certain, that the Romans were not ignorant that Hair was given by Nature for a Covering and Orna­ment [Page 58] to mankind, and consequently they look'd upon the being Deprived of it as a Penal and Shameful thing. Ac­cordingly Shaving the head was the [...]dg of a Vile Light fellow, as Cieare saith with a quibble, Idcirce [...]apite & supercilii [...] semper est rasus, nè [...]num pi­lum boni viri habere dicatur. Thus he speaks of a Trisling fellow who had cut himself close, and left no hair at all. And that the hair was wont to be cut off in Mockery and Disgrace, is evident from what Domitian did to Apollonius Tyanaeus; after he clapt him up in pri­son (saithIn vitâ Apollon. l. 7. Philostratus) he sent a bar­ber thither to poll his head, and cut off his Philosophick beard. Hence it is that Lucian brings in a Philosopher in one of his Dialogues, and Charon cutting off his beard. TheCyprian. Epist. 77. damnati ad metalla were served thus, and Tacitus and others tell us that it was the custom of the Romans to shave the heads of their Ser­vants. And I am of the opinion that it was intended to be [...] Memento to the Liberti of their former Base and Low condition, that theyVt ego [...]odie raso capite calv [...]s accipia [...] pileum, Plaut. in Amph [...]r. received the hat or cap with shaved heads, when they were made Free. Though I must con­fess there was a huge Difference and [Page 59] Variety as to this among the Gentiles, which being not taken notice of hath occasioned Mistakes among some Cri­ticks. Criminals and Malefactors had their heads shorn sometimes: and at o­ther times they were not permitted to cut their hair. And so it was with their Slaves; among some of the Ro­mans, Shaving was a token of Slavery, but among others of Liberty. Yet most commonly the former prevailed, but especially among the Romans, who look'd on Hair as a great Decency and Ornament. But not withstanding this, I doe not find that the better and more knowing Romans, were Excessive in the length of their hair. I grant that before they were Civilized, and taught to govern themselves in some tolerable manner, they neglected the cutting of their hair.Dere rustic. l. 2. Varro saith it was a great while, almost five hundred years, before Ital [...] knew any such thing as a Barber. And some of the Old Statues of the Romans represent them with hair of a very great Length. But when knowledge and manners were cultivated, they lopt their locks. The Pictures of the very Emperours (even the most effe­minate of them) present them not im­moderate [Page 60] as to the hair of their heads. But as for beards, they wore none▪ Adrian was the first who let his grow, viz. to cover his scar [...]s. And as for the body of the Roman people, Histo­ry testifies that these (as well as the Grecians) let their children, till they came to be of years, nourish their hair to some considerable Length▪ and then it was the fashion to offer it to some of the Deities they most affected. When this was done, they for the most part cut their hair as often as it began to come to an immoderate length, and would not suffer it to grow to any ex­travagant dimensions.

Thus you see what was the Custom as to mens wearing their hair in respect of length or shortness. If [...] hath the signification of Custom in this place, then you know what the Apostle referr'd to▪ viz. the practise of those Nations which I have set before you. He might right­ly say, Doth not even Custom teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? The Iews and Egyptians wore moderate hair generally. The so­ber and gravest among the Greeks and Romans had neither very Long nor very Short hair, but of a middle size. They [Page 61] were the more Barbarous Nations that offended as to this, as the Scithians, Goths and Vandals, &c. who perpetually wore their hair long: and so did the Antient and Savage Britains, as Caesar records. The like is observed of the Wild Irish by Giraldus. And concer­ning the Picts (who were the Old Bar­barous and Northern Britains) Vitruvi [...]s testifies they had hair hanging downright, and very long. The old Saxons, who at first cut the hair of their heads to the very Skin (as Sidonius relates,) af­terwards let it grow to an excessive length, so that it came below their should­ers, saith Witichindus a Saxon Monk quoted by Cambden in his Britannia. Strabo saith the same of the Antient Celtae, Galls, and Franks. And we read that among these Old Franks this custom prevail'd so much, that with the Antie [...] Kings of France, to be shaven was to be Deposed, or Disabled to reign. And Short Hair became Ignominious and Reproachfull, as is manifest from that French Proverb, Il a perdu ses cheveux, he hath lopt his hair, i. e. his honour. Which arose hence, saithHis French Dictionary. M^r Howel, that in the first race of French Kings there was a Law that the Nobles only [Page 62] should wear Long Hair (it was [...] thing so prized that they ingrossed it to them­selves,) and when any of them were found guilty of a base fact, they were punished with the loss of thei [...] hai [...]. This law, which was called la Loy Che­velue, was made saith the same person, by King Clodion ( [...]he mean [...] Clovi [...]s) the Hairy, and was continued till King Pe [...] time, and then disa [...]l'd as a Pa­g [...] Constitution. But the people who were in any measure Masters of Civility and Hu [...]anity, even among the Heathens, prac [...]ised otherwise, and (as Plutarch [...]) had hai [...] generally of a [...] growth.

Besides the Custom of those Nations which the Apostle had an eye to here, I might adjoyn what the usage of Others hath been since. Among the Turks all their Slaves are shaved, to shew ho [...] Shameful and Vile a thing it is to be destitute of hair; but they likewise shew by their own example that they dislike Long Hair, for they wear the hair of their heads very short. Of their heads, I say: for the hair of their Bi [...]ds is Long, in token, as they think, of Free­dom. (And here it may be generally observed on the contrary, that those p [...]o­ple [Page 63] who suffer the hair of their heads to grow to a great length, have little of no Beards, as if the former made amends for the want of these latter. Thus the Antient Britatns (whom I mentioned before) shaved all their Beard away ex­cept that growing on the upper [...]ip. The Chin [...]ise have thin Beards, consisting of not above twenty of thirty hairs: and they paint a Deformed man with a thick beard. On the other side, it might be observed that there have been Extreams as to beards, as well as the hair of the head. Some have so nourirhed them as if they emulated the name of that Con­stantine who was call'd Pogonatus, whi­lest others have so hated them, as if they were a kin to the Apostate Iulian who [...]iled himself Misopogan.) But as the Mahometans, who are a Grave so [...]t of people, doe not lavishly nourish the hair of their heads, so a Different usage pre­vails among the Rude Armenians, who generally wear their hair Uncut, and as long as it will grow, bound with laces, and hanging down to their heels. These Extreams on both hands have been care­fully avoided by Christians, whole Cu­stom likewise I will in some part relate, and so pass to the next General head. [Page 64] The Primitive Saints of the Christian Church, who were so strict and exact in all other things, would not be defective in this. They who refused to comply with the Rites and Fashions of the Gen­tiles (even when some of them were In­nocent in Themselves) would not cer­tainly conform to This which was the practise of the Lewdest Heathens. A Decent and moderate growth of the hair was thought Commendable rather then Unlawful. And such even those of Age, and of the Ministerial Function were not averse to, according to that of S^t Am­brose, Quam reverenda caesaries in seni­bus? quam veneranda in sacerdotibus? A Moderate head of hair was so far from being blameable in these persons, that it was Reverend and Venerable. But from this Moderation they [...]ell into an Excess. Even the Retired and Con­templative Christians, who betook them­selves to a Monastick Life, let their hair grow in an Extravagant manner. S^t Au­gustin calls the Monks of his time, whom he sharply inveighs against,Fratres Crinitos. De opere Monach. cap 31. the Hairy Brethren: for the Old Monks in those days had their hair down to their feet▪ which was counted a sign of Mortifi­cation and Neglect of the world. Where [Page 65] by the way observe that the Antient Monk's were not Shaved, as they are at this day in the Church of Rome: for if they were so Luxuriant in their hair, it is not likely that they affected to take it away only on the top of their heads, and to shew their bald crowns. Yea, their Monks now are shaved for the same reason that heretofore they let their hair grow to that ex [...]essive Length, viz. be­cause they would renounce the Ornament and Fashion of the world. Long Hair is a sign of affecting. Worldly Delight, therefore the Popish Priests shave to tell the world that they were not given to those Vanities. Even the Nuns too undergo this discipline, though it is a­gainst the Antient Councils. [...] &c. Sub Sy [...] ­ves [...]. If a wo­man under the pretence of Religion, saith the Council of Gangra▪ shear her hair, which God gave her for a remembrance of her subjection, let her be accursed, as one that hath broken the Command of subjection. And theCap. Vx­cratûs. latter Decrees say that a woman cannot be ordain'd, or have Holy Orde [...]s either jure or de­facto, and that for this reason, because she must not be Shaved. But though the Romish rite of Shaving Priests and Nuns be thus repugnane to their own [Page 66] Orders and Constitutions, and contrary to the Practice before mentioned, yet it is probable it was derived from some Other practise and custom of the Church in former days. And That, as I con­ceive, was this; the Antient Penitents (as you may read) used to cut their Hair and Beards as soon as they were received again into the Church: and hence might arise the Corrupt Custom of lopping and polling the hair of their heads, and at last it was thought suffi­cient to shave only one part, as is in use among the Religious Orders of the Roman Church. But now I desire you to observe how the Decent and Mode­rate wearing of the hair in men (which our Apostle aims at here) is authorized and commended by those Antient but Contrary Practises which I have mention­ed. Since suffering the Hair to grow very Long was a mark of Mortification among the Old Monasticks, and was reckoned such by some of the Benitents, who by their Cutting their hair at their Restitu­tion to the Church shewed that they took up the wearing of Long Hair as a Penance or Punishment; and since on the other side, Cutting the hair and even Shaving have been and are still practi­sed [Page 67] by some men as tokens of Renoun­cing the world, and acts of Religious Se­verity, it may be concluded from these Vnusual and Extraordinary occurrences (as I said before in the like case) what was the Vsual and Constant practice of the Christians in wearing their hair. These things which I have alledged are but Superstitious derivations from the Stated course they observed. Wherefore laying aside these Extreams, you know what was the middle way they took.

But I must add, that it was not Super­stition and Fond Devotion only which made Long Hair fashionable among Christians at first. The Primitive Custom was alter­ed by the irruption of the Barbarous Na­tions, viz. when the Longobards, Gothes, and Vandals invaded the territories of the Roman Empire. Long Hair began to be worn in these European parts when those Long-haird Barbarians violently broke in upon these Countreys, and overtun them. Among other evils and mischiefs which they were the Authors of, and which they left behind them in these parts, This may justly be reckoned as one. Be­fore this time the Christians generally wore moderately short hair. This is the True Epoche of this Custom among [Page 68] Christians; and it is a sufficient Dispa­ragement to it that it came in at the same time that Rudeness, Violence and Barbarity entred their quarters. And as it was introduced into Europe by Bar­barous people, so ever since, those who have most of that character are the Ad­mirers and Practisers of it. It would be too tedious to descend to Particular Countries, and shew what effect this hath had. Though this evil usage, brought in by Savage people, prevail'd very much, yet the folly and evil of it was di­scerned by the Sober and Wife. These constantly, in observance of the Apostle's Canon here, wore their hair cut, and moderately short. It was a great while before Long Hair began to be Modish with our Christian Ancestors in this Isle. But when it was so, it soon met with a check, for ourMatth. Westm. A. D. 1127. Chronicles acquaint us that it was taken notice of by a Sy­nod of the Clergy in King Henry the first's reign, and decreed against; and the King himself, and by his example all his Knights, submitted to the De­cree, and cut their hair short. So this Excess was laid aside a great while, and scarcely revived till about Sixty years agoe, when we borrowed from France [Page 69] this evil practice, as we have done many others. If a Synod now should follow the example of that before mentioned, and shew their dislike of this general dis­order, it would be an act worthy of them. Thus you have heard what hath been the Custom concerning Long and Short Hair. Now I will pass from Custom, which is said to be a second Nature, to the consideration of Nature It self as it is properly so called.

II. Taking [...] here in a stricter sense, i. e. as it signifies the Inward Law of Na­ture, or Right Reason in our minds, let us see whether This teacheth that a man should not have Long Hair. It is grant­ed, before I go any further, that Long Hair, as it is the product of Nature, as such (I say) is not a thing to be con­demned; for then it ought to be con­demned in Women as well as in Men. It is not to be denied that Nature hath given Men long hair as well as the Other Sex, if they will let it grow; as is clear from the instances of those men (and I have before informed you that there are and have been such) who suffer their hair to grow, and come down as low as their feet▪ Again, I grant that wea­ring of Long Hair is not Intrinsecally [Page 70] Unlaw [...]ul, and Sinful in It self absolutely, for what is so can never be otherwise: but we know that it was Lawful in the Nazarites, because it was commanded by God. If Long Hair had been in its in­trinsick nature, and immutably sinful, it could not have been made otherwise by God himself, and consequently it could not have been enjoyned by him. Thus you see in what sense Long Hair is not a­gainst the Law of Nature. Having pre­mised this (which was requisite for the understanding this matter aright) I will shew how it was and is against Nature, or the dictates of Natural Reason.

First, you may judge of the Law of Nature by the Practice of men. What do All Nations agree in? How do the Best and Wisest of all Countries behave themselves in this affair? Which way doth the Reason of mankind steer it self? This you may be satisfied in from what hath been said already. The Soberest part of the world every where (Iews and Infidels, as well as Christians) wear not their hair at an Extravagant Length. What was the reason that the Stoicks cut their hair so short (as hath been ob­served before?) It was no other then this, that they who were Immodest and [Page 71] Lewd wore Long Hair, but those that were Modest and Virtuous and of Good Lives did not. Hence those Philosophers, to gain credit and repute with the peo­ple, betook themselves to this Better Fashion, yea they ran into another ex­cess, and to avoid Long Hair scarcely left themselves any.—Supercilio brevior coma.— [...]aith the [...]. Satyrist of them, the hair of their head was shorter then that of their eye-brows. Hence their disci­ples are calledPers [...]s. Detonsa juventus. Thus they did, because Short hair was look'd upon as a sign of Modesty and Chastity, and was in use among those that were most Vertuous. Therefore the Contrary usage, so far as it is against the Practice of the Soberest persons, and such as are the great­est masters of Natural Reason, is against Nature. So that these two first accep­tions of the word [...] run into One at last, Custom and Nature teach the same. You may judge what Nature dictates by the Custom and Practice of Rational and Sober men.

Secondly, you may conclude that Na­ture or Right Reason forbids the wea­ring of Long Hair to men, because this is against the laws of Natural Decency and Comeliness. Observe then that the [Page 72] Apostle here in this Chapter, and even to the end of the 14^th corrects the miscar­riages of the Corintbians in their publick meetings, and then concludes all thus, ch. 14. last v. Let all things be done Decently. Whence I rightly infer, that Indecency (which was accompanied with Disorder) was their great fault. Which one thing is a Key to open the meaning of the Text, and acquaints us that Natural Decency is to be understood here by Nature. Which is further confirmed by the words of the Apostle in the verse immediately before This, Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? And from this very no­tion of Decency or Comeliness he con­tinues to argue in these words, Doth not Nature it self teach you, &c. [Is it come­ly?] and [Doth not Nature teach you?] are the same. Let us see then what this [...], this Decorum, this Comeliness signifies. [...] is to follow the order of Nature in respect of Persons, Place, Time, State or Condition, or any other Circumstance whatsoever, and to act sui­tably according to the Variety of these. And this Decorum is to be observed in all External Actions, Words, Gestures and Behaviour. When all these are rightly ordered, then a person acts De­cently [Page 73] or Fitly: but when these are not observed, he acts Vnbecomingly, and what he doth is Vnseemly and Vnsiting. It was thought Indecent in grave Socrates to be seen riding on a Cane, like a lit­tle boy. The Senate of Areopagus, that Grave and Reverend Judicatory at Athens, made this Order, [...]. Plu­tarch. that none of the Judges of that Bench should be per­mitted to write Comedies. The reason was because it was Vnseemly and Inde­corous for those Grave Senators to make Plays. These were not fit persons for such a purpose. Idem manebat, neque idem decebat, said Tully of the famous Hortensius. His way of Oratory and of Action became him in his Youthful years, but it had no Grace in Age. One thing becomes one Time, another another. And so this Law of Congruity and In­congruity runs through all the Circum­stances of a mans life, as might be shew­ed. This is particularly to be discerned in the instance which is before us: Short or Moderate hair is a thing Convenient and Seemly in men, but the contrary is Vnseemly, Incongruous, Vncomely, be­cause it is not suitable to the state and condition of Men, who ought to do things agreeable to their Rank and Qua­lity, [Page 74] who ought to shew themselves Manly and Grave, who ought to act their part Wisely, who are convinced that there is no time or place for Ex­travagancy and Folly, who have natural impressions on their minds to encline them to what is Serious, and who know very well that this Garb we have been speaking of, if it be considered in all its circumstances and with all its appendages, is Inconvenient and Unseemly. This being so, Christians of all persons are to avoid that Unseemly wearing of their hair, because they are obliged by the Apostles Injunction to do all things De­cently, and because the Indecent Length of hair hath at least an appearance of evil, which the same Inspired Writer bids them abstain from. Thus Nature teacheth that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, and that it is Honest and Decent, and Becoming the Exactness of Christia­nity to observe a Moderate Length. This in general: but more particularly,

Thirdly, Even Natural Reason com­mends to us the Apostle's advice, to think on things which are of good report, Phil. 4. 8. and to provide things ho­nest in the sight of all men, Rom. 12. 17. 2 Cor. 8. 21. Now these Rules [Page 75] cannot be more useful in any case then in the wearing of Habits, and of Hair. These ought to be such as are generally reputed Honest and Laudable, and have the good word of Sober men. Tertul­lian, it seems, was accused of Light­ness and Inconstancy by the people of Carthage for laying aside the use of the Gown (the common habit of the Ro­mans) and putting on the Cloak (the usual vestment of the Grecians:) but he apologizeth for himself, telling them that he made choice of the Pallium as the Fittest and most Becoming Habit, and which was of Good Esteem and Repute among the Wisest persons, who are the most Competent Judges of the rules of Decency and Sobriety. It was, saith he, of great Antiquity, and so he could not be blamed for affecting Novelty, and wear­ing an Upstart Habit. Besides, it was a very Vseful and Serviceable sort of ap­parel, and on that account also it could not but be esteemed Honest and Law­ful. Again, among the Grecians it was the proper habit of Philosophers, who were the Soberest and Antientest persons among them, and therefore was fittest for Christians, especially for Priests; and it was at that time generally made use of by [Page 76] them: accordingly he wore it as soon as he was made Presbyter of the Church of Carthage, and he is pleased to call it a Priests Habit. Thus he followed those Rules of the Apostle exactly. And they are as useful and practical in the Other case, of wearing the Hair: which ought to be in that manner which is accounted Honest, and is of Good Report, that is, approved of by the Best and Wisest men, that hath the good liking of the Sobe­rest and Gravest Christians, and that is practised by them, and not by Russians.

Fourthly, Natural Reason teacheth us that Long Hair is unlawful as it is any ways subservient to Pride, Wantonness, and Effeminacy. This is true, whether we speak of mens Own Hair, or whe­ther it be Borrowed, and worn in lieu of their Own, as is the common pra­ctice of these times. I am far from the thinking that the wearing of a Peruke, barely considered, is Unlawful. There may be occasion for borrowed hair in case of Necessity, want of Health, some unavoidable Infirmity, or Decay and Loss of that Natural Covering which they had. But now it is the custom, when neither Health, nor any Other ho­nest cause can be assigned, to clap on a [Page 77] false head of hair, as if hair were given women for a Covering, not for themselves (as the Apostle meant it,) but for Men. But this Needless use of false hair is not all that is to be blamed in the men of this age. They are yet more guilty, for they affect an Extravagant Length of hair, which is the fruit of Vnmanly Va­nity and Pride, I will not say in all, but in many that use it. This Effeminate garb doth generally betray a weak and infirm mind; it is a sign of a want of other and better Head-Furniture. Com­monly it is attended with an immode­rate love of Softness and Delicacy. When they thus Extravagantly load them­selves with Womans hair, they become Wanton and Luxurious, Soft and Wo­manish. These are none of Samson's breed, their Strength lies not in their Locks, yea they are made feeble and effe­minate by them. These Wanton La­bels are in the generality of persons that wear them as noted marks of this dis­grace, as a Fillet in Heraldry is of effe­minacy, and as Gussets and a Goar si­nister are signs there of Cowardize and Womanish disposition.

Fifthly, it might be added that so far as Long Hair may prove Incommodious [Page 78] and Cumber some, and be a Hindrance to men in their Business (which they best know and are sensible of whose heads are hung with this Trouble some Tackle) it must needs be pronounced to be a­gainst Nature, and the Law of our Ra­tional faculties, for this approves of no­thing which really Incommodes us, and is an impediment to us in any of the necessary offices of our lives. If a Re­solute Vanity did not posses these mens minds, and strangely harden them, they would count those Ell-Wiggs an intole­rable Luggage, and would beg to be rid of them. They would complain that these hang in their way, and even im­pede their Eating and Drinking, the greatest business of their lives. Or, if we could imagine this sort of persons to be Warriours, they would then certain­ly feel the mischief of this Incumbrance which they carry about them, and we should soon see them leave these Horse-Tails to the Enemy as the Ensigns and Trophies of their folly.

Lastly, the Natural Law of Reason bids men doe nothing that is Shameful and Opprobious, Disgraceful and Disho­nourable; but such is a mans having of Long Hair. It is, saith the Apostle, a [Page 79] shame to him; or rather, it should have been translated dishonour, for it is [...] in the Greek, and is opposed to [...] in the next verse, which shews this ren­dring of the word to be most proper. If a man wear long hair, it is a Disho­nour to him, it being doing that which is unworthy of his peculiar Sex, and so is Vnnatural: which leads me to the next Particular which I propounded. But before I enter upon That, I will summ up the foregoing heads, that you may at one view discern how Nature (i. e. Natural Reason, which dictates what is Good and what is Bad) teacheth the Un­lawfulness of Long Hair, viz. As it is against the Judgement and Practice of the Soberest race of men in all Regions of the world, as it is against Natural Decency and Comeliness, as it is a thing not of Good Report, so far as it may serve to Pride and Lewdness, so far as it may prove an Impediment, and lastly, as it is a Disgrace and Dishonour to the Sex. These things being thus, I can­not excuse the LearnedDe C [...]mâ Salmasius, who declares that Length of Hair in men is free from all fault and blame, and that their Longest Locks are not against the Apostles [...]. This is one Extream: [Page 80] the other is maintained by Poimenander, who looks upon this Text as a kind of Depilatory Text. So far is this Dutch Divine from a [...]roving of Salmasius's Long Locks, that he will not suffer a mans hair to reach any further then his ears. It must only cover his Skill, he saith in another place. And at last he tells us that to wear hair below the ears is such a sin as deserves Eternal Death: But may we not ask this Damning man, What is the Hair of the head for? If it be not of some Length and Thickness, it is not for use, and so Nature gave it in vain. Is it not agreed on by all the Understanding part of mankind, that the Hair of the head was given to cover it from the cold, and to guard and shel­ter it from the winds, or other assaults? And is it possible it should do this if it be so Clipp'd and Poll'd as some would have it? No: this design of Nature cannot be accomplished. It is granted likewise by all men of sober thoughts▪ that Nature intended the Hair of the head to be a Comely Adorning to it, which it cannot be if it be not permit­ted to display it self in some measure, especially if it be reduced to that Low Cut which was mentioned before. Here [Page 81] then we are concerned to avoid Ex­treams on one side or other. As a man must not go like a Nazarite, or a Greek Philosopher, or like a N [...]buchadnezzar at grass with his hair hanging down about him, so neither must he appear like a Shorn Animal with a bare Skull, like an Affrighted Iew in his days of Mourning with his hair torn off, like a Cropt Sy­nick, or like a Shaven Monk. But there is a Decent Medium to be prefer'd be­fore these, and to be practised, that is, to wear the hair with a Convenient Shortness, or a moderate Length, call it which you will. This matter is easi­ly decided by peaceable and sober minds, though some have made a great Con­troversie of it, insomuch that it hath been called Bellum Capillare. This is certain, that no man can prescribe a Just Exact Measure, a Precise Length: for this may alter according to the age, tem­per, and quality of the person, yea even according to the dimensions of his neck. We must not be Curious here, we must not be Censorious and Quarrelsom, we must not create Scruples and Diffi­culties. Any Sober and well Considerate man, who makes his Reason his Rule, will easily determine in this affair.

[Page 82] III. The Difference of Sexes, which is another signification of the word [...], teacheth that if a man have Long Hair, it is a shame and dishonour to him: for wearing the hair in a Different manner is one badg of the Sex. Difference of Habits distinguishes one Sex from ano­ther: accordingly Hair, which is a sort of Habit, is a distinction of the Sexes. First, the hair of the face which we call Beards, is as it were the Clothing of the face. Some indeed have pulled these up by the roots, or shaved the place very close, as many of the Greeks and Romans used to do: but others let them grow, and that to a considerable length, as the Old Philosophers generally did. Adrian the Emperour (as we have noted before) was the first that brought a­mong the Romans the fashion of Beards: before that time they usually had no hair on their chins or lips. But this pra­ctice is against Nature, it taking away that which is one Distinction between the Sexes. Hence God forbad his peo­ple not only to round (i. e. to shave all round) the corners of their heads, but to mar the corners of their beards, Lev. 19. 27. This latter, viz. the spoiling of the angles of the Beard by [Page 83] cutting all off round, seems to be re­pugnant to Nature, and consequently is as Shameful as the former. And there is nothing to excuse the general custom at this day among us of shaving off the Beard, and going with Smooth Chins like women, but this, that the Cutting or Not cutting of the Beard is not so Great a Distinction of the Sexes as the ordering of the Hair of the Head: for both men and women are furnished with Hair on their heads, but several people in the world are without Beards, that is, no hair grows on their faces. And be­sides, this Beardless fashion is the more tolerable, as long as the Other Differen­ces of the Sexes, viz. Clothes of the bo­dy, and Hair of the head are kept up. And therefore it appears hence that we ought to be the more concerned for this latter. By the Hair of the Head there is a plain discrimination made between Man and Woman. And yet I do not say that simply and absolutely speaking, it is a Distinction instituted by Nature, because Nature hath made the Hair of Male and Female alike. Though a Beard seems to be a Natural Distinction, yet the Hair of the Head is not. But then This is to be said, that it is Natural to [Page 84] distinguish the Sexes, and the Wearing of the Hair being through custom agreed upon among all Nations to be one Distin­ction between the Sexes, it follows that it is Natural and Reasonable to observe this Distinction. Now if a Man wear his hair as long as a Woman, the Sex is not discerned, which is against the Law and Decree of Nature, viz. that the Distinction of Sexes is to be main­tained, and not confounded. The very summ of the first part of This Chapter to the Corinthians is, that Women must not be forgetful of their Sex. There is a Modesty and Shamefac'dness proper to them, as the consequent of the Subje­ction they owe, which is to be shew'd by putting on a Veil. Though they had Supernatural Gifts (as the Apostle here supposeth,) yet they were to re­member their peculiar station and Sex. And so here the same thing is urged, viz. the Difference of Sexes made by God and Nature. This teacheth the man that it is Unfit for him to wear Long Hair, for hereby the Difference of Sexes would be taken away. We must not do things contrary to or unbecoming our Sex. That is Decorous and Seemly in a Man which is not in a Woman, and [Page 85] so vice versâ. It must needs then be a shame to a Man to have hair of the Length which a Woman hath: for then he is truly Travestie, dressed in anothers Clothes, (which is the import of that French word,) and for which he may be justly Ridicul'd. And This certain­ly is the Shame of This Age wherein we live, Though it is not so accounted, but rather, the Contrary is thought Shameful and Disgracefull. We may in our days alter and transpose the Apostle's words, and say, If a man hath Short hair, it is a Shame to him: but if a woman have Short hair, nay, if she hath none, it is a Glory to her. That Sex which used not to nourish the hair, now doth, or rather makes use of the hair which others should nourish: and the Other Sex which used to have their hair at the utmost Length, now cut it off and give it to the man. It is true, still the Distinction of the Sexes is preserved, though the Marks and Badges of it be Contrary to what they were herertofore. But notwithstanding this, here is a Perverting and Confound­ing of the Natural and Primitive Order, a casting off the received Tokens which used to distinguish the Sexes of man and woman. Thus you see how Nature it [Page 86] self teacheth that if a man have Long hair, it is a shame to him.

Hitherto I have considered the word [...] in the first sense, i. e. as it denotes having Long hair, or Loose hair which hangeth down at length, and is without any Artificial Ornament. But as This is a frequent signification of the word, so there is another, viz. to have hair not only Long and Uncut, but to dis­pose of it after the manner of Women, to deck and adorn it. This is a known signification of the Greek word in the Text: yea, some will have this to be the Primary and Proper denotation of the word [...]. Here then I will ex­amine, 1. What this [...] was, wherein consisted the wearing of hair like Women, in respect of its Dress and Ornament? 2. Whether the Apostle here means Hair of this kind? 3. How Nature teacheth men that they ought not to wear such hair?

I. What is it to wear hair like wo­men? For we shall not be able to tell what men are taught to do when they are forbid to have such hair, unless we know first what that hair was, viz. in regard of its Composure and Dress. You must know then, that women did not [Page 87] wear their hair at Length, though it was Long, for they tied it up, and to this purpose made use of fillets, laces, ribbands. And they did not truss and wrap up their hair confusedly, but or­dered it into several divisions: and ac­cordingly they had Pins to divide the hair. It is no small piece of Learning to be acquainted even with the Attire of Women from the Antientest Writers. From them we may learn that all the Greek and Roman▪ yea and all Europaean women bound up their hair in a hand­some manner. It is true, at Funerals, and when Extraordinary Grief surprized them, they let their hair down about their shoulders, but from this custom a­lone it is clear that at Other times they wore it after another fashion, that is, they neatly tied it up one way or other, and suffered it not to hang down dishe­veld. Yea, they gathered it sometimes into a knot on the top of their heads: the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman women wore their hair thus. And it is proba­ble this fantastick Top-knot of their own hair is taken notice of and reproved by S^t Paul in 1 Tim. 2. 9. where he tells us that the Christian women must not be adorned [...], which we tran­slate [Page 88] [with broidred hair,] but the word [...] among the Greeks signified that Curled Lock or Tower which the women wore on the top of their heads, and by the Latins was call'd Corymbus. This you may satisfie your selves in from the best Lexicographers. But though this was a Particular use of the word among the Greeks, yet here it may have a Lar­ger meaning, and signifie also the Other excesses and follies the women were then guilty of in dressing their hair. This is elegantly called in Isai. 3. 24. [...] calamistri opus: there was a great deal of Workmanship in that effeminate dressing of the hair, it was an Elaborate piece of art to dispose and order it aright. Accordingly from the word [...] comes the verb [...], crines ornare, which the Greeks express likewise by the word [...], which is akin to that I be­fore named: whence you may guess what [...] are, in the more comprehensive sense of the word. We render it (as I have said) by [broidred hair,] but I conjecture the word is falsly set down, by the fault of the Printers 'tis likely. Broided is the word used by Coverdale and Tindal here, whence our Last Tran­slators took it, but in Transcribing or [Page 89] Printing it was corrupted: which ought to be taken notice of by those who have the Inspection of these things in our Church, that we may not make use of a false and mistaken Version, for [Broi­dred] was mistook for [broided, or braided] (for both these words were heretofore in use.) Now, braiding the hair is the same with [...], plai­ting the hair, which is forbid by S^t Pe­ter, 1 Epist. 3. ch. 3. v. Though the hair might be put up decently, yet it was not to be braided or plaited; by which word, and by that other before named, all Lust and Wantonness in Trimming the head is condemned by those two A­postles. The Magnasheh Miksheh, the well-set hair, the laborious Curling, Friz­ling and Crisping the hair, which was then in use, and all other Gaudy and Wanton Dressing of it are here pro­nounced Unlawful, and not fit to be practised by women professing Christiani­ty. The short then is, that Women heretofore did always wear their hair Vn­cut, and because of its Length they did not suffer it to hang about their ears, but tied it up, and decently disposed of it: but at last this Decent Ordering of their hair degenerated into an Indecent [Page 90] Trimming, into a Lewd and Wanton Gar­nishing it. It is the former of these which is expressed here in this one word [...]. This signifies the Womanish Set­ting forth and Adorning of the hair, the wearing of hair as Women wear it. The Grammarians in the propriety and differences of words which they make, tell us that [...] is properly of Women, as [...] & [...] of Men. Com [...] est ca­pillus aliquâ curâ compositus, say the Ma­sters of Grammer and Criticism. And ac­cordingly some of them derive it from [...] curare, colere, [...]rnare, to take care of, trim, deck, adorn. Therefore [...] is Womens hair properly, because it re­quires great Care and Art to keep it, dress it, and tie it up. So [...] is to be carefull about the hair, decently to gather it together, and to dispose of it: whence Loose and Squalid hair is oppo­sed in all Good Authors to [...], & [...]. Thus I have done with the First De­mand, what the wearing of hair like wo­men is.

II. I am to shew you that the Apostle speaks here of This very wearing of hair. The [...] which is mentioned twice to­gether (in this, and the next verse) is meant of the [...]ame thing: this will not [Page 91] be denied, I suppose. Now the latter [...], applied to the woman, cannot be meant of Long Hair only and simply, but also of hair which is Ordered and Fashioned according to the use of wo­men: and that for these two Reasons. First, because it is said to be her Glory: but tis well known that Hair Hanging down and Disheveld is no Glory, no Or­nament, no Honou [...], and neve [...] was thought to be to any of that Sex. When the Apostle saith, If a woman doth [...], it is a glory to her, he cannot intend Long Hair absolutely, and sol [...]ly, for that was no Comliness or Decorum, much less, Glory to the Greek or Roman, or any Europaean women▪ but on the con­trary, it was thought Indecent, and was a sign of Neglect [...]u [...]ness and Squ [...]lidity, and therefore used in case of great Mourn­ing and Lamentation. Secondly, in this same verse it is said that the womans hair is given her, [...] pro vela­mine.for a Covering. Hence then I gather that this [...] must not be mere Long Hair hanging down, and ne­ver cut. This indeed covers the neck and shoulders, but it is no more a Co­vering to the head then short or Cut hair. Therefore it must be meant not on­ly of hair worn at Length, but of the [Page 92] Binding up the hair in an Artificial man­ner, to do the service of a Veil, and in the way of a real Covering to the head. When it is tied up, and in several parts made up together, and fastned to the head, it is a Covering, whereas if it hang at Length, and be Loose and Flowing, it is not a Covering, or if it be one, it is as much a Covering to the other parts of the body as to the head. The A­postle would have women cover or veil their heads, with their own Hair; and he intimates at the same time that this Natural Covering dictates what they should do moreover, that is, add an Ar­tificial one, a Veil over their heads, as often as they go into the publick Assem­blies, and are ingaged in solemn acts of Religion and Worship. God giving them the Veil of Hair, and by that as it were tells them they must be covered with ano­ther. They are to have a Double Co­vering; one Nature supplies them with, Art must afford the other: and if they cast off this latter, they may as well cast off the former. This you find to be the Apostle's way of arguing (whatso­ever you think of it) in the begin­ning of the Chapter, where he acquaints the Christian women of Corinth, that pray­ing [Page 93] with their heads uncovered is even all one as if they were shaven: and accor­dingly he adds, If a woman be not co­vered, let her also be shorn. Nature doth as it were shew the way in this case, and lets women know that they must cover their heads in time of Divine Wor­ship. Why so? Because Nature hath given them Hair for a Covering: it tells them they must have a Veil. But what kind of Hair is this? It is Long Hair, but not hanging at length, it is gather'd and tied up, and made as it were into a Cap or Covering for the head. It is evi­dent then that the Apostle here speaks against those Corinthian men who were Effeminate and Wanton, who at that time wore their hair after the manner of Women, who artificially wrapt it up, and dressed and adorned it after the fashion of that Sex. The Apostle forbids the Men to wear their hair thus: this is [...], coma, properly so called, and belongs to a Woman. This Gathering and Tying, and Adorning the hair is the womans Natural Veil or Covering for her head, and given her to that purpose. [...] is her proper Ornament, and is even stiled by the Apostle, her Glory, as hath been often said. But this, as lawful as it is [Page 94] in Women, becomes Unlawful and Sin­ful in the Masculine Sex. If a Man makes use of it, [...], If he wears his [...]hair like a woman, i. e. Gathered up, and Com­posed by art, it is a shame to him. Not only Long Hair but Adorned Hair is not permitted to Man, but is against Nature. Which is the

III. thing I am to undertake, viz. to shew how Nature teacheth that a Man ought not to wear his hair after this man­ner. And here we will take the word [...] in the Tripple sense which we took it in before, viz. as it signifies Custom, Natural Reason, and Difference of Sex. First, it is not to be denied that many Men among the Gentiles went with the Attire of their Hair like Women. It is easily proved out of History that the Crecian Men kept their hair uncut and unpoll'd, and were very vain and wan­ton in dressing it. They used to perfume; cut and crisp their hair, and to take a great deal of care about it. Yea, the Spartans went even to the Wars with their hair artificially combed and adorned. The Corinthians, among other Grecians, degenerated into this effeminate wearing of their hair, which the Apostle here re­proves them for. But among the Athe­nians [Page 95] particularly a Knot of hair tied up, and standing upright on their crowns was the universal fashion even among the Men. This was called by them [...] & [...]: this latter word is used (as you have heard) by the A­postle, and perhaps refers particularly to this fashion. It was also called [...], a Scorpion, because perhaps it was part­ly framed in the figure of a Scorpion or Snake; it twirled about like such an animal, for which reason also a Curled Lock of hair is called a Worm in our modern stile. Salmasius hath proved from Lucian, Virgil, and other Authors that this Top-Lock or Curl'd Tuft of hair on the crown of the head was the fashion of Other Nations besides the Greeks. This and other excesses of the like kind were used by the Men among the Ro­mans also, as appears from those Wri­ters who took notice of them, and in­veighed against them. Ovid jerks those Effeminate Men who will not let a hair be amiss or out of its place, ‘Quisque suas ponunt in statione comas.’ Sat. 8. Iuvenal corrects the pride of the Ro­man Gallants in wearing their hair finely dressed: andLib. 2. Ode 5. Horace lashes them for [Page 96] the same Effeminacy. Nay, not only the Jeering Poets took notice of their Luxury and Extravagancy in this point, but the Gravest Moralists thought it a disorder fit to be animadverted on and se­verely reproved. Thus Seneca gallant­ly reproves the Roman Vanity of being Delicate and Curious about their Hai [...]: he checks them for spending so many hours under the Barber's hands, he re­presents how Angry they were with him if he did not do what they would have him, if their Set of Points did not hang right, if any the least Curl were out of order: they had rather the Common­wealth should be troubled and disordered then their Hair. In short, he rebukes them for being so busie between the Glass and the Comb, and tells them it is a sign they have a greater desire to be Sptuce and Fine then Honest. But Pa­gans were not the only persons that were infected with this folly. The Au­thor of theLib. 1. cap. 3. Apostolical Constitutions saith, It is not lawful to nourish the hair, and to tie it up in a Knot, nor to curl and crisp it, seeing the Law forbids it. From whence it appears that this Vanity and Luxury of composing the hair in a Womanish manner was crept in even a­mong [Page 97] Christian Men. And this further appears from that Antient Canon of the 4^th Councel of Carthage, Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam, which was made against the Massaliani, a sort of Hereticks then in Africa who indulged an Effeminate wearing of their Hair, of whom likewiseH [...]res. 80. Epiphanius and S^t De opere [...]. cap▪ 31. Augustin speak. But though this Vi­ [...]ious practice spread it self among Pa­gans and Christians, yet it did not U­niversally prevail, it was no General Cu­stom. That it was not so among the Pagans is evident from the Reproofs which it met with from the Sober and Grave among them [...] yea, from the Wit­ty and Facetious. And that it obtained not among Christians is manifest, because it is checked here by the Apostle as a single miscarriage of the Christians of Co­rinth: and Councels, Fathers and Do­ctors have reproved it in their Decrees, Sermons and Discourses, as the fault of some only. The short is, there were two Contrary Practises or Customs on foot at that time, one of the Rude and De­bauched part of the world, the other of the Better and Civilized fort of people▪ now, we cannot think that the Apostle appeals here to the Custom of the former, [Page 98] but of the latter: for we cannot imagine that this Holy Man would propound the Worst of men as an example to the Chri­stians of Corinth to follow. Whence we may certainly infer that he doth not mean here the Custom of the Rude and Immoral, but of the Civil part of man­kind. He tells the Corinthians that if they will conduct their lives by the usual practise of these, they may be sufficient­ly furnished with Examples, all the Re­formed part of the world act after this manner, that is, they detest the Wo­manish wearing of their hair. The Mo­dest, Wise and Sober in all Nations and in all Ages have opposed this practice, it being disagreeable to the dictates of Reason in all understanding and conside­rate persons. Which brings me to the next Particular.

Secondly, Nature it self, i. e. the dictate of Natural Reason, Natures in­stinct and Common Sense teach this, that a Man is not to wear hair like a Woman. The Manly Sex is forbid by the Law of Nature to have hair after the manner of the Female sex. Natural Reason d [...]ctates against Adorned Hair in men on the same accounts that it was against their Long Hair, viz. because it is [Page 99] Indecent, because it is of no Good Re­port, because it is subservient to Pride and Wantonness, because it is contrary to the Practise of those who are most guided by the conduct of Reason, &c. But I will insist only on the first of these, the Natural Indecency of the thing. Here then, as before, we are to take notice that there is a Decency and Fitness to be observed and followed by all that own either Reason or Religion, There is Ps. 96. 10 & 110▪ 3. [...] the Beauty or Comliness of Holiness, which more immediately respects the Worship of God, but there is also the Pulchritude and Decour of Holiness to be observed in all the actions which re­late to Religion, or are done by Holy men, for these do nothing that is Un­comely and Indecorous. All those things which our Apostle prescribes the Corin­thian Christians concerning Virginity and Marriage throughout the whole 7^th chap. of his 1 Epistle to them, he tells them he speaks [...], for that which is Comely, i. e. that a Decent and Fit behaviour might be kept in all they did. Again, in Phil. 4. 8. he commends to them whatsoever things are honest; but the Greek [...] signifies Venerable, Grave, Comely. And so that of the fa­mous [Page 100] Roman Orator is true,Quod decet hones [...]um est, & quod ho­nes [...]um est, decet. Cic. That which is Decent is Honest, and whatever is Ho­nest is Decent. Thus when the Apostle joyns Godliness and Honesty together in 1 Tim. 2. 2. the latter word in the [...]. Greek may denote that Grave and Decent de­portment of life which I am speaking of▪ Religion regards Civility, Christianity concerns it self in a Sober, Decent, and Orderly carriage, in a Modest and Reve­rent behaviour. What is said of wo­men in Tit. 2. 3. is to be applied to both sexes, they are to be [...], in behaviour as becometh ho­liness. The vulgar Latin renders it in habitu Sancto, as if [...] were the same with [...], 1 Tim. 2. 9. It is certain that word signifies not only Ge­sture, Countenace, Speech, and the whole Behaviour of persons, but their Habit al­so, viz. as this word denotes the Out­ward Dress. This is to be regulated by those of the Masculine kind in a spe­cial manner. Man was made for Busi­ness and Manly Employment: therefore a kind of Carelessness andF [...]rm [...] vi­tes negl [...]cta decet.—Ovid. Neglect in respect of Beauty and Dress doth be­come him. He must not study to be Fine and Delicate: it is not agreeing with his work. To tie up the hair, and [Page 101] to trim and adorn it, and to compose it by art, in brief to wear it as a Woman doth, is Unbecoming a man. Thus Na­ture or Natural Reason teacheth that Adorned hair in men is Indecent and Un­fitting, and in plain terms Sinful and Unlawful.

Thirdly, Nature, i. e. the Difference of sexes dictates that a Man ought not to wear his Hair in the fashion of a Wo­man. The Learned Salmasius, who un­derstands by [...] ▪ the Distinction of sexes, or that Law of Nature which teacheth there should be a Difference made between the Sexes, hath sufficiently proved this Acception of the word. I need not there­fore repeat here what I said before, that Nature is taken in Good Writers in this sense: That I think is unquestionable. Now I am only to prove that the Di­stinction which is between the two Sexes is sufficient foundation for This Prohi­bition, viz. that a man should not wear his hair as women do. You must con­sider then that there are actions and de­portments Proper to each Sex, the very make and Constitution of the Sexes dicta­ting these Peculiar and Proper operations. [...] in general is that which is consentaneous to our Nature, and distin­guisheth [Page 102] us from Other species of beings. But in particular this Decorum is that which is peculiar and appropriated to one or the other Sex. There are certain boundaries which part both Sexes. That which is decent in one is not so in the other, and never can be. It is true Pla­to would have Women train'd up to Mar­tial Exercise and feats of Arms, that, if there should be necessity, they might defend their Country. But this was a Fanciful project of the Philosopher, as many of his are: and others of his Bre­thren Philosophers were ashamed of it. One Sex must not incroach on the other, and usurp the rights and usages proper to it. As (to appro [...]ch to the matter which is before us) there is a Particu­lar Habit and Dress which belongs to Women, and there is another which is proper to Men: and that Habit which doth become the former, doth in no wise become the latter, and so vice versâ. The Law of God which was given to the Iews by Moses positively asserts this Distinction of Habits, and strictly forbids that people to disguise themselves in the promiscuous Garments of either Sex. See their Distinct Vestments commanded by God in Deut. 22. 5. Philo giving [Page 103] the Reason of this Law saith, ‘The Mo­saick Law takes care of the Habit of man and woman, forbidding the former to wear what belongs to the other, [...]. De F [...]rtiludine. that not the least footstep or shadow of Effeminacy might disparage the Masculine kind. And again, he saith, [...]. Ibid. The Man ought to wear no Garment that is a badg of Unmanliness. For (as he adds) [...]. Ibid. the Law follows Na­ture, and observes and enjoyns what is Proper and Fitting for all persons even in the least things.’ This Fit­tingness first introduced, and ever since hath kept up a Distinction of Habit or Dress in the Sexes. All the Wise and Sober men of the World have approved of this as a Law of Nature, and have sharply rebuked those that violated it. Thus we are toldStobaeus i [...] Serm. 164. that when Aristotle beheld a yc [...]th finely trickt up, and in a dress very effeminate, he upbraided him in these words, Art thou not asha­med, when Nature hath made thee a Man, to make thy self a Woman? The Poets indeed acquaint us that Hercules for Omphale's fake put on womans ap­parel, and spun, using the Distaff instead of his Club: and Achilles, to avoid the wars, disguised himself in a Female dress. [Page 104] This was indulged as a Shift for a time; But no men of Sober Morals among the Gentiles allow'd of this Change of Ha­bit as an usual practice. Seneca represents their sense when he speaks thus to his friend,Non­vi­dentur tibi [...]ntra Na­turam vive­re qui c [...]m­mutant cum [...] vestem? Ad Lucil. Ep. 123. ‘Do not those men live against Nature (the very thing in the Text) who change their own habit for that which belongs to the other Sex?’ This Interrogatory is a flat Negative, and it is as much as if he had said, these men do absolutely confront Nature, and de­fie its Laws. The Poet who said,

was of the like opinion as to Women, viz. that they cannot without putting off Shame and Modesty put on the ap­parel of Men. And if Iews and Gentiles have thus declared their sentiments as to this particular, you may expect that Christians have not been behind them. It was the peremptory determination of the Councel of Gangra that a woman is not to wear m [...]ns clothes, nor a man the womans. And there have been o­ther Laws made by the Church, and also by the Secular Magistrates to refrain dis­order in this kind. For they thought [Page 105] that a Fitting and Distinct Dress is a good guard of Honesty, is serviceable to promote Modesty and Shamefac'dness, and to hinder the violating of Chastity. Briefly, All Nations and Countries have observed this Distinction, and according­ly have had Proper and Distinct Gar­ments for the Sexes. This was pursu­ant of what our Apostle here saith, that Nature teaches this, i. e. Nature which distinguisheth the Sexes, Nature which hath every where made a Discrimination between Male and Female, Nature which makes a Difference not only as to Clothes of the body, but as to the manner of wearing the Hair of the head: for the Hair both of the Head▪ and Beard is a Natural Clothing, and is rightly called by Salmasius, altera vestis. The Diffe­rence of Men and Women ought to be manisested by this very Clothing. The Different wearing of the Hair distin­guisheth the Sexes. Nature which hath made a Difference between male and fe­male, dictates also that they are to be Differenced as to This.

But you will say, Nature teacheth not the way of Differencing the Sexes by the wearing of Hair, for All People a­gree not as to the manner of wearing [Page 106] it. In some Countries the woman is distinguished from the man by having Short hair, and the man from the wo­man by Long Hair tied up, and never cut. I Answer, 1. The practice of some Nations and people as to this thing is no Argument. It is sufficient that the Generality of the Best and most Mora­lized people observe. This manner of di­stinction between the Sexes, which I have proved they do. 2. I have before pro­ved that there is something of Natural Decency and Fitness in distinguishing the Sexes by this Particular Manner of wearing the hair. 3. Though I should say with Salmasius, that Nature teacheth not the Particular way of differencing the Sexes as to Hair, yet this I must say, that when Custom and Institution have settled such a Particular way, Nature then teacheth us to observe it, it bids us not break the Distinction, but keep it up. We see there are Different Usages and Cu­stoms in different Countries, but the [...]e is Honesty or Dishonesty in the ob­serving several of them, though they be Different, yea almost Contrary. Good and Laudable Customs are a Law in ma­ny places; they are so in This Land: and Reason, which is the Law of Na­ture, [Page 107] teacheth us to observe these. Say then that This of the Text was a Lo­cal Custom only, say that it was a Tem­porary Precept (as there are several such in S^• Paul's Epistles,) calculated only for such a place and certain time, yet the Precept nearly concerns us. For though we are not immediately obliged to this Individual and Particular thing, yet because the Reason of the Precept obliges us, we are on that account, though more remotely, ingaged to observe this very thing. On this considerationDe C [...]mâ Sal­masius himself grants that it is a Sin in a man to wear his hair as Women do. And although some of these things which the Apostle mentions in the beginning of this Chapter, as mens being uncovered, to denote their Superiority, and the wo­mens Covering their heads as a sign of their Subjection, together with the Par­ticular Manner of wearing the hair used at that time, which the Apostle refers to, be not in use with us at this day, yet the General Rule of keeping up a Difference between the Sexes is still va­lid and obligatory, and will always be so. This is certain and fi [...]ed, and never to be shaken, that Nature hath made a Diffe­rence between the Sexes, and that it is [Page 108] a Sin to confound them. And it is not to be denied that this Difference of Sexes is to be manifested by Different Habit and Apparel, to which appertain Wearing the Hair. And this in the times of the Apostle was after this man­ner; Hair hanging down, and moderately cut was proper to Man, and Long Hair, but tied up and with some art disposed was proper to the Woman; for the diffe­rence of Men and Womens hair con­sisted not only in the Length, but in the Disposing and Dressing of it. It is Manly to cut the hair, and neglect the adorning of it: it is Womanish to let it grow, to gather it up orderly and with some innocent art. This is the Diffe­rence of Sexes made by the Hair which S^t Paul speaks of. This is that which was suggested by the Author of the A­postolical Constitutions, speaking of that Law in Leviticus, Thou shalt no round the corners of thy head, &c. [...]. Lib. 1. cap. 3. It behoveth us, saith he, not to spoil the hair of the head or of the beard, not to change the fashion of man against Nature, i. e. to order the hair so as to take away in part the Natural Difference between the Sexes. This is that which an Antient Father on the like occasion saith, [...]. Clem. Ale [...]and. Paedag [...]g. l. 2. To [Page 109] violate the symbol (or sign) of the Vi­rile Nature is impious. The Wearing of hair is such a Symbol, and therefore to confound this in the Sexes, that is, for a Man to wear his hair after the Wo­manish way, and for the Woman to wear hers after the way which is proper to Men, is Unchristian, Impious, and Un­natural. This, in conjunction with what I have said before, I take to be the A­postle's meaning in these words, Doth not even Nature it self (and with it Custom) teach you, that if a man hath Long hair, and disposes of it in that manner which women do, it is a shame, it is a dishonour to him? But if a woman have Long hair, and wears it after that way of Dress which is proper to her Sex, the law of Nature, to­gether with the Vsage of the sober part of the world teacheth that it is a glory to her. This I offer as the Full and Complete sense of the Apostle in this Text.

And now though I have finished my task, yet because This place of Scripture about men and womens Hair comes in here only by the by, and is not the Main thing intended by the Apostle, but is brought to prove what he had urged be­fore, that women praying or prophesying should cover their heads, and men uncover [Page 110] theirs, it being (I say) brought in here as an Argument to prove the Decency of such a practice in time of Divine Worship, which is the Main and Principal thing the Apostle urgeth in the beginning of this Chapter, therefore I will annex here something of this subject, and shew you what hath been the Practice of the world as to this, and How, and for what Rea­sons the Apostle presseth it here. And though my chief design is to speak of this custom of Covering or Vncovering the head as it was used in Divine Worship, yet, to shew the utmost extent of this practice, I shall say something as I go a­long concerning this usage in General and Civil Conversation. I will begin first with the practice of the Iews and other Eastern people. As for the Common and Civil usage among them they sel­dom were Bare-headed in publick. And the mode used in Civil conversation gave the rule also for Religious Worship. The Iews went always with their heads co­vered, and so continued even at Divine Worship: and most of the Eastern peo­ple did the like. The Iews of old, both Priests that sacrificed, and People that were present, had their heads covered. Not only women but men hid their heads [Page 111] and faces with a Veil when they pray­ed, as the LearnedHarmo­ny of the N. Test. 1 Corinth. 11. D^r Lightfoot hath proved. The Hebrew Doctors who tell us that they came in this posture into the Temple, and there remain'd so all the time of the Service, tell us also, that they did it out of pure Reverence, and for [...]ear of seeing the Divine Ma­jesty, as they speak. And from the Tem­ple this was derived to the Synagogues, and with some addition, for in these pla­ces you may at this day see them (not only those that Officiate, but the whole Congregation) pray standing with the Ordinary Covering on their heads, and over that likewise they cast a Veil. This people he [...]etofore, when they so­lemnly Mourned (which was a piece of Religion,) veiled their heads, besides that they covered them with Dust and Ashes. Of this Mourning Covering, which was added to their Ordinary one, the Scrip­ture often speaks, as in the 2 Sam. [...]5. 30. Ier. 14. 4. Ezek. 24. 27. and sund [...]y other places. This was also used by Other Nations in the East, as the Per­sians; Thus Haman mourned, having his head covered, Esther 6. 12. And this was a Prologue to another and Worse Covering, 7 ch. 8. v. they [...]overed Ha­mans [Page 112] face, which was done immediately upon the Kings being displeased with him, for Covering the face or head was a sign among them of being cast out of savour. This afterwards was in use among the Iews, and was a token of, Condemnation: and accordingly you read that when Christ was condemned to be guilty of death, some began to cover his face, Mark 14. 64, 65. But passing this by, I am concer­ned at present in the more usual and Or­dinary Covering which the Iews used. Their Priests had a Particular Covering for their heads, which is called Migba­noth, Ex. 29. 9. Lev. 8. 13. Exod. 28. 40. and sometimes, Zaniph, Zech. 3. 5. which are rendred by the Seventy [...], and by Our Translators bonnets and mitres. After several disputes a­bout the nature of this Covering, it is not to be doubted that it was a kind of Tur­bant, which I gather from Ex. 39. 28. where 'tis expressly said that it was made of fine linnen, and from Ex. 29. 9. & Lev. 8. 13. where 'tis said it was bound upon their heads. Besides, the verb Zanaph, circumvolvere, circumli­gare, whence Zamph comes, shews that this was a Cove [...]ing that was rolled and tied about the head. And as for the [Page 113] rest of the people, they continually wore something on their heads, a sort of Bon­net, or Hood, or Cap, (for it is diffe­rently represented.) Or you may call it a Hat▪ and such perhaps were those Hats which the three young men were bound in when they were thrown into the burn­ing fiery furnace, Dan. 3. 21. So our Translators render the word there, though the invention of Hats (such as we have at this day) was since the be­ginning of Queen Elizabeths reign. It is most probable that this was a sort of Tur­bants, and that the Iews generally wore this sort of Covering on their heads, though it was not so rich and costly as that which the Priests and Great Men wore. Whatsoever this Covering was, it was so close to their heads that it could not be presently pull'd off with ease, and so it was not a custom to shew Respect to their Superiours or equals when they met them by pulling off this attire. For this cause it was no sign of Reverence either in their Synagogues or any where else to be Bare-headed. They had another way of shewing Re­verence and Respect to God and men, viz. by Bowing; which prevailed with all other Oriental people gen­rally. [Page 114] They shew'd also their Respect and O­beisance by baring their feet. Hence Moses put off his shoes: instead of Vnco­vering his head, he did so to his feet. And perhaps Solomon alludes to this Eastern mode in Ecol. 5. 1. Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, i. e. shew all signs of Reverence in that place. The Persians likewise were of the number of those who used not to uncover their heads either in Civil or Religious conversation. And the Ma­hometans to this day (for I may bring them in here because they are successors of the Antient Eastern people in those Countries,) these (I say,) as well as the Persians, wearing Turbants (which are not so easily put off) have their heads constantly covered with them: they never put them off to the Great­est Men or Princes. And being not un­cover'd to Men, they will not be so to God. They perform their Religious Worship with their Turbants on their heads: only we are told that when they go to Prayers they touch them with the tops of their fingers, in token, some think, of taking them off. So much of the practice of the Iews and other Eastern Nations.

[Page 115]Le [...] us see what the Greeks and Ro­mans did. The Old Greeks had a con­trary practice, they used no Covering on their heads, being an Hale and Stur­dy people, and not willing to use them­selves tenderly. Besides, they were in­ured to sharp enterprizes and services in the Wars, wherein they found it most proper to come on [...], which hath been since used in a Proverbial way for Bold and Manly Adventures. But those that came after them were not so disposed; for Thucydides, Strabo, and Pol­lux acquaint us that the Spartans wore woollen caps or hats, and that the He­lots their servants had dog-skin hats: nor was it a frequent custom to vail these hats or bonnets in way of Salutation. And if you ask what was the usage at their Worship, Macrobius and Plutarch, two sufficient witnesses, assure you they Uncovered their heads in Divine Offices. It was their opinion it seems that the Gods were not to be addressed after the manner of Men: and therefore though many of them in ordinary and common converse covered their heads, yet they ap­pear'd in another posture at their pub­lick Devotions. Besides, the Temples or Places consecrated to the Gods were [Page 116] heretofore Open without any roof or co­vering: which the Old hardy Greeks seemed to emulate, and would needs wor­ship with bare heads. But the practice of the Romans, as it is best known, so it is most observable. It is certain that the Old Romans used no Covering on their heads. Whilest they were Hard and Strong, and before they were grown Effeminate it was usual with them to go Bare. Clothing arrived to what it was afterwards by degrees both for the head and other parts. But at first when they were not so tender and delicate, their very Kings and Princes, and after that, their Consuls and Greatest Officers used to go bare-headed. Yea,Sueton. in Jul. Caes. Iul [...]us Caesar reckon'd it the Greatest favour and ho­nour that could be done him by the peo­ple, that they bestow'd upon him a Law­rel-Crown to hide his bald head. But though it was the usual Custom of the Romans to go with their heads Uncove­red, yet this practice of theirs had these following Exceptions, (as you may ga­ther from those who have writ of the Roman Customs, and particularly from Plutarch in his Quaest. Roman. & Lip­sius de Amphitheatro, Cap. 19. as also from Varro, Tully, Martial, Plautus, [Page 117] Suetonius, Ovid, Horace, Salust, Seneca, with whose Names only I trouble the Reader here, that I may save him the trouble afterwards of consulting their words at length in the margin.) 1. At their Plays they were Covered. Those Sports being indulged them out of Good Will and Favour, they took the liberty at that time to sit with their caps or hats on. 2. When they Travelled their heads were covered against the injury of the weather. Although generally when [...]hey went abroad they were bare-headed, yet in considerable Journeys, when they were to be a good while out, and espe­cially in Voyages at sea, they took their caps with them. 3. In the Wars they most frequently wore these caps or hats. It is true Statues and Medalls present their Commanders and Souldiers bare-headed: but so they do our Kings of England, and generally all others. We must not therefore infer thence that These never wear hats or any other Co­vering on their heads. 4. The Aged peo­ple wore something on their heads when their hair was fallen of. 5. So did they that were Sick, and very much indisposed by infirmity of body. 6. Some add, that when the Weather required it, as [Page 118] in Rain, Snow, Hail, great Winds, or when the Sun beat on them extraordi­narily, they took part of their Gown, and clapt it on their heads: but that was no formal Covering. So 7^ly, when they Mourned, they covered their heads. 8^ly, It is well known that the Romans when they were made Free, had a Hat or Cap put on their heads: for this was a Sym­bol or Emblem of Liberty among them. But though this Cap was given to them that were Manumitted, yet I do not read that they made any use of it; some of them never wore it afterwards. Lastly, The Romans (as it is obvious to observe of them; in which likewise they fol­lowed the Grecians) used one sort of Custom in their Civil, another in their Sacred affairs, and accordingly when they were interessed and employ'd about Religious Worship, they were not Bare-headed but Covered. And yet though they generally worshipp'd their Gods with Veild heads, I know not how it came to pass, but so it was, they wor­shipp'd Saturn with heads Uncovered, But excepting this one Instance, it is uni­versally agreed that the Romans, when they were at Religious Exercises, were Covered, both Priests and People, the [Page 119] former with their bonnets, caps or hats, the latter with some part of their clothes thrown over their heads. This is ob­served of them by Plutarch (who at the same time takes notice of the Con­trary practice of the Greeks,) and he gives This Reason why they covered their heads when they Worship'd the Gods, viz. [...]. Quaest. Rom. because by so doing they gave a testimony of their Humility and Submission to the Gods. So Servius in­fers from a place in Virgils third Aeneid, that the Italians covered their heads in time of Worship, of Sacrificing espe­cially. Nothing is more acknowledg'd by the Learned then that the Romans cover'd their heads in their Temples, and at their Religious Service, as the Iews did; whom they imitated also in Veil­ing themselves in time of Mourning. And from the custom of having their heads covered when they Worship'd and when they Mourned, we may infer that they used the Contrary practice at other times, and consequently that they went with Bare-heads. Here I might remark that (contrary to the custom of the Iews and all Eastern people) Unco­vering the head to Magistrates and Su­periors as they passed by was used by [Page 120] the Antient Romans as a token of Re­spect and Honour. This was an usage for a time, as Varro and Plautarch testi­fie: but afterwards, and in our Apostle's time tis most likely, that custom was laid aside, and it was not a sign of Re­verence, but of Manhood and Superiori­ty to bare the head. The Better sort of them, the Richest and most Credi­table persons appear'd in this posture. Though after this Another Custom pre­vail'd, and in a short time Vncovering the head became a sign of Respect and Reverence among the Romans, and all Western and Northern people. To pass then to the customs of Other Nations; the Old Germans and Gauls used no Co­vering on their heads, and therefore you cannot expect any such thing in their Worship. As to the Americans lately discovered, the History of those places tells us that generally they being strong and lusty use not themselves to any Cove­ring on their heads, as they have but little, and sometimes none on their bo­dies. Particularly Purchas saith of the people of Brasil that they all goe Bare­headed, and their heads are as hard as blocks. This being their custom, no wonder that these Blockheads are Un­covered [Page 121] likewise before their Gods or Idols.

This is a short Account of the usage of Covering the head, especially in time of Worshipping. Now to [...]ing it to our purpose, and to apply it to what the Apostle enjoyns in this Chapter, and which he gives us to understand was the practice of the Corinthian Christians, al­though some had swerved from [...], which occasioned his Reproof here. It is evi­dent that S^• Paul did not borrow this custom, o [...] the mens praying with the head uncovered, from the Iews or Romans, for we have proved that in their Tem­ples they covered their heads. Whence then was this custom among the Order­ly Christians of Corinth, and how came the Apostle to urge id [...]as a Decent and Reverent Observance? I answer, S^t Paul writing to the Grecians (for so the Co­rinthians were) follow'd the Grecian custom, among whom it was usual to be Bare-headed and Divine Worship. And though the Romans were Covered at the service of their Gods, yet at other times they generally were Uncovered. To go with the head bare was so far from being a badg of Inferiority and Sub­jection, that it was rather a token of Ho­nour [Page 122] and Superiority, and was accordingly used by persons of the greatest Quality among them. And we are sure that Co­vering the head in some cases was a sign of Submission and Shame▪ and what was worse: else caput ab [...]u [...]ito had not been part of the common Form of Sen­tencing and Condemning malefactors a­mong them. Here then the Apostle, who used Great Prudence, nay2 Cor. 12. 16. Cr [...]ft, as he himself is pleased to say, thought fit to make use both of the Grecian and Roman customs, viz. the practice of the former in their Religious Worship, which was the mens Vncovering their [...]eads, and the usage of the latter in their Or­dinary and Common Converse, which was the same, and might now not seem un­acceptable to the Corinthians, since the Roman Tongue and most of the fashion [...] of that people were grown common a­mong the Greeks, as interchangeably the Greek Tongue and many of their customs were in good repute among the Romans▪ S^t Paul therefore is pleased to introduce and adopt this custom into the Christian Church, and to enjoyn the Converts and Believers of Corinth to make use of this in their Divine Worship and Service of God. It is not to be doubted that this [Page 123] practice which the Apostle here urgeth is founded even on a Civil Custom which obtain'd at that time among the persons the Apostle writ to. For the Eccle­siastical▪ Order and [...] may be ac­commodated and conformed to the Civil Usages of a Place, if they have nothing of evil in them. Particularly in Prayer and Divine Service this may be obser­ved. The Civil posture used in sup­plicating Kings and Great ones is law­fully used in Religious supplication of God. By the same Gesture and Habit wherewith we testifie our Respect to Men we may express our Reverence to God. All the Cristians of Europe ge­nerally do so. Which by the by gives us the true Account why the Rites and Observances of several Churches vary from one another. The reason is be­cause Civil Customs vary in several Coun­tries: accordingly Ecclesiastical Rites do so too. But observe here that the A­postle who takes this Particular Custom used in Common and Civil conversation, and transfers it to a Religious use, yet would not let the other Custom, viz. of Covering the head, which so ge­nerally prevail'd in the Roman and Iewish Worship be made use of in the [Page 124] Christian one. For it is reasonable to think that the Apostle here rebukes the Custom of the Corinthians about the Mens being Covered, because it was bor­rowed from the Roman Idolaters and from the Iews. The Corinthian Church used the like in their Solemn Assemblies, and therefore they are justly reprehended because they conformed to a Custom which was so General and Prevalent a­mong those Superstitious Worshippers, who were then Cover'd and Veild at their devotions. First, He would not have them cloud their heads at their Service as the Gentiles did at the worship of their Idols. It hath been intimated be­fore that the Servile Fear of their Gods made those worshippers Veil and hide their heads: but the Apostle would have the Worship of Christians to be Free and Ingenuous, and void of that slavish Fear and Dread. Besides, this would be an imitating of the Iews, who with­out any Prescription and Order from God wrapt up their heads in Veils when they were at their Publick Worship. The Apostle would by no means allow the Christians to follow this practice of Pray­ing with their faces covered, it being so great a piece of Jewish Superstition. He [Page 125] would not suffer them to ape the Iew­ish people in this kind of Hood-wink'd Devotion. For These Reasons and for Others suggested in this Chapter, S^t Paul's will is that the Corinthian Men, who were Converts and Saints, should be Bare-headed in their Religious Assem­blies And from S^t Paul all Christians generally have received and practised this Usage, though not upon the very same grounds and reasons for which he urged this practice. For the Christian Churches at this day conform to this usage, be­cause among them generally the Token of Respect or Reverence to Men is Un­covering the head, and therefore they observe This also in their Addresses to God, and express their Adoration and Worship by having no Covering on their heads. And herein they follow the A­postle himself, who (as I have suggested) made choice of the Civil usage of the Grecians and Romans, and brought it in­to the Church.

Hitherto I have spoken only of the Covering or Vncovering used by Men. In the next place, Because the Apostle adds, Every woman that prayeth or Pro­phesieth with her head uncovered disho­nours her head, I must adjoyn a few words [Page 126] concerning the Injunction which is in­cluded in these words, viz▪ that the Christian Women were to cover and veil their heads when ever they were emploi'd in Religio [...]s Worship. The Covering or Veiling the head among that Sex is no New thing. It was an antient custom to bring the wife to the husband co­vered with a Veil, as we expressly read of Re [...]ekah when she was brought to Is [...], Gen. 24. 65. and thence likely it was that Iacob was baguiled by La­ [...]an, and thought he had Rachel when he was in possession of Leah. The Ra­ [...]ins tell [...]s that he that joyned the man and woman in marriage used to Cover the head of the bride with the end of the linnen which hung down from the bride­grooms neck. To which they say Ruth referr'd when she spoke to Boaz to spre [...]d his Skirt (the end of his garment) [...]-ver her, Ruth 3. 9. And hence Mar­riage it self is call'd Chuppah, from Chip­pah, to cover. The Iewish women ge­nerally after they were married used a Veil; they went covered with this into the Temple and Synagog [...]es, and they wore it wherever they appear'd pub­lickly. As for the women among the Romans, it is well Known that Nubere, [Page 127] which is the proper word for their Mar­rying, is as much as Obnubere, because she clouded or covered her head: for those that are acquainted with the Romans Cu­stoms know that the Bride was brought home covered with a Veil. To this our English or rather Norman Laws may allude perhaps, which call a Married Woman a femme covert, and by it they understand the Womans being sub potest a [...]e viri (as they speak,) under the power of her husband. A woman, when she marries, puts her self into a state of Subjection, and this without doubt was signified heretofore by the Veiling her. Thus it was among the Iews and Romans, and thus it was a­mong the Grecians (who imitated the Romans, as I said before, in many things,) at least it was thus among the Corin­thians whom the Apostle wrote to; the Women went Veiled to shew their Hu­mility and Subjection. And indeed this custom remains still not only among the Turks but most Eastern Countries, Yea in most parts of the world. This Ca­no [...] then of the Apostle (as the other co [...]ce [...] ning Mens Uncovering their heads) is taken from the Civil usage among Women at that time (not ex­cluding) [Page 128] the Other Reasons assigned by the Apostle in this Chapter on which he grounds this practice.) All modest and honest Ma [...]rons, Wives, and even Vir­gins wore certain Veils: or Coverings on their heads, and they never used to ap­ [...]ear publickly without them. And the Apostle liked this Custom so well that he would have it obtain in the Worship of God. The Modesty which women shew at Other times must much more be expressed in the Sacred Assemblies. If they go with Veiled heads in all o­ther places, certainly it is unfi [...]ing to come. Unvell'd and Uncover'd into the Publick Congregation. Hence he en­joyns that a Woman praying or Prophe­sying be Covered. This Prophesying of Women was foretold by the Prophet Ioe [...], 2. ch. 28. v. and we read some Instances of it in Acts 21. 9. Some of these Prophesying Women were in the Church of Corinth, and being extraor­dinarily Gi [...]ted (which was the peculiar Donation of those first times of the Gos­pel) they Pray'd and Preach'd publick­ly (which latter especially was a Man­ly Office,) and they proceeded to usurp on the Custom which was proper to the Men, i. e. they Vncovered their heads, [Page 129] and would needs have their Faces seen as well as their Voices heard. The A­postle soon took notice of this bold dis­order, and here enjoyns them (together with all other women) a modest Veil, or rather he doth but bid them practice the known Custom used by that Sex. This Injunction without doubt was ob­serve'd by all the Faithfull women; and we may inform our selves from Eccle­siastical History that it was derived to After ages, and practised a long time by that Sex. It came down as far as the Emperour Decius's time, by the same to­ken that he put out a Decree that the Christian women at Rome should leave off wearing the Veil on their heads, hoping that by that Immodest usage they might be brought at last to Paga­nism and Idolatry. But his design did not take of perverting their minds and bringing them to comply with the Pa­g [...]n Worship, though they laid aside their Veils and went Bare-headed, for which they gave This Reason, [...]. Cedren. Hist Com­pe [...]. that they counted it an Honour to them to suffer this disgrace among men for Ch [...]ists sake. But soon after (if not about the same time) the Veil was thrown off, not by force of Persecutors but of Choise [Page 130] for which that Sex is smartly reprehe [...]d­ed by Tertullian, in his piece de Velan­dis Virginibus: where his main indeavour is to prove that Virgins as well as Mar­ried Women were to be Veild in the Religious Assemblies, and that it was S Paul's meaning in this Chapter. Where­fore he reproves the manners of the Women and Maids who came into the Congregations Uncovered and in their Hair, as a direct breach of the Aposto­lical Canon. And certainly so it was, for that which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter concerning Womens beha­viour in the Churches did not only ob­lige the Women of that time, but is ob­ligatory to this very day. All Chri­stian women are ingaged by vertue of what the Apostle here saith, to be al­ways with their heads covered in time of Prayer and other Religious Exercises. The Women among the Iews and the Turks meet apart from the Men when they pray in publick: the Women (ac­cording to their custom) are shut up by themselves. But this is a kind of Ex­communicating them, and therefore is not allowable: wherefore let the A­postles Injunction take place, that is, let them not appear with their heads [Page 131] Uncovered all the time they are at Di­vine Worship. At other times and in other places, especially at home and in their own families, Christian women, and more especially English women, may law­fully shew themselves without a Co­vering on their heads (unless it be that which the Apostle saith was given them for a Covering,) that it may appear they are not of the number of those women who are servilely used, as it [...]s the cu­stom of some Countries, where no wo­man is seen but with her head muffled up and quite hid.

But it will be said, The Argument of the Apostle will not hold now, Co­vering the head being not a sign of Sub­jec [...]tion, but of the contrary among us▪ I answer, Christian women may, in con­formity to the antient practice of their Sex, observe the Apostles Injunction though not for that one Parti [...]ular Rea­son which he mentions, viz. to testifie Subjection to their husbands. Suppose that be Obsolete, and Antiq [...]ated with us, yet there are Other Reasons, which will always hold, viz the regard which they ever o [...]ght to have to their Cha­stity, the due care which they ought to take lest they expose themselves by [Page 132] an unseemly behaviour, the extraordina­ry Modesty as well as Reverence which they are obliged to express whiles they are concern'd in the Worship of God, the deep sense of their being observ'd not only by Men, but by God and An­gels. Which last consideration seems to be made use of by our Apostle when he saith, For this cause the woman ought to have power on her head because of the Angels, v. 10. She ought to have po­wer. What is that? The same [...] velum à Radad do­minari, po­testatem in aliquem ex­ercere. So I could' ob­serve that the word Sad [...]k is u­sed for pe­testas and [...]egumen­tum. He­brew word (as our Learned Annotator observes) which signifies a Veil, de­notes also [...] power; when 'tis said therefore that the woman ought to have power on her head, here is meant a Veil on her head, which is a sign and token of the power over her. This all women ought to wear in the Congregation, if not in sub­jection to Man yet in reverence to Angels, those Heavenly and Divine Spirits who are present in the Publick Assemblies (as even the Heathen Moralists have con­fessed,) and are Overseers and Witnesses of the behaviour of Women as well as of Men in the Church. I know there are Other Glosses on these words: some with Beza understand by the Angels the Ministers and Governours of the Church, [Page 133] the Prophets that Prophesied in the Con­gregation, and they think that S^t Paul exhorts the Women to be veiled, that they might not by exposing their beau­ty be an occasion of diverting those per­sons from their serious employment. Our Great English Rabbi fancies that by the Angels are meant the Messengers or De­puties of Espousals, and that women had the liberty of unveiling or veiling their faces upon their account. But that which may confute this opinion is this (not to speak of the unusual acception of the word Angles) that the Apostle in this Chapter speaks of the Sex in general, but especially of Married Wo­men, whereas this Author restrains the Apostles words to the Unmarried only. This Worthy Man hath another inter­pretation, of a far different nature, which is this, that Evil Angels or Devils are to be understood here, and that the A­postle's meaning is (to deliver it in this Authors own words) thatHarmony of the N. Test. women must not expose their faces in the publick con­gregation lest the Devil make a bait of their beauty, and thereby int angle the hearts and eyes of the men. Lastly, I could offer a conjecture of my own, viz. that [...] is a mistake of the [Page 134] Transcribers for [...], be [...]aus [...] of the flocks, i. e. the Congregations or Assemblies of Christians, which are called flocks, Mat. 26. 31. Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3. (although the same Greek word he not used in these pla­ces.) The plain sense then is that Wo­men ought not to appear with uncovered heads, but to behave themselves with singular modesty and humility, consider­ing the Solemn Employment which they are about. They are met together to worship God, they are come into the Assemblies of the Faithfull for no other end, therefore let them not dare to shew themselves Immodest and Irreverent, let them have a Veil on their heads because of the flock of Christ: let them avoid all lightness and vanity, and set them­selves with the utmost seriousness to that Divine VVork which they are gathered together for, and let them in this be ex­samples to the flock. But if you will not admit of any alteration in the Greek Co­py, (which I am not very forward to urge) then in my judgement the first Interpretation which I named seems to be the most genuine. When the A­postle enjoyns the women to cover their heads because of the Angels, he proceeds [Page 135] upon the received opinion of the Jews, that Angels are always present in Re­ligious Meetings, and indeed in all Great and Weighty Consultations. Where­fore he suggests the Reasonableness of womens modest behaviour in the Con­gregation because of these Angels. As if the Apostle had said, If Men be dis [...]egarded by you, yet have respect to these Invisible Overseers and Obser­vers, who take notice of your loose and disordely carriage, and will one day re­present it to your disadvantage. This Reason is perpetual.

And thus I have finished the Consi­deration of these words. The summ is this, That the Apostle is desirous those Christians at Corinth, who had been con­verted by his Ministry, should walk or­derly and as became the professors of the Gospel. Wherefore he blames the Men for Covering their heads, and the Women for laying aside their Veils in time of Religious Worship; and again he chides both Sexes for another Dis­order, viz. that the Men wore their Hair like Women, and that These appeared in the guise of Men as to their Hair. He lets them know that both these kinds of Disorders are re­pugnant [Page 136] to the Institution of God and the Dictates of Reason. But especially the latter of these practises is con [...]uted here by an Appeal to Nature, which is a Comprehensive Topick, and you may understand by it the General dictate of Natural Reason, and the Particular Law of Nature concerning Distinction of Sexes, as also Usage and Custom which is a Second Nature. According to the direction of these the Apostle would have them walk, suggesting that not only the Length but the Adorning of the hair are Uncomely and Inde­corous, and therefore Unnatural in the Manly Sex, but are Comely and Decent, yea even Proper and Natural in the other. In a word, a Man must not be like a Woman either as to her Veil and Covering or as to her Long and Dressed Hair, because he is taught otherwise by the Law of Reason, and by that of the Sex, and even by the Practice and Custom of the soberest part of the world, which are all com­prised in the large extent of the word Nature in this place of the Apostle.

IF I should say of these words as S^t Au­stin saith of Those in 1 Cor. 3. 15. [He shall be saved yet so as by fire,] namely that it is one of those places in S^t Pauls Epistles which S^t Peter tells us are2 Pet. 3. 16. hard to be understood, I believe it would be difficult for any one to disprove my assertion. For even what the Apostle [Page 138] there add [...] is applicable to These words also, They that are unstable and unlearned wr [...]st them unto their own destruction: which plainly appears in the application of This Text to the doctrine of Purgatory by some of the Roman Chu [...]ch, But whether S^t Pe­ter had an eye to This particular pas­sage of our Apostle or no, I profess to know not. Yet sure I am it may just­ly be ranked among his [...], since it hath not been found any easie task to reach the right understanding and sense of it. It is generally acknowledged that This Text is not of the Ordinary rank, but that it contains in it an Unusual and Surprizing manner of expression. In­terpreters have shrewdly Tugged, and those who have been observed to be La­zy enough sometimes have here plenti­fully Sweated, that they might have the Credit of giving us the Apostle's true meaning, that by any means they might attai [...] to this Resurrection and [...] of the dead in this Chapter. Give me leave to present you with a Brief Ac­count of their Several Indeavours and Different Deci [...]ions in the case, with a free and Impartial Animadversion on them, and then to take the boldness to offer my Own thoughts in the Contro­versie, [Page 139] which I purpose to do (as I ought) with a strict Veneration of Antiquity and the Primitive Writers of the Church, with a faithful regard to the Masters of Grammer and Criticism, with a due re­spect to the Whole Context, and to the Analogy of Christian faith. I think it will not be amiss in the first place to rank the Expositors on This place after This Method. They understand it of Baptism either Properly or Improperly taken: 1. Properly, for a Real and Outward Washing with water. 2. Im­properly or Metaphorically, for the Bap­tism of Afflction and Suffering, as some­times the word is understood. But the Proper Baptizing or Washing will ingage me most of all in This Discourse, and That is threefold, 1. Sacramental, which is no other then that Holy Ordinance of Christs institution, whereby children or those of riper years are admitted into the Chri­stian Church by the action of outward Washing or Sprinkling with water. 2. Funeral Washing, which was practised in order to the burying of the dead bodies. 3. Legal or Ceremonial washing, used by the Iews as often as they were defiled by touching the dead: and this was done either in their own persons, or by ano­ther [Page 140] for them in case they died before they were Cleansed.

I. Begin we with the Various Inter­pretations of Those on the place who understand it of Sacramental Baptizing. And first, there are some who inter­pret it of Those who at their Baptism profess themselves dead to sin and to the world: and by this Baptismal act they are reputed to be thus Spiritually dead. A second Opinion is of those who imagine the words spoken of Baptism as it re­presenteth the Bodily Death. Others un­derstand it of Baptism as it was ac­companied with the confession of the Article of the Resurrection of the dead; A fourth sort say it is spoken of the Clinicks, those who lay on their sick beds, and receive the Sacrament of Bap­tism. Fifthly, others understand it of Baptizing over the dead, over the Tombs of the Deceased Martyrs. Sixthly, there are some who think it is meant of Bap­tizing in the place and stead of the dead. Seventhly, there is a Learned man who thinks it is spoken of an Annual Bap­tizing for the benefit of the dead. Eightly, Another conceveth in refers to Bapti­zing with the imposition of the names of the dead. Lastly, there is a Learned [Page 141] Critick who dissents from all the fore­named Opinions, and is perswaded that [...] is put here for [...], the Plural for the Singular: but how he applies it you shall hear after­wards.

1. I begin with the First, the Opi­nion of those who imagine These words are spoken of Baptized Christians, who by this very Sacrament professed to the world that they were Spiritually dead. So that to be baptized for the dead is as much as to be reputed as dead persons when they were baptized, or, at their bap­tism to be like dead men, viz. Dead in respect of Sin and any Love to it. At that Solemn Initiating themselves into the Church they openly renounced their former sins, they publickly disowned their past vices, they became Mortified per­sons, and betook themselves to a Severe and Strict course of life: thus (Mysti­cally and Spiritually speaking) they were Dead. So the words are interpreted by someS^t Ierom, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius. Antient Fathers: with whom a­gree a few of theMelanch­ton, Cajetan, &c. Moderns, amongst whom aPhilip. à Limborch Theolog. Christian. l. 6. c. 10. Late Writer expresses his sense thus, ‘Baptized for the dead are they who when they are baptized declare that they are ready to Die to [Page 142] the world, to be in it as Dead men, and to live a new life: and if occa­sion be, to submit to the Cross, and Die for their Religion. This they do that they may have a blessed Resur­rection.’ But This Interpretation will be far from gaining our consent if we con­sider (besides what I shall add under the next Opinion) but these two things: First, there is no reason to interpret these baptized for the dead, of those that are spiritually dead, because it is generally ad­vised by all Sober Interpreters of Scr [...]p­ture, that we should not flie to an Im­proper and Metaphorical sense when the Literal and Proper one will serve our turn. But I shall afterwards prove that a Plain and Literal meaning of these words is most probable and reasonable. Secondly, the Context it self will con [...]ute this in­terpretation, for if the Spiritual Death be here mean [...], i. e. the being buried with Christ in baptism, and being dead to sin and the world, then who will think there is any Consequence in the Apostles Rea­soning, whil'st he argueth from a Spi­rituall and Mystical Death and Resur­rection (of which Baptism is a Sign) unto that which is Bodily and External, which is the subject he here treats of [Page 143] through out the whole Chapter▪ The Inference is so Foreign that I cannot see how it will ever be admitted.

2. Others are of the opinion, that These words are spoken of Baptism as it represents the Bodily Death. And some of the Fathers who were Pat [...]ons of the First Interpretation were pleased also to [...]spouse this Second: for they thought fit to joyn both these together, viz. the Spi­ritual and the Bodily Death, asserting that the Representation or Resemblance of both was intended here by the Apost [...]e. Now let us see how they apply these words to the Death of the Body. They hold that the Apostle's Argument in the Text is of this sort, If there shall be no ri­sing of the dead hereafter, why is Bap­tism so significant a Symbol of our Dy­ing▪ and Rising again, and also of the Death and Resurrection of Christ ▪ For those that were Proselytes to the Chri­stian Religion were interpreted to make an open profession of These in their be­ing plunged into the Baptismal water, and in being there Overwhelmed and bu­ried as it were in the Consecrated Ele­ment. The Immersion into the water was thought to signifie the Death of Christ, and their Coming out denoted [Page 144] his Rising again, and did no less repre­sent their Own future Resurrection. On which account the Minister's putting in of the Christian Converts into the Sa­cred waters, and his taking them out thence, are stiled by S^t Chrysostom [...]. Ho­mil. in 1 E­pist. ad Co­rinth. 15. cap. the Sign and Pledge of descending into the state of the dead▪ and of a return from thence. And thus because the Washing and Plunging of the newly admitted Christians was a Visible Proof and Em­blem first of Christ's▪ and then of Their Resurrection from the grave, the fore­mentioned Fathers have been induced to believe that This passage of our Apostle which I am speaking of hath a particu­lar respect to That, and is to be Inter­preted by it. Nay, this seems to agree exactly with the language and tenour of our Apostle himself, who may be thought to be the Best Interpreter of his own words. Know ye not, saith he, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death? therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was [...] up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life, Rom. 6. 3, 4▪ It is no matter of admiration to me that some have thought and confidently asser­ted, [Page 145] that the Apostle's manner of speech here is the same with that in the Text which is before us, and that [...], is to be explained and commented upon by [...], and by that other ex­pression, [...]. They may seem in­deed at first to be near a kin to one another, and to bear upon them the ve­ry same Stamp and Form of speech. But I conceive it was only some little Re­semblance of the Phrase and Stile, or Mode of speech, not the same Signifi­cancy and Real Matter couched in both these places which wrou [...]ht any to This Opinion. But without any more dispute, I would admit of the Interpretation be­fore mentioned as most Natural and Ge­nuine, upon condition that any one can make it good out of but One G [...]eek Au­thor, much more from the Use and Idiom of the Tongue, that to be baptized [...] for the dead, signifies to be bap­tized as dead, or, after the manner and similitude of those that are dead: for Those of the former Opinion and of This (that is, those that interpret the words of a Representation of the Spiritual or Bodily Death) acknowledge for the dead, is as [Page 146] much as like the dead, or, in resemblance of the dead, or, after the manner of the dead. These must be proved to be Sy­nonymous before that First or this Se­cond Exposition of the words can look for our Assent and Suffrage. Let it be proved that [...] is as much as [...] i. e. that it is a word of Similitude, and sig­nifies the same with sicut, tanquam▪ quasi▪ in the Latin, or the same with the He­brew [...], which is used in Comparing and Likening one thing with another. Till then it cannot be credited, that for the dead, signifies a Resemblance or Likeness to those that are dead. I grant that Pro in Latin is sometimes as much as quasi, perinde, instar; as when we read in Tully, pro nihilo putare vel ducere, to esteem as nothing: and (to come nearer to the present matter) when the same Author saith, pro occiso relictus est, he was left as dead. So pro mortuis may be applied in a sentence to signifie as much as tan­quam mortui. And it is true that in our Own Vulgar way of speaking, for dead denotes as much as dead, or as dead: thus we say, such a one lay for dead, or was taken up for dead. But I never heard that it was thus in the Greek Tongue, and therefore I am very [...]oth to [Page 147] charge our Apostle here (as Erasmus and Calvin do in other places) with false Greek. I grant that the Actions in Bap­tism (especially as it was administred of old) were Representative of the Death and Resurrection both of Christ and Be­lievers: but that S^t Pauls words here have reference to any such thing, the Propriety of Phrase (as you have heard) will not permit us to believe. Besides, you may observe (as you shall have far­ther occasion hereafter to take notice) it is [...] with a Praepositive Article, which utterly spoils that sense which is pretended: for the Apostle speaks here Definitively, and not at large: and the words are rightly rendred [for the dead] not [for dead.]

3. The next interpretation is that of S^s Chrysostom, (for you must know it is usual with Him to adjoyn one Opinion to another, as here he thinks fit to add This which I am now mentioning, to those other two which I nam'd before) and he is follow­ed by Theophylact and O [...]cumenius, and they by Hemmingius and our Learned Hammond. The baptized for the dead, say they, were those who were baptized upon [...] the Article of the Resurrection of the dead, and consequently in hope of that Resurrection. [Page 148] So that the Apostle here is thought by them to refer to the Form of Confession of Faith, or Reciting the Articles of the Greed, in which among other things the person to be baptized openly professed his belief of That Article of the Resur­rection of the dead. And the Great Canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras, refer the Apostle's words to This Custom▪ and ex­plain them in These terms, [...]; Not. in 18 Can. Concil. Car­thag. What shall they do that are baptized in the hope of the resurrection of the dead? Which answers to the exposition of Theophylact, [...]. In l [...]cum. What shall they do who are baptized on the Expectation of the deads rising again? But 1. though it be universally acknowledged that soon after the A­postle's time, a Publick Profession of the Creed was required of those that presen­ted themselves to be Baptized, yet it remains to be proved that in the Time wherein our Apostle lived they solemnly Recited a Form of Belief at Baptism, and that they had This very Confession of Faith which now goes under the A­postles Names. This is Doubtful at least, and so we ought not to be Definitive and Peremptory about it, and therefore we cannot be sure that the Apostle argues in this place from any such practice as [Page 149] the Rehearsal of the Creed. 2^ly, Grant that this Form of Confession was used at Baptism by the Catechumeni, and that all the Articles of it were openly re­hearsed, and consequently, in the Close that of the Resurrection of the dead: yet then it should rather have been said, What shall they do that are baptized for those that are Risen from the dead, not barely, for the dead? Nay 3^ly, who sees not yet farther a Greater Impropriety and Harshness in the Apostle's way of speaking, if to be baptized for the dead must be interpreted thus, to be baptized in hope of the resurrection of the dead? First, [the dead] is put here for the dead bodies of the deceased, for These only can be said to rise at the last day. And therefore it is S^t Chrysostoms Gloss on the words, [...]. for the dead, that is (saith he) for the dead bodies. Secondly▪ [the dead bodies] is put for the Resurrection of those dead bodies. Nay, Thirdly, it is put for the Confession, or the Article, or the Faith, or Hope of the resurrection of the dead bodies. This is too Concise a way of speaking: wherefore I yield to our Judicious Thorndyke, who descanting on this passage, concludes it cannot be justified by any Example, that [...] [Page 150] should signifie [...], as S^t Chrysost▪ would have it. Nay 4^ly, if the words were to be taken in his sense, the Article which is here inserted, should be left out, and it should have been barely [...], as the Learned Hammond sets it down in his Annotations, being Consci­ous (as it were) that it should be so.

4. Let us pass to another Reading of the words, and it shall be still of Those who take Baptizing here in the Sa­cramentalsense, and hold that the baptized for the dead were those persons who had That Sacrament administred to them when they were close upon the confines of death, and just expiring their last. This Ex­position is abetted by Calvin. The bap­tized for the dead, saith he, are they who are baptized when they are Dying, Qui jam mortui cen­seantur, & qui de vitâ [...]mnino de­speraverint. when they are given over, and look'd upon as dead. And so the particle [...] is as much as the Latin pro, as when they say, habere pro derelieto. Peter Martyr, Iud [...]vi [...]us Capellus, Estius Other Learned Writers also take This to be the sense of the Apostle's words; but it came first from Epiphanius, in his BookH [...]res. 28. against Hereticks, who acquaints us that when it so chanced that the Catachumeni or New Comers to Christianity were overtaken with some Mortal distemper, and there [Page 151] was an utter Despair of their Living till they could be brought to the Sacred Font, they used to be baptized [...], as they lay in their Beds: and from that usage of theirs the Clinici or Bed-ridden took their Name. For you must know that it was usuall with those that were converted to Christianity to defer their Baptism. Perhaps (say some) at first it proceeded from fear and cowar­dize, which made them unwilling to ha­zard themselves by the open profession of their Religion, and so they put off their admission into the Church as long as they could; but when they were ar­rested by Grievous Sickness, and confi­ned to their Beds, they passionately beg­ged to be baptized before they left the world. This was one sort of Clinicks. But there was a second sert who deferred their Baptism on other accounts: These were no New Converts, but such as had imbraced Christianity a considerable time; yet they purposely deferred their Bap­tism on one pretended ground or other. Thus Constantine the Great was not bap­tized till theSocrat. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 26. Sozom. l. 2. [...]. 32. sixty fifth year of his age, which was the one and thirtieth year of his Empire: and he declared himself (as De vit. Constant. l. 4. c 61. Eusebius testifies) that he delay'd his [Page 152] Baptism because he intended to be Bap­tized in the River Iordan, the place which was so famous for the fi [...]st Bap­tizing, and where our Saviour himself was baptized [...]ut he was hindred from going thither, (though I see no Cause of that hindrance in so many years,) and being Aged he fell sick, and was Bap­tized in the City of Nicomedia (where he then was) by Eusebius Bishop (either at that time, or formerly) of that place, and he died in the very same year he was Baptized. I know this is Contradicted, and it is said he was not baptized in the East, but in the West, not by a Greek Bishop but a Roman one. This was Miltiades, say some: others stiffly main­tain that it was Sylvester, and this they have f [...]omDamas [...]. Pontif one of the Roman Bishops, who wrote Sylvesters Life, and asserts that He baptized Constantine telling us withall that this Emperour, among o­ther Admirable Ornaments and Utensils, kept in his Palace the Font wherein he was baptized▪ and des [...]ribes the Make and Costliness of it.D^r Burnets Travels. It seems it is since translated or thought to be translated to Rome, and there is kept as a Choice Me­mo [...]ial And as for the Occasion of Con­stantine's being Baptized, they tell us [Page 153] it was This, he being guilty of his son Crispus's bloud and other unnatural mur­ders, was struck by God with Leprosie, which Affected him so much that he ap­plied himself to the Bishop, and shew'd himself Sorrowful for the fact; and to give an evidence of his Repentance he desired to receive Baptism. Then by the [...]ishops Prayers and this Holy La­ver he was cured of his Noisome Distem­per. This was in the eighteenth year of his reign, A. D. 324. and is mentio­ned by Zosimus and Baronius. Yet Ce­drenus and others say he was baptized at Rome by this Sylvester some years be­fore, viz. in the seventh year of his reign. But Eusebius, the famous Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who writ the Life of Constantine, saith not a word of all this, butConstan­tine's Life, book 4. [...]h. 61, 62. tells us that he was baptized not at Rome, but at Nicomedia, and that many years after the Nicene Council, in the close of his life, the last year of his reign, (five years after Syl­vester was dead) by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia: and this is testified and con­firmed by S^t Ierom, S^t Ambrose, Socra­tes, Sozomen, Theodoret, and others, and seems to be the True Account of the Emperours Baptism. To hasten then [Page 154] out of this Digression, this Example of Constantine's deferring his Baptism was follow'd by several other succeeding Em­perours. Thus his son Constantius [...]. Atha­nas. de Syn. Arimini & Seleuc. was baptized at the point of Death: Theo­dosius the Great falling sick was there­upon baptized, and Recovered upon it: but he had deferr'd his Baptism longer Socrat. l. 5. c. 25. if his sickness had not hastned it. The nextOros. l. 7. c. 33. Theodosius was not baptized till he was very old. Ecclesiastical History ac­quaints us also that the Emperour Va­lentini [...]n put off his Baptism, that he might receive that Sacrament from S^t Am­brose, but he was prevented by death. We read the same of some of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church: S^t Ie­rom and S^t Ambrose were not baptized till they were thirty years of age, al­though their Parents were Christians. Augustin was a Manichean till he was one and thirty years old, and then (and not before) he was baptized by the foresaid S^t Ambrose the famous Bishop of Milan. Thus it was also in the Greek Church: some of the most Eminent per­sons (besides the Emperours before spo­ken of) deferr'd their Baptism till they came to some ripeness of years. Thus Chrysostom, though born of and bred up [Page 155] under a Christian Mother, and Gregory Nazianzen born of Christian Parents, were not baptized till they arrived to be Men. Nectarius, Archbishop of Con­stantinople, entered into Episcopal Or­ders before he was baptized. Now, there are Different, yea Contrary Reasons al­ledged for this practise: some did pur­posely put off their Baptism till death approached, that they might be the more at liberty to indulge their follies and vi­ces: for when one of the Catechumeni Committed a fault, they used to excuse his failing by alledging This in his favour, that he was not yet Baptized. They did it also that they might not sin after the celebrating the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, for S Cyprian tells us they had This fond and groundless notion, that there was no Pardon for those that re­lapsed into sin after Baptisme. This a­rose from the mistaking of That place, Heb. 6. 4, 5. which the Novatians ve­ry warmly insisted upon, and would by no means Absolve those that lapsed after Baptism. But the Orthodox Fathers were of another mind, and sharply re­proved this custom of deferring Bap­tism. Orat. de baptismum differen­tibus. Gregory Nyssen hath a whole Oration against it, andOrat. 40 de Bap­tismo. Gregory Nazian­zen [Page 156] andHom. 1 & 23 in Act. Apost. Chrysostom inveigh against it very zealously. So S^t Augustin (whose parents delay'd his Baptism on purpose, because they fear'd the Young mans Re­lapse into his former vices)Serm. 97. de Temp. complains of This Abuse in the Church, which pre­vail'd in his days. It seems it was grown into a Custom to omit the receiving of Baptism as long as they were in health (and perhaps the Example of Constan­tine and his son Constantius who did so gave some repute to this evil usage,) but as soon as they fell sick they be­thought themselves of their duty, and when they perceived the Malady grew desperate, and themselves irrecoverable, then they sent presently for the Chri­stian Priests, and solemnly gave up their Names to Christ in Holy Baptism, as be­ing desirous to carry out of the world with them the Seal of their Eternal Sal­vation. These are call'd by the Coun­cil of Laodicea (which was under Syl­vester) [...], those that were admitted to Bap­tism when they lay sick, for [...] here signifieth Baptism, as it doth frequently among the Antients. This was call'd [...] byOrat. de baptism. differentib. Gregory Nyssen, because they desired to be Baptized and [Page 157] to Die at once. Of these speakEpist. 7 ad Magnum. S^t Cy­prian, Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. Eusebius, and many Writers of the Primitive Times, and the Canons of several Councils. Of such as These, viz. the Moribundi, who lay on their Death-Beds, and called for Speedy Bap­tism, some interpret the words of the Text. But that they have but little reason, I shall prove from these following Parti­culars. 1. It is not probable that that sort of Clinicks who were newly con­verted from Paganism is here meant, be­cause in those first days Fear and Faint­heartedness did not possess men, as they are known to have done afterwards. A singular Zeal and Ardency inspired their minds, and they were not ashamed to own and publickly maintain the Faith they had espoused: yea, they gloried in their sufferings for the Cause of Christ, and rejoyced in their persecutions for it, as the Acts of the Apostles assure us. It is not likely therefore that These de­ferr'd their being baptized on the fore­named account, and consequently it is not likely that the Text speaks of these. 2. It is not certain that it was the o­pinion of the Christians in the Apostles days, that Sin after Baptism is Irremis­sible, which was another ground of the [Page 158] Custom of deferring Baptism. And con­sequently it is to be said, and that with evident Truth, that it doth not appear in the least that the foremention'd Cu­stom of the believers requesting baptism in the very close of their lives prevail'd in the times of the Apostles: but it seems rather to have crept in after those first Guides of the Church were gone; and therefore that Glosse on the words can have but a slender foundation. Or 3^ly, say that such an Use obtained even in the Apostles days, yet will not S^t Pauls Ar­gument have any force at all by rela­ting unto That▪ For thus it must pro­ceed, What shall the baptized Clinicks do if the dead rise not at all? why are they also baptized just at the point of death? why have they that Holy Sa­crament given to them at the last gasp? if there be no Rising again, why do they thus? It may be answer'd, that though there should be no Resurrection of the dead, yet it follows not that they were Baptised in vain, for that Sacred Office of Baptism was thought in that case (and that rightly too) chiefly to have respect to what was Past. Though the dead bodies rise not, yet that Administra­tion was useful to the Soul, and available [Page 159] to the Absolution and Remission of their sins: which plainly appears from the Rea­son of deferring baptism heretofore, name­ly, left they should sin, and so defile themselves after washing. Though the dead should never rise again, Christs Or­dinance might be conducible to this Pre­sent Life, whilst by That they were ad­mitted into the Church, and had their former sins washed away, and their con­sciences cleansed: and also it might be seviceable to the Future Life, for the salvation and happines of their Souls, though their Bodies were unconcerned. But 4^ly, to say no more, This Interpre­tation of the words is faulty in the same kind that the two former were, that is, it is irreconcileable to the Propriety of speech, and the Usage of the Tongue in which the Apostle wrote: which I cannot but believe till it is proved to me that These two are of the same import, viz. to be baptized for the dead, and to be baptized when they are dying, or at their death: which is the thing that the Abettors of this Exposition contend for, but it could never yet be made out by any Parallel place of Scripture, or the least Testimony of Approved Authors▪

[...] 5: Another Acception of the words [Page 160] is countenanced by the Authority of Lu­ther, Piscator, and the Admirable Vos­sius in his Thesis concerning the Resur­rection. They will have [...], rendred by [...], over the dead, i. e over the dead corps as they lay in the Coemeteries or Bu­ [...]ying places: or over the dead, i. e. upon the Tombs, and over the Sepulchres of the newly deceased Martyrs, which were call'd Memoriae Martyrum, and so the words refer to the Custom of baptizing persons over the dead Martyrs graves or tombs. Here first, I shall grant that according to the Syriack it is rendred super mortuos, upon, above, or over the dead. Secondly, I grant that the Inno­cent Commemorations of the Holy Mar­tyrs, even at the Time of administring of Baptism, were no unusual things of old, and have Great Antiquity to Assert them. But then, This I have to say that [...] for [...] is not so Easie and Obvious an Acception as That which I have to offer (and certainly the Easi­est and Plainest is to be deemed the most Natural and Genuine.) Again, though the Praeposition in the Text frequently signifies over or above, and that with a Genitive case, when it is applied to a [Page 161] place, yet it may be question'd whether it hath the same signification when it is joyned with persons, as here: for though the baptizing be supposed to be over the Graves, yet it is properly over those that are [...]dead, who are considered as per­sons here: at least their bodies, not the places they were in, are spoken of here. But I will not insist on this, but will rather suppose it to be Good Greek for the sake of the Chief Author of this Opinion, the Admirable Vossius, who was as Eminent a Grammarian as he was a Divine. But further, I could object a­gainst this Custom as a Superstitious one, and therefore not fit to be made an Ar­gument of the Resurrection by S^t Paul. Again, if this Ceremony of administring Baptism over the dead were wholly void of Superstition, yet I am not satisfied that That Practice was at all in use in our Apostle's time. Nay, the Evangelical History is against it, for we read there thatIohn 3 28. Iordan andIohn [...] 23. Aenon, not Church­yards and Vaults, but Rivers were made use of for Baptizing: although it is true Ecclesiastical History relates that in Af­ter-Ages the Fonts and the Graves were together, the Baptisteria and the Mar­tyrs Tombs were close to one another: [Page 162] But that they were so at First, and that the Memoriae M [...]rtyrum, so often spo­ken of in S^t Cyprian, and S^t August [...]n, were as old as the Apostles, I have no where read. Or, if we should suppose there was such a Custom then, yet That could not be applyed by our Apostle to the present purpose, for it cannot be pro­ved that they that were so Baptize [...] o­ver the Tombs did profess thereby to be­lieve the Resurrection: for they might do this to shew that they would in some sort be like the dead, which is the thing Christians profess in Baptism, as the A­postle tells us. Therefore I am not con­vinced that the words before us have any Allusion to such a practice.

6. There are someJustellus (ad Can. 12. C [...]ncil. Nece [...]sar.) Scaliger (l. 3 Epist. 236 & 237 Epist.) Erasmus, Casaubon, Grotius. Learned men who fetch the sense of these words from a Custom which they read of in Tertullian and Epiphanius, which was This, when any of the Catechumeni were suddenly snatched away by death (before they could have time and leisure to approach to the Holy Laver of Baptism) some of the surviving friends were intreated to be baptized for them, i. e. in their stead▪ and the persons that were deceased, though unbaptized, were reputed to be baptized, because they were so in their [Page 163] Representatives. [...] then is as much as [...], vice vel loco mortuorum, in the room and place of the dead. And that the Praeposition bears that as well as other significations is not to be doubted, there being abundant Authority to confirm it. I shall help to strengthen it with a Remarkable quotation which looks as like This of our Apostle as may be. It is out of Dionysius of Ha­licarnassus (8^th book) [...] (saith he) [...], i. e. the Magistrates would have other souldiers enrolled and admit­ted in the room of those who died in the war. These two Examples [...] & [...] seem to be very nearly allied, but really are not. However, from the former of these it is evident that [...] sometimes is as much as [...]. And there are abundant In­stances in the New Testament that this Praeposition signifies a Substitution, a put­ting one person in the place of another, asDe Satis fact [...]. Grotius hath proved sufficiently a­gainst the Socinians, who will by no means have it denote a Substitution or Surrogation. So that I must confess I wonder at what a Great Critick saith [Page 164] concerning This Interpretation, vice mor­tuorum, viz. Nemo ita l [...]quitur qu [...]ds [...]iam. Heins. Ex­erc. S [...]. that he doth not know that any body ever speaks after this manner. Whereas it is apparent that This is an Usual and Common way of speaking, and is to be met with fre­quently in the Best Writers: wherefore it must be imputed to the Forgetfulness of that Great Scholar that he delivers any such thing. Having spoken hitherto of the Grammatical part of the Opinion, now let us consider the Custom on which it is founded. First then, suppose there was such a Custom of old among the Marcionites or Cerinthians, or both (for De Resur­rect. carn. [...]. 48. & [...]. Mar­eion. l. 5. c. 10. Tertullian imputes it to the Marcionites, and so doth Chrysostom, butH [...]res. [...]8. Epipha­nius relates it as an Heresie of the Ce­rinthians,) yet neither of these Fathers acquaint us that it obtained in the days when S^t Paul or Cerinthus lived; and therefore there is no evidence that the Apostle had notice of any such thing, and consequently he could not mention it in his Writings. But let us suppose (what we cannot grant) that even whilst the Apostle lived, such a practice was more rarely and privately used, yet it is not credible that S^t Paul, the Great Master of Logick and Discourse, would [Page 165] argue from a thing so Obscure and Apo­cryphal, and not openly received at that time, especially in a Catholick Epistle, directed not only to the Corinthian Church, but unto all that in every place call upon the name of Iesus Christ our Lord (as you read in the front of this Epistle, v. 2.) But this is not all, Shall it be thought worthy of the clear and demonstrative Reason of him that was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, to build the Great Doctrine of the Resur­rection on a Vain Observance and a Ma­nifest Error of some Conceited Hereticks? If there were such a thing as a Posthu­mous Baptism (if I may so call it,) a Representative Washing, Vicarium Bap­tisma, as Tertullian stiles it, a Sacrament by a Proxy or Deputy, even when the party most concern'd was in another world, if you can imagine that there was such a thing as This in the Apostle's days, yet can you think likewise that this is the thing design'd in These words? Could so vain and Idle a Rite come into the Apostle's mind upon This occasion? Would he argue from a Vain Abuse of Baptism by Hereticks? Would the Apostle proceed upon the Errors of others? This would be no Simple and Absolute Proof, but [Page 166] it would only be significant to those Erro­neous persons, by bringing them by this Arguing to an Inconvenience. Nay, can you imagine that this Holy man would so lightly pass by and overlook so Gross an Abuse of the Baptismal Institution, that he would not reflect in the least on so Notorious a Pollution of that Sa­crament, when he had taken particular notice of the very Postures and Habit of the Corinthians, of the mens Pray­ing Veiled, and of the womens Praying Vnveiled in the Publick Congregations, and likewise of the Length and Wear­ing of their Hair, and had reproved them for these disorders? Why would he now be silent, or (I may say) dissemble, when he had at other times smartly checked lesser Errors and Obliquities? S^t Chry­sostom in his Homily on This 15^th Chap. of the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians, re­lates the manner of this Absurd practice of those Hereticks, where he tells us that they used to put a Living man under the bed of the Deceased, and then the dead person was asked whether he would be Baptized: whereupon he that was un­der the bed made Answer for the dead, and desired Baptism, and him they im­mediately baptized in the place of the [Page 167] dead. This the Good Father relates there at large, but he tells his Auditors before hand, that [...]. he knows he shall in rehearsing the Antick Custom of those Hereticks move them to no little laughter, it being a piece of mere Mockery, an Histrionical Sacrament, a Ludicrous Pro­phanation of Baptism, for those Ridicu­lous Sectaries (as he expresses it) did but [...]. act a Part in a Play. Can it be ima­gined then that so Weighty and Solid an Article as the Resurrection is, can be founded on so Slight and Absurd a bot­tom? S^t Paul needed not to have sought for Aides from falshood and Error, when the Truth it self is sufficiently Armed, and hath Auxiliaries enough of its own to defend its cause. I might add also, that This Practice supposes a Reiterating of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is an Absurd thing; unless it be said that those persons were baptized only for Others: but then it cannot be denied that at the same time they were really Baptized Themselves. This Meaning of the words therefore will but little Credit our A­postle, and therefore I have the less Esteem for it. And I have none at all for that which follows, viz.

7. The Opinion of the LearnedNot. in N. T. Io­seph [Page 168] Scaliger, according to whom the bap­tized for the dead, are those who are bap­tized for the benefit and advantage of the dead. It is granted indeed that This might be True according to the Letter, or Grammatical part, for [...] sometimes is as much as in utilitatem seu commodum in Good Authors. And accordingly it is said often in the New Testament that Christ died [...], not only in our stead, but for us, i. e. for our Good and Advantage, viz. that he might purchase Salvation and Eternal Happiness for us. But the meaning which the aforesaid Author conveys to us by This Con­struction is intolerably Absurd and Su­perstitious; and it is no other then This, that the Apostle here in mentio­ning the susception of Baptism for the dead, points at some Pious Office of Ba­thing or Baptizing the dead, or being Baptized for them in order to the Re­freshment of their souls. The rise of it, he saith, was This, that the Antients thought the souls of the dead were Im­prison'd in the earth till the day of Judgment, which he labours to prove out of Tertullian, Augustin, and Lactan­tius: and from That Error, saith this Great man, was propagated the doctrine [Page 169] of Christs Descent into Hell. Now peo­ple were mightily concerned for these Close Prisoners, and they were desirous to purchase some Refreshing for the souls of their friends and relations. To this purpose they frequently Pray'd, and made Oblations for them, and they were wil­ling to do Any thing, that their depar­ted friends might fare as well as might be till the Last day. And on this same ground they used Baptism for the dead, and that annually on a certain day, viz. the Calends of February, asC [...]ntr. Marcion. l. 5. Tertullian saith expressly: and even to this day, saith Scaliger, some of the Ethiopian Church yearly renew their Baptism at the Feast of Epiphany; which very thing Disputat. 17. de Bap­tismo. Vossius also testifies of the Ethiopian Christians. And Scaliger explains This Custom yet further out of Lactantius and S^t Augustin, and rangeth it among the Ineptiae Patrum & Ecclesiae Doctorum, The Dotages of the Primitive Church. Hence, saith he, is the Apostle's heavy Censure of the Corinthians in the 34 v. of this Chapter, some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame, From which words this Mighty Critick would prove that the Practice, from which the Argument in the Text is drawn, was no [Page 170] ways Good and Laudable, though the Argument it self which the Apostle useth be solid enough. But this is a Mistake, for when it is said, some have not the knowledge of God, it is apparent that it strikes at those who denied or questioned the Resurrection of the dead, as you may easily be convinced by perusing what immediately follows in 35 & 36 v. Some man will say, how are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickned except it die: and v. 38. God giveth it a body as it pleaseth him. From whence it is clear that the fond and foolish reasoning of the Corinthians about the manner of the Resurrection, and their shamefull ignorance of the Almighty power of God concerning it, are the things which the Apostle there rebukes them for. He tells them that some have not the knowledge of God, in the same sense that our Saviour reproved the Sadducees, saying, ye do erre not knowing the Scrip­tures, nor the power of God, Mat. 22. 29. And as for the use of that Officious Baptizing for the benefit of the dead, (which Scaliger thinks is intended in this place,) before it gain our assent, 'tis to be proved that that fond and Idle Rite [Page 171] had a being in the Apostle's d [...]ys, and was well known to the Corinthians, which is not yet Proved, and so he cannot be thought to have an eye to any such thing. Or, if we should be so liberal of our Concessions as to grant that such a Custom was on foot when the Apostle writ this Epistle (which it is utterly im­possible to prove) yet have we no rea­son to think (unless we can swallow down the Doctrine of Purgatory, and perswade our selves that that Officious Washing was available to cool those Flames) unless, I say, we can digest this, we have no reason to believe that the Present Argument is drawn thence. But on the contrary, it is highly ratio­nal to maintain, that This passage of S^t Paul, and That of S^t Peter in his 1 Epist. 3^d Chap. and 19^th v. (of which we shall next speak,) with other places of Sa­cred Writ, have been forcibly drawn by perverse men to patronize the Gainfull doctrine of Satisfaction for the rescuing of souls out of the prison of Purgatory. Besides, I might ask, what doth free­ing from Purgatory, which happens be­fore the Resurrection, conduce to the confirming the Resurrection? They are, they say, baptized for the dead, to [Page 172] free their freinds from Purgatory, but That may be though there be no Re­surrection: for it is the Soul, not the Body that suffers the pains of Purgatory. Nay further, it doth not appear that even in After-Ages the practice which Scaliger speaks of did prevail, viz. that the Living were baptized for the Benefit of the dead. For the Annual Baptizing on a certain day, which he alledgeth for his purpose, argues no such thing. It was done only in remembrance and re­verence of Christs Baptism, which was performed by S^t Iohn on the Calends of February, according to some, or on the Epiphany, according to others. That day is call'd [...] by the Antients, either because of Iohn Baptist the Fore­runner, the True Evangelical Phosphorus, or because [...] Heb. 6. 4. [...] was [...]. He that consults the Antients shall find that they generally assert Christ was Born and Baptized on the same day of the year, which they think they prove from Luke 3. 23. This day being, ac­cording to their opinion, so signalized by our Saviours Birth and Baptism, was re­puted a very High day, and was in Great Esteem among them; in so much it seems that they repeated their Own [Page 173] Baptism on that day. And for this rea­son some of the Abissine Christians (whom Scaliger calls the Ethiopian Church) yearly Baptize themselves in Rivers and Lakes on Epiphany day. And I could add from a Late Author, that the Bishops in Muscovy at this day consecrate the Rivers on the Epiphany every year. But what is all this to the purpose? Is here any Baptizing for the benefit of the dead? No assuredly. I am ready to grant also, that Baptizing of the dead was used here­tofore by some Christians. This is as cer­tain as that it was usual [...] to give the O­ther Sacrament to the dead: which both appear to have been Practised from the Sixth Canon of the 3^d Council of Car­thage, and the 83 of the Council of Trullo, in which you find a Prohibition against that administring the Eucharist and Baptism to the bodies of the de­ceased. And the above namedBalsamon & Zonar as. Cano­nists in their Comments on the 18^th Ca­non of Carthage, acquaint us with the Ground of this Baptizing the dead, and likewise of the Baptizing the living in the room of the dead, namely, upon the Misunderstanding these words of the A­postle, What shall they do that are bap­tized for the dead? The Iews it seems [Page 174] had the like Superstitious opinion and practice as to Circumcision; forSy [...]agoga. Buxtorf acquaints us, that the Infant that died before it was eight days old was Cir­cumcised in the Burying-place, over the grave. And that is yet more Fond, which I have read of a people among the Tar­tars, who had so great an opinion of Matrimony, that if their sons and daugh­ters died before Age, they solemnized a Marriage between the parties after death. Such a piece of Folly was the Bapti­zing of the dead, which was practised (we grant) in some Ages after the A­postles, and Those Learned Lawyers think it was sounded on the Text. Yet any Unp [...]ejudiced man may see that there is not the least foundation in the words for such a Practise: for it is impossible to make These two one, Baptizing the dead, or baptizing persons when they are dead, and being Baptized for the Benefit of the dead.

8. There is another Opinion which may be referred to This First Rank of Interpreters, and that is, that the A­postle speaks here of the Custom re­ceived in the Church of giving Names in Baptism in memory of the dead. This, saithIn Exer­citat. Sacr. in locum. H [...]insi [...]s (who is the only Ex­positor [Page 175] that goes this way) was in use among the Old Christians, and thence the Nominalia were instituted and so, lemnly observed by them, which were Festival days kept by the Christians yearly in remembrance of the Name given them in Baptism. These Nominalia (as Tertullian calls them) or [...] (as Gregory Nazianzen stiles them) were first derived from the Iews in Cir­cumcision, at which time the Infants had the Names given them of their Parents or Near [...]st Kindred and Friends deceased (which is con [...]ed in the Evangelical History by that dispute which was a­bout the N [...]ming of S [...] Iohn the Bap­tist.) And this usage prevailed in the Christian Church afterwards, and they were wont to give their Children the Names of their Kindred who had excell'd an vertue for These were thought to inspite them by the [...] Worthy Examples. And by this means also the Names of their departed friends were Recorded, and their Memories preserved, and they seem'd to Survive in those that bore their Names. These were said to be Baptized for the dead, i. e. (saith that Learned Critick,) in gratiam & me­moriam mortuorum. They might justly [Page 176] be said [...] to raise up the Name of the dead, as those were said to do among the Iews, who being next of kin married the widow of the deceased. The Apostle then is thought by Him to refer to That giving of the Names of the dead to those that were Baptized, because That was in Memory and Honour of the expired friends, in hope of their Resurrection, and in belief of Eternity; for though they were Dead, yet they really Lived in another world. Thus therefore the Argument is supposed to run, Why are those Names of departed Parents and Friends given to the Bapti­zed Relations, if those persons are not at all in being? To what purpose were this if the Deceased utterly perished, and after death were never to rise again? The Resurrection supposeth the Souls Immortality, and so believing. This we cannot question the Other. The persons wearing the Names of those that are dead, do hereby tell the world that they believe their Pious Parents and Friends are still in being, and at the last day shall rise again. What shall they do, how fondly do they act who are thus baptized themselves, or baptize others in Memory of the Dead, if they believe [Page 177] not the Resurrection? else why do they consider the Deceased as yet Living when they give or bear the Names of those persons? The Answer to all this in short is, 1. If such a custom was in the A­postles times, yet it seems to be too Particular and too Mean a one to ground so Great and General a matter on. 2. Tis not giving or receiving a Name that is here spoken of, but Bapti­zing, which is another thing, and of more moment. And why Baptism should be put here for Imposition of Names in Baptism I see no reason, unless it could be proved that an Improper Acception of a word is more agreeable then the Proper and Native one. 3. It is not evi­dent that Names were generally and commonly given at Baptism so early. If we consult the History even of the Times soon after Christ, we shall read of very few (which I somewhat won­der at, I confess) who bore the Names either of the Evangelists or Apostles, or other Martyrs. 4. To argue from the Imposition of the Names of the dead to their Certain Rising again is no ways firm and solid. And therefore it is not probable on These Considerations that This was the sense of the Apostle.

[Page 178] 9. In the next place I will propound the Opinion of that late Learned Cri­tick Alexander More, who in his Notes on some Select places of the New Tosta­ment, understands this place of the Sa­cramental Baptism, but by the dead (which in the Greek is in the Plural) he thinks is denoted a Singular Person, and that person is Christ: and to be bap­tized for the dead, is to be baptized for Christ, the meaning of which you may find in that Author. I will only here take notice of the Unreasonableness of his Interpretation, so far as he understands Christ by those that are dead. It is true I grant that there are several Examples of the change of the Singular number for the Plural in Holy Scripture. This Syllepsis, or Synechdoche, or Enallage nu­meri (call it as you please) is frequent in the Sacred Stile, and it is most used when some Eminent Person or Thing is meant. And I grant that Christ was the most Eminent Person, and his Death the most Signal and Remarkable Thing that ever was. But I cannot think that the Apostle here expresses the Singular by the Plural, because 1. the Apostle here mentions the dead three times, which shews he means it in the true proper [Page 179] sense. For it were tolerable to put the Plural for the Singular once, but to [...]e­peat it is unusual, much more to speak after the same manner a third time is not to be allowed. Where you meet with the Change of Numbers in Scrip­ture, it is by the by, and not frequent; but this Reiterating of it is no where to be found, which is an Argument that [the dead] here is no such kind of speech, but that it is a way of speaking after the ordinary rate, and consequently that one Number is not put for ano­ther. 2. All along in this Chapter Christ is spoken of, and represented as Risen; how comes it to pass that the Character is here altered, and that now by the Dead (thrice named) we must understand Christ? 3. When we can satisfie ourselves very well with the Propriety of speech, we have no reason to fancy Improprieties, and then to flie to that meaning which is contain'd in them. This is our present case, the Apostle here speaks in the Plu­ral, and we can very well understand him. Why must we imagine that he intends the Singular when he expresses himself Plurally? Why must we make him speak Improperly when we can ap­prehend him as well, nay better in his [Page 180] Proper way of speaking? Thus we have no good ground to think that [...] is put for [...].

There is another Interpretation yet re­maining, even of those who take Bap­tizing here in the Sacramental sense. But That being the Interpretation which I shall fix upon as the most Probable and Accountable, I will therefore reserve it for the Close of all.

Thus far we have examined those Ex­positions of the Text which make it to be understood of Sacramental Washing, signally stiled Baptism.

II. There are a Second sort of Expo­sitors who will have the words meant of the Washing of the dead bodies in or­der to Burial and of this opinion Be­za is the chief Patron, in his Annota­tions on the place, and he is followed by Paraeus. It was indeed an ordinary practice to wash the corps before their In­terment, and what S^t Luke tells us of Tabitha, in Acts 9. 37. is a Confirma­tion of it. 'Tis likely say these Au­thors, that this was done in belief and expectation of the Rising again of those bodies; and therefore it is probable the Apostle argues from the received rite and custom of Washing the bodies of the dead [Page 181] before they layd them in the grave, for this Cleansing (and Anointing too, for that also was usual) was a visible pro­fession of the belief of a future Resur­rection. What shall they do that make use of this Sepulcral Washing, to what purpose do they observe this rite if the flesh be never to rise again? T [...]; what doth this action of theirs signifie? to what end is it? why are all nations sol­licitous about the liveless carcass? to what tends all this care of theirs if the body shall not experience the happiness of a Restauration? The Reply to this is casie, 1. The notion of baptizing ac­cording to this interpretation, is forced and distorted, for though [...] may and doth signifie Washing in the more General sense, and is applied to Common Washings, in Mark 7. 4. & Heb. 9. 10. yet there is no reason to relinquish the more Noted Acception of it in the stile of the New Testament: and here to re­strain it to the custom of Funeral Washing is very odd and unaccountable. 2. Though the Christians used this sort of Sepul­cral Washing, yet how doth it appear that This was a Proof of the Resurrection of the dead? Durandus in his Rationale tells you that the Christians washed the [Page 182] dead, to shew that their Souls were clean­sed from sin by Confession and Pennance. 3. This Funeral Washing was in use a­mong the Iews as well as those that pro­fessed Christianity. Now 'tis known that the Sadducets acknowledged no such thing as a Resurrection, and therefore their Washing the dead could have no re­spect to the Rising again of the dead. Again, 4^ly•, the Ablutio [...] (as Plautus calls it) was used by the Pa­gans as well as Christians; and it is not to be thought that These did it with re­gard to the Resurrection. You may learn why they washed the dead bodies fromQuod vi­delicet ple­rumque pu­telur exclu­sus vitalis spiritus, qui calidac aqu [...]e ablutione ve­luti sopitus excitatur. In Aeneid. 2. Servius, viz. that if the vital spirits in those that seem'd to be dead were only benum'd, they might be re­vived and rouzed by the warm water, and rubbing it on the body. But it is more probable in my opinion that they Washed the dead bodies in order to A­nointing them, for the Romans and Gre­cians and other Nations used both these, and one made way for the other, for they first clear'd the Skin of its pollu­tion, and then made use of their Per­fumed Ointments. Virgil giving account of Misenus's Funeral Obsequies, takes no­tice of this practice, [Page 183]

And Ennius doth the like, speaking of deceased Tarquin, ‘Tarquinii corpus bona faemina lavit & unxit.’ AndIliud 9. Homer describes Patroclus's fune­rals after the same manner. And by the by, I might insert that it is probable they Washed our Saviours body, seeing we read thatMark 16. 1. Mary Magdalen and other wo­men Anointed it after his death, as did alsoIo [...]n 19. 38, 39, 40. Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicode­mus. Homil. 84. in Iohan. S^t Chrysostom is Positive that Christs body was Washed after he was taken down from the Cross. Thus Iews as well as Other people used this Fune­ral Ceremony of Washing the dead bo­dy, it being in order to Anointing: for it was proper first to wash off the filth of the body before they laid on their sweet Ointments. Or, what think you of another Reason of the Custom, which I have framed to my self, from what I meet with in the Pagan Antiquities? There I find that Washing the Infants that were newly born was a constant pra­ctice: not onlyPoslq [...]am peperit, pue­ros lavare jussit. In Amphi­tr [...]on, Plautus, but several Others take notice of it, and the very Sacred Records expressly mention it, [Page 184] Ezek. 16. 4. and thereby confirm the Antiquity of this custom. Perhaps therefore Washing after death was an imi­tation of the Washing at the birth. Their Entring into the world, and their Lea­ving it had the like [...], Plutarch. Sympos. l. 8. Ammian. Marcellin▪ Names, and they would have them resemble one another in the like Actions. It is probable they agreed upon it to End as they Began, at Coming into and Going out of the world to use the same Custom. But if This Conjecture be not admitted, then we must have recourse to the former Ac­counts given of This Usage, or we may yet further add that the generality of the people who used the Lustral Washing, did it either out of some Superstitious humour, or barely to comply with Cu­stom. Take it in any of these Aspects, it doth not look like an Argument that the Apostle would make use of for the proof of the Resurrection. 5. To say no more, the Criticizing genius of this Modern Expositor fails him here, for what Construction can reconcile these two, and m [...]ke them the same, viz. the washing of the dead (i. e. washing per­sons after they are dead) and washing for the dead? These are vastly different, and it was never heard that there was [Page 185] any Affinity between the one and the other. Therefore this Sepulchral Wash­ing ought to be dissallowed here; Gram­mer will not vouch it: Which is a suffi­cient confutation of the Opinion, though there were nothing else to say.

III. A Third sort of Interpreters are (as fondly) of opinion that the words refer to a Legal and Ceremonious Wash­ing used among the Iews after their touching of a dead body, or going into the Sepulchres, or standing too near the per­sons that were breathing their last. The Pollution which they contracted by this means was to be purged away by Wash­ing themselves. And indeed it happens that the word [...] is applied to This sort of Cleansing by the Apochry­phal Author, in Eccles. 34. 25. Nay S^t Mark applies the word in this sense, Mark 7. 4. Except they wash (or be baptized) they eat not. And the Ara­bick Version of the Text seems to fa­vour thi [...] opinion, which renders it thus, Quid fa­cient qui propersonis mortuis bapti­zantur? What shall they do that are baptized because of the dead persons, viz. whom they have Touched, and so Polluted themselves?In Cipp. Hebrai [...]. Hottinger therefore under­stands the Apostle of this Ceremonial Baptism of the Old Testament (as he calls [Page 186] it) which he saith was instituted to re­mind the Israelites of the Resurrection of the dead. But I do not find that he hath gain'd any considerable Proselytes to his opinion, it being so sorrily con­trived, and having so little reason to re­ly upon. For to be baptized or washed [...] for the dead, and [...] From the dead, i. e. from the pollution contracted by touching or com­ing near the dead, are vastly different. Washing themselves after their being de­filed by a dead body, what is that to Washing for the dead? And as this Mo­saick Washing hath no Grammer, so nei­ther hath it any Logick to appear in its behalf, for it miserably perverts the sense of the words, and the Consequence of the Apostle's discourse, which I leave you to examine.

And so doth that Other Opinion of Turrianus the Jesuite, who will needs have this baptizing for the dead relate to a Legal Washing or Purifying of the dead bodies. It is his fancy that the A­postle argues from the practice of the Iews, among whom it was usual that if any man died Legally unclean (i. e. be­fore he was purified from his Uncleanness according to the Law, Num. 19.) some [Page 187] other person was washed and cleansed in his stead: for they thought, saith he, that this Purging profited the dead, and by this means the Uncleanness which he died in would not hurt him, nay that he should be thereby cleansed: and by this Ceremony too they professed their faith of the Immortality of the soul and the Resu [...]rection of the dead, against the heres [...]e of the Sadducees. But the na­ming of this Conceit is enough to con­fute it: for first, there is no proof that there ever was any such Practice; Se­condly, there is no reason to think that the Apostle by Baptizing means any o­ther then Sacramental Baptism; Third­ly, any man may guess that the Jesuite chiefly design'd this Exposition for the sake of his so much admired doctrine of Pargatory.

And for that end have Others of the Church of Rome fastned another, but as Improbable a Meaning on the words. Which brings me to the Last rank of Interpreters, viz.

IV. Those that will have the Baptizing in the Text to be understood in a Meta­phorical sense. It is the dream of Sta­pleton and Salmeron, and some others of that party, that because by Baptism or [Page 188] Washing, is meant Affliction or Suffering, in Mat. 20. 23. therefore the persons who are said to be baptized for the dead, are such Kind souls who, to do the dead a Courtefie, undergo all sorts of Afflictions and Hardships. As if S^t Paul had said, What shall they do who voluntarily suf­fer so much in This world to help those that are in misery in another? What shall they do that baptize themselves as 'twere in their Sweat and Tears, and bathe themselves in their own Bloud to redeem poor souls from the pains of Purgatory? What will become of them that do and suffer any thing for the ad­vantage of the dead, if the dead shall not rise? Why do they inure themselves to Long Prayers and tedious Fastings? Why do they undergo the Baptism of Pennance and Almsdeeds? (for Bellarmine under­stands it so, and Salmeron upon the place tells us, that Alms are a kind of Wash­ing for which he quoteth forsooth Ec­clesiasticus 3. 30. Water will quench a fla­ming fire, and Alms maketh an atonement for sins; and Luke 11. 4. Give alms, and behold, all things are Clean unto you.) Why do so many undertake Long Pilgrimages, wear Hair Shirts, roll them­selves in Snow, Scourge and Torture [Page 189] themselves, and go through all the hard­ships of Self-denial, if they do not think These things will prove Satisfactions for disobedient souls. Why do they relin­quish the world, and study nothing but Se­verity and Mortifications and Austere Ex­ercises of their bodies, if they could not by These Arts do the Dead some good? Why are they thus baptized or afflicted for the dead? Certainly this Baptizing will mitigate the flames of Purgatory, and inable the distressed Prisoners to get loose the sooner out of that Painfull Du­rance. That which I have to Reply to This is 1. that it is an odd Notion and Way of these men to reckon Re­petance, and Prayers and A [...]msdeeds, a­mong Afflictions and Sufferings and Punish­ments. This is a doctrine which no Di­vines but themselves ever taught. 2. Let it be remembred that although Penances for the dead were in use among the Pa­gans, yet Gods People were particularly forbid to use any such thing, Deut. 14. 1. Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. And shall not Christians think it unlaw­ful as well as Iews? 3. Any man may see that This is a plain fetch to esta­blish That Doctrine which hath brought [Page 190] the Church of Rome so much Profit, and therefore must be maintain'd right or wrong. 4. Whereas they say the end of these Services and Undertakings of the living for the Dead is that the Souls detain'd in Purgatory may be released; I reply that this is fondly alle [...]ged, because Purgatory is not a Prison for Bodies but for Souls only (as they confess.) Now I never heard of the Resurrection of Souls, but of Bodies; and of This the Apostle speaks, If the dead rise not at all, mean­ing it of the Bodies of the dead. So that This Text hath no reference to what they dream of. It speaks of another thing, unless Soul and Body are the same thing. 5. It were enough to say that this Obscure and Mysti [...]al notion of be­ing Baptized, is but seldom used in the Stile of Scripture, and then (one place of S^t Luke excepted) it hath an Explanation added after it, asThes. de Resurrect. ca [...]. Vossi [...] hath well observed. There can be no reason therefore, in This place especially▪ to think that This Allegorical Baptis [...], i. e. the Baptism of Suffering, is intended.

I might annex here the Opinion of our Learned Rabbi D^r Lightfoot, who is the only Protestant of any note▪ except Vostius, who interprets this [Page 191] place of the Metaphorical Baptism, the Baptism of Suffering. What shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead &c. is as much, saith he, as if the Apostle had said,Harmony of the N. Test. If the dead rise not again, what will become of those that are baptized with a Martyrial Baptism, or that do suffer Death for the profession of the Truth: And he adds, to confirm this Interpretation, that the Iewish Baptizings or Dippings in their purifications were a very sharp piece of Religion, when in frost and snow, and wind and weather, they must over head and ears in cold water, from which the phrase was used to signifie Death and the Bitterest Sufferings. Whence he gathers that Baptism for the dead in this place, is suffering of Mar­tyrdom: and consequently he makes this to be the sense of the Text, What shall they do who have or do undergo Martyr­dom? what shall become of them if their bodies rise not again? Thus he. But who sees not that this is a very ground­less notion, and taken up only from that Iewish way of speaking which he men­tions? whereas, if we consider it well, there is no affinity at all between the one and the other. Though the Iewish Baptisms might be made use of to ex­press [Page 192] Great Severities, yea Death it self, yet what is this to being baptized for the dead? Baptism may represent Martyrdom, but who can reasonably thence infer that the baptized for the dead in this place are those that were Martyred? There is not the least Connection between these two. It must be said then that this Worthy and Reverend person espoused this no­tion merely upon the account of that great reverence which he always paid to the Jewish and Rabinical Writings, of which most of his Opinions have a tincture.

There are some Other odd fancies which I have met with on the words; as that of Lyranus, Lombard and Aquinas, who by the dead understand mortal sins, cal­led by the Apostle dead works, Heb. 9. 1. & 6. 14. for the expiation and wash­ing away of which Holy Baptism was ordained. But their own Stapleton re­futes This, saying the Apostle speaks not of Sins but Men, not of Works, but Per­sons. This and the rest of this sort I pass by, as unwilling to entertain you with Trifles. Some of the Other In­terpretations before mention'd carry with them a greater semblance of Truth or Probability, and have some Antiquity [Page 193] and Authority to recommend them. But This and some of those lately mentioned, are invented on purpose to be assistant to a Bad Cause, which they are willing to support by the Multitude of Argu­ments, seeing they are not able to do it by the Goodness and Solidity of them.

V. I will now at last offer to you the Interpretation which I conceive is most Reasonable and Accountable, and which I doubt not will gain your Suf­frage and Assent upon a deliberate con­sideration of it. Before I present you with This Exposition, I will make way for it by premising These three things.

1. That I intend to adhere to the First rank of Expositors, who (as you may remember) understand the words of Baptism Properly so call'd, i. e. some kind of Real Washing, and particularly of the Sacramental Baptism, whereby we are Initiated into the Church of Christ. For why should we without Necessity and Urgent Reason (and I can see no such thing here) understand the words of a Metaphorical Baptism? It is a Ge­neral Rule delivered byDe D [...] ­ctrinâ Chri­stianâ. l. 3. c. 10. S^t Austin, that we ought not to interpret those things Allegorically which are spoken Properly, [Page 194] and that we must never depart from the Literal and Proper sense of Scripture, unless it be manifestly proved that such a sense is not to be followed. The Usual and Proper signification is first to be attended to, and it is not fit we flie to Borrowed and Figutative senses, so long as the Natural and Genuine one will serve our turns. This then I assert, that the Apostle speaks here of the Usual and Received Baptism of the New Testa­ment. But the main thing in the words is the Praeposition. Therefore

2^ly, I premise this, that the Praeposition [...], which is here translated for, is as much as because of, or by reason of, or for the sake of: and consequently [...], is as much as [...], mor­tuorum caus [...]acirc; sen gratiâ, because of the dead, or for the sake of the dead: for 'tis well known that [...] is in gratiam alicujus. This is the Plain and Ordi­nary import of That Praeposition, and it is Usual and Obvious in Writers of all sorts, so that it is a Wonder it hath been overlook'd here. Socin [...]s, to promote his beloved doctrine, maintains that by no means an Impulsive but a Final Cause is denoted in the New Testament always by This Particle [...], but Groti [...] hath [Page 195] largely shew'd this to be notoriously false, and thereby convinced the Learned how faulty the Grammar, as well as the Di­vinity of that Heretick is. I doubt not therefore that the Paaeposition signifies here an Impulsive Cause, and is taken in the same sense that it is in those places where it is said, the Gentiles should glo­risie God for his mercy, Rom. 15. 9. i. e. because of his mercy shew'd unto them: and where the Apostle saith, I cease not to give thanks for you▪ Eph. 1. 16. i. e. because of you, of whom I have heard so great and laudable things: this ex­cites me to thank God: and where you read of suffering for Christs sake, and for the kingdom of God, Phil. 1. 29. 2 Thess. 1. 5. But most palpable is That of the Apostle, in 2 Cor. 12. 10. where he saith, he takes pleasure in his persecutions and distresses, [...], for Christs sake, as we rightly render it, and so the Praeposition ought to be rendred in the Text. I might observe that this Praepositive particle in the Greek, answers exactly to the Hebrew [...] in many places of thePsal. 44. 22. For thy sake we are killed, &c. (which the Apostle ren­ders by [...], Rom. 8. 36.) Gen. 37. 8. & 43. 18 & 2 Sam. 1. 26. and in many other places, The Paaeposi­tions gnale, magnan, le­magnan are used after the same manner, and are ac­cordingly translated either [...] by the 70. Old Testament, which signifies for the sake, or because of. So then This Version of the words is Plain and Easie, and hath the Greatest Authority to vouch [Page 196] it, What shall they do that are baptized by reason of the dead, or for their sakes▪ (How This is to be applied I will shew you anon.) Having thus laid down what I understand by the Verb [...], and the Praeposition [...] (in which the Main difficulty of the Text lies,) I must also Premise and Observe this to you,

3^ly, That it is not barely [...], without an Article (as the Learned Sca­liger also noteth on the place, and saith it is not without some singular Empha­sis.) The Praepositive Article o is fre­quently of the like force with the He­brew [...], and the English that, which are notes of Emphasis and Specification. It is probable therefore tht not All but Some Certain dead are here meant, for this Article, which is here Demonstrative, denotes something that is Certain and Definitive. It is true, it is sometimes left out, and other times inserted, and yet the sense is neither heightned not impaired, and I deny not that it is so in some places in This Chapter. But since it is oftentimes Significant and Em­phatical, and becomes a Relative and Demonstrative Pronoun, it may be so in This Text that is before us, e­specially the Article being expressed [Page 197] twice, and it being likely (as I will make it appear) that it particularly relates to something mention'd before in this Chap­ter. So that the words are to run thus, What shall they do that are baptized by reason of, or for the sake of those dead, viz. those dead before spoken of? And now that you may understand Who those dead are, and that we may the better apprehend the Whole Arguing of the Apostle in the Text, and at the same time give the Confirmation of the Sense which I am to offer, I will present you with a short view of the Context. This is the best way certainly to enervate and destroy the former Opinions, and to esta­blish a right Judgement of the Text, By setting before you the Scope of the words, and their Coherence with and Relation to the foregoing parts of the Chapter, I despair not of leading you to the True Meaning of the words.

The Scope and Design of S^t Paul in this Chapter is to establish the Doctrine of Our Resurrection, That so Weighty and Important Doctrine, to which he gives the Name of The Gospel, v. 1. This Great Article of the Christian faith (which some of the Corinthians had cal­led into question) is here maintain'd by [Page 198] several Arguments; the first whereof is Christs Resurrection, which he tells us was attested by above five hundred witnesses, some of whom he saith are fallen asleep, v. 6. The same, you know, is expressly said of S^t Stephen by the E­vangelist S^t Luke: and without doubt our Apostle speaks here of S^t Stephen, who was stoned to death, (Acts 7. 60.) and of S^t Iames the first Martyr of all the Apostles, who was beheaded by He­rod Agripppa, Acts, 12. 2. And [...]. l. 7. Clemens tells us that another died at the very same time: he relates how the person that carried S^t Iames to the Place of Judgement, and heard him there so fully give testimony to Christ, was thereby Converted, and presently professed him­self to be a Christian: whereupon both of them were carried together to Execu­tion, and were (as he reports) beheaded. The Apostle may be thought likewise to speak here of the Other Iames, who was also called Iames, the Iust; who was barbarously knock'd on the head by the Jews in Nero's time, as Eusebius re­ports. But whether This Iames was put to death before S^t Paul writ. This Epistle to the Corinthians, I will not con­fidently determine. We might also here [Page 199] reckon Philip the Apostle, who was put to death at the same time that Iames the Iust was, as some relate: whence it is that Our Church celebrates the memo­ry of them both on the same day. But it is unquestionable that Iohn the Bap­tist, who was the First Martyr, fell a­sleep before all These, being beheaded by a former Herod, in the first year of our Saviours Preaching. And there were Many Others who were crowned with Martyrdom, as our Apostle himself testi­fieth, Acts, 26. 10. Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. There were Many that suffered Martyrdom, who are therefore said to be fallen asleep in Christ, v. 18^th of this Chapter. Still he mentions those that are fallen asleep, viz. those holy men that Sacrificed their lives for the Gos­pel: those are the dead whom the Text speaks of. And hence he frames a Se­cond Argument to prove the Absurdity which would follow upon denying the Resurrection, Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. To These very Saints who are thus fallen asleep, who are the same with those men­tioned, in 1 Thess. 4. 14. them which [Page 200] sleep in Iesus, and in v. 16. the dead in Christ, (the blessed Martyrs who died for Christs sake,) to These my Text hath relation. These were [...], those dead for whose sakes, and because of whom so many in the Apostle's days became Converts, and were Baptized. These Martyrs, saith he, who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished if there be no Resurrection: they have utterly Un­done themselves and others by losing their lives for Christ. Thirdly, he pro­ceeds to Argue thus, as those Martyrs were arrant Fools, and Perished like such, if there be no Resurrection, so We that survive are the Wretchedest creatures upon earth if that be true: If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable, v. 19. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and be­come the first-fruits of them that slept, saith the Apostle triumphantly in the next verse. By this confident Assumption he baffles the Gainsayers, and comforts the Christian Church. But within two verses after he breaks off this Argument which he had newly resumed, and after a Digression about the Manner of the fu­ture Resurrection, and the final Con­summation of the world (which reaches [Page 201] from the 23. v. to the words of my Text) he falls into a Fresh Argument thus, Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they also baptized for the dead? The first word (as we have it translated) Else, implies that this verse refers to the immediately foregoing ones, or to some General Conclusion before. But if you examine both, you will not find any Con­nection between This and the immediate­ly preceding verses: and indeed the Syriack leaves out this Alioquin or Else, as if the Sentence were entire without it. I conceive then that the Greek word is not rightly translated here, but that it ought to be rendred [Moreover,] [...] signifying sometimes so in the Septuagints Version, as in [...]. Psalm. 78. 20. and in Prophane, Authors, as in [...]. lib. 2. Herodotus, and [...]. in Public­colâ. Plutarch, especially in this latter, out of whom many places might be produ­ced, wherein [...] is as much as [...] de­inde, praeterea; and That is the import of the word in the Text. So then the Apostle returns here to his discourse a­bout the Resurrection, and tenders an­other Argument, a New Reason to con­firm it. Moreover (saith he,) to evince further the doctrine of the Resurrection [Page 202] which I have been discoursing of; what shall they do that are baptized for the sake of the dead Saints and Martyrs whom I spoke of before, who I told you were fallen asleep, if the dead rise not at all, if they awake not at the last day? why are they also, or (as Grotius noteth, [...] in this place is as much as [...], exgo,) why are they therefore baptized upon the account. or for the sake of those dead? why do New Converts come in every day, re­questing to be admitted into the Church by Holy Baptism? Is it not, think you, for the sake of those excellent persons who fell asleep in Christ? Is it not by reason of them that they take up the pro­fession of Christianity? Yes surely; they have seen the Lives and Miracles of those Good men, they have observed their Carriage and Constancy at their deaths, and by this they are stirr'd up effectually to own the same Cause, to love the same Religion, and to admit themselves into it by the Sacrament of Baptism. Those dead Saints and Martyrs (whose Memories and Acts are still living) setch in these Great Numbers of Converts. The Bloud of dying Saints is the seed of the Church, which the more plentifully it is sown and shed, yiel­deth [Page 203] the Larger Increase of Converts. Hence, hence it is that Proselytes come in apace to Christianity, that Converts flock to the Holy waters of Baptism, for they well observing the Admirable Be­haviour of those persecuted Christians at their Death, are soon perswaded into the belief of another Life. From their Examples they are excited to a Love of the Christian Religion, which they see makes men live and die couragiously, and hereupon they are zealous to be made members of the Christian Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. This is to be bap­tized for or because of the dead. Or, after this manner, and in these words you may imagine the Apostle to argue in my Text: You see, O Corinthians, that the Sufferings which the Christians undergo, are so far from discouraging others from turning Christians, that vast numbers of Unbe­lievers are animated thereby to own the Christian Profession, and to live and die in the acknowledgement of it. See what power and efficacy the Example of those Saints hath, and how it works on the hearts of the most Resolved, and makes them presently renounce and forsake their follies. Tell me, what makes the Ido­latrous Gentile quit his former prophane [Page 204] life? or what makes the Willful Iew re­nounce his Circumcision, and leave his Mosaical Washings for the Laver of Chri­stian Baptism? Is it not to be imputed to This cause chiefly, viz. that they be­hold and are ravished with the singular behaviour of the Suffering Saints, who contentedly quit all for Christ their Ma­ster? They cannot but reverence and im­brace That Religion which inspires those men with such Valour, and gives them so Invincible a Courage: and immediately hereupon they hasten to be Initiated in­to the Society of such brave Christians. Now, tell me, O ye men of Corinth, you especially that question the Article of the Resurrection, is it nothing that so many every day voluntarily admit them­selves into the Church by Holy Bap­tism, and that upon the account of the Deceased Confessors and Martyrs, who they see sacrifice all that is dear to them to purchase another world? Why should you think there is no Other Life, when you see men lay down their Lives for their Religion, and others presently ta­king up that Religion for which they lost their lives? And for what reason do so Great Sholes of Converts come into the Baptismal Waters? What shall they [Page 205] do that are thus baptized? to what end and design do they this, and continue to do so? To what purpose, on what account is it? You cannot but see that it is for the sake of the Saints whose exemplary Lives and Deaths they have beheld, and thereby were throughly convinced of the Truth of Christianity, which promises a better life after this at the Resurrection of the dead. Why are so many, I say, stirred up to embrace Christianity, and to enter into Holy Baptism? Is it not by reason of the Deceased Saints and Mar­tyres? Is it not because of the Love and Respect they bear Them, and the Good­ness of the Cause which they so bravely maintain? Is it not hence that they run to their Spiritual Guides and Instructers, and beg to be Baptized: and if these demand the Reason of it, is not This their Re­ply, we come to be Baptized for the dead, i. e. we are moved to come to the Holy Baptism by reason of those De­parted Saints, whose Godly behaviour we so much admired, whose Patience and Courage to the last we were even a­stonished at: because of These Worthy Persons we are excited to enter into the Baptismal Vow, and to admit ourselves into their Religion, which is the best in [Page 206] the world. What Interpretation can be Plainer and Clearer then this? And yet I know not any Writer excepting One, orCloppen­burg. Syn­tagm. Se­lect. Dis­put. 14. Spanhe­mius in locum. Two at the most, who seem so much as to approach towards This Exposition, or to give the least him of this Notion which I have presented to you. Yet certainly, if you weigh This well, you will find it worthy of all acceptation: for in all the forenamed Interpretations there is either something Defective or Redundant: there is some fault in Gram­mar and Criti [...]ism, or a Mistake in Histo­ry and Chronology, or an apparent In­consequence in the way of Argument. In summ, there were Bold Suppositions, but Slender Proofs. Whereas you may ob­serve that in This Interpretation which I have tendred to you, the Propriety of the words is preserved entire: the Cri­ticism is not strained: the Genuine and Proper signification of the words is up­held: the whole Design of the Context and of the Apostle's Arguing is disco­ver'd: and the History of the Antient Church, and the Relation of the best Antiquity concurr to make This Expo­sition Solid and Authentick. Here is nothing begg'd, but all is free and un­constrain'd. This is the clearest and most [Page 207] reasonable Sense in it self, and likewise the most accommodate to the Present Pur­pose of the Apostle in this Chapter, to the Stile and Phraseology of the Scrip­ture, and to the whole Analogy of Chri­stian Faith.

And now in the close of all, to Ap­ply this Interpretation to Ourselves. We have the same reason now to maintain the Christian Religion that those first good Converts had to embrace it. The Consideration which made them enter into Religion, should make us hold it fast. For we as well as they prosess that Religion which was attested by the Death, and sealed with the Bloud of Martyrs. Martyrdom made Christians then; let it confirm us in Christianity now. Espe­cially let us be encouraged to love and maintain our Religion, which we can hold with Ease and all the Conveniencies of this life. We are not forced to quit our Lives that we may secure our Religion and our Consciences. Blessed be God, we can enjoy these here, and carry them with us into another World afterwards. But if ever the Divine Providence shall call us to lay down our Lives, and spend our Bloud in the service of our Lord and Saviour, let us not count our Lives dear unto us, so that [Page 208] we may finish our course with joy, and testifie the Gospel of the grace of God, as ourActs 20. 24. Apostle speaketh. Let us, like the Primitive Saints,Acts 5. 41. rejoyce that we are counted worthy to suffer shame, and even Death for the Name of Christ. Let us chearfully sacrifice our Lives for the sake of him who Died for us, let us drown our Affections to the world in our own Bloud, thereby propagating our Holy Re­ligion, and therein following the Pattern of the Blessed Apostles and Primitive Saints, who manfully and undauntedly died for the faith: on whose account, and by virtue of whose Example it was that Thousands of Converted persons flock'd to the Waters of Baptism, and were ambitious to Assert that Cause for which they saw those Excellent Christians lay down their Lives. The Death of an Eminent Saint made a great number of Disciples in those days: the Bloud of a Holy Martyr baptized whole Cities. This I conceive was to be baptized for the dead. This I offer as the most Plain and Easie, the most Natural and Ge­nuine Meaning of the Text.

THIS is another Difficult Text of Scripture, and in order to the Clearing of it, I will give you a brief account of the Chapter. It begins with the Peculiar and Proper Duties of Man and Wife, which take up the first 7 ver­ses: but the rest of the Chapter treats of the Common Vertues and Graces which are required in all Christians, as Meekness, Patience, Mercifulness, and all the obliging and indearing offices of Love. The Apostle chiefly exhorts to Patience, that is, to suffer with submission and chearfulness what ever should be inflicted on them. And here he shews particu­larly how they ought to behave them­selves [Page 210] towards their Persecutors. They must not be Revengeful, and render e­vil for evil, v. 9. and he subjoins the Reasons of it in the following verses. Again, They must not be afraid, neither be troubled, v. 14. They must take courage maugre all their distresses, and strive to banish all Fear and Cowardice, all Disorder and Perplexity of mind. More­over, they are obliged to sanctifie the Lord God in their hearts, and to be rea­dy to give an answer to every one that asketh them a reason of the hope which is in them, and that with meekness and fear, v. 15. The meaning is that they were not to disguise their perswasion; but to make open profession of their Religion even before their Persecutors. Further, the Apostle tells them that they must not only profess Christianity but lead Holy Lives, that thereby they may shame their Adversaries who falsly accuse them as evil doers, v. 16. Lastly therefore he bids them be sure that they look to their Lives and Conversations, that they suffer for well-doing, not for evil-doing, v. 17. And that they may not be un­willing to suffer thus, here is set before them the Example of Christ who suffe­red for them, For Christ also hath once [Page 211] suffer'd for sins, the just for the unjust, v. 18. This highly commends the Suffe­rings of the Blessed Iesus that he was himself an Innocent person, and that he suffer'd for those that were Guilty: where­as no Christians that suffer can alto­gether plead Innocency, they all in some measure deserve what they suffer. And now the Apostle takes occasion to ex­patiate on Christs suffering, and the Hap­py effects of it, to the end of this Chap­ter, and in part of the next. He shews the Design of our Saviours Passion, viz. that he might bring us to God, v. 18. that he might make us Holy and Righte­ous and indue us with the Divine and Godlike nature, and that he might at last lead us to Heaven and Eternal Glo­ry. And this He was effectually ena­bled to do, because, though he suffer'd death, yet he soon rose from the dead, as you read in that 18. v. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickned by the Spirit. To pass by the Notion of those men who think they find some ground here for their Aethereal or Spiritual Ve­hicles, understanding the words thus, Put to death in his Terrestrial body, but quick­ned or enliven'd with a Spiritual one, for Christs soul and the souls of all the [Page 212] Saints after death (say they) are clo­thed with Subtile and Aetherial bodies. To let this pass, the Plain Meaning of the place is this (and it is confirmed by several of theAthana­sius, Au­gustin, Oe­cumenius. Fathers) that this Ie­sus though he suffer'd and was put to death for us in the flesh, as a Man, as he had a Humane Body, yet he was quickned by the Spirit, that is, he rose from the dead by the vertue and power of the Holy Spirit, who was ever with him. Or thus, he was put to death in the flesh, i. e. crucified in his Humane Nature, but he was quickned in the spirit, i. e. he was raised from the Dead by his Divine Na­ture. A Parallel place is that in 2 Cor. 13. 4. Though he was crucified through weakness, (his body being but Weak and Frail and subject to death, as all Humane bodies are) yet he liveth by the power of God, he reassumed his soul, and lived again, and still liveth by vertue of his Divine Power. He died as Man, but restored himself to life as he was God. It was by Christs Divine Spirit that his separated soul and body were reunited: which you find thus asserted by S^t Paul, Rom. [...]. 4. He was declared to be the son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from [Page 213] the dead. The humane spirit of Christ was joyned again to his body by his E­ternal Spirit. By Christs Divinity his Humanity was raised up, and restored. And now our Apostle inlarges here fur­ther upon this Quickning Power of Christs Spirit or Divinity, in these words, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: which sometime were disobedient &c. The Greek which is here translated [By which,] is rendred by others [wherefore:] [...] is as much as [...], ideò, saith Oecumenius, and so tis thought that these words bring in the Reason of what was said before. But there are few that follow this Interpre­tation. Our own Translation is more Plain, and more Probable, for those that are acquainted with the stile of the New Testament know that [By] is the fre­quent signification of the Praeposition [ [...]:] and it is most obvious and ratio­nal to refer the Article [ [...]] to the word which immediately preceded it, and that is the Spirit, nor have we any reason to think that it relates to any thing else. By this Spirit Christ did great and won­derful things after he was risen from the dead: by this he went and preached. But to whom? To the spirits in prison: and [Page 214] moreover it is added, that these spirits were sometimes disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, &c. This is differently under­stood by Expositors, for 1. some apply it to those who were Alive before and at the time of the Floud. 2. Others understand it of the Souls of the dead. And what dead these are you shall hear when I come to inlarge on this head. 3. Others apply it to the Preaching of the Gospel in the Apostles times.

I. It is applied to those who were alive before or at the Floud. And here there are These two Opinions; first, Arias Montanus is singular and by himself, who holds that the spirits in prison were those that were shut up, and as it were Imprisoned in Noahs Ark. Those eight souls, as they are called in the 20^th verse, are these Prisoners: they were kept by God in the Ark, as in Safe Custody. But this Notion was started merely be­cause there is mention here of Noahs Ark; and the eight souls saved by it. This without doubt gave the rise to this wild fancy. And besides, there are several things which may hinder us from enter­taining it, for 1. it is said, they were sometime disobedient, which we cannot [Page 215] apply to any of these eight. It is true we read that afterwards Cham proved a Wicked person, and was justly Cursed for being so, but this hath no reference to what was before. 2. The Preaching to the spirits in prison here spoken of was whilst the Ark was preparing, but they were not Imprison'd in the Ark till it was made and finished: therefore this passage cannot be understood of the per­sons shut up in the Ark. 3. It appears from the Context, that this Preaching of Christ was after his Resurrection, and consequently can't be meant of any Preaching to those in the Ark. Se­condly, Others understand it of those sinners of the Old World who lived all the while the Ark was building, which was a hundred and twenty years. The long-suffering of God waited thus long on these Antediluvian sinners, who are called the world of the ungodly, 2 Pet. 2. 5. These are the spirits in prison, say the Learned Grotius and D^r Hammond. AndEpist. 99. ad Eucd. S^t Au­gustin long before had this notion, and the Venerable Bede and Aquinas, and others, borrowed it from him. It is true Christ may be said to preach to these by the Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit strove with these sinners whilst Noah [Page 216] preached to them. This is plainly in­timated in Gen. 6. 3. My Spirit shall not allways strive with man. The Spi­rit then did strive with the men of that Age, though at last the Allmighty de­clareth that he will put a period to his Spirits solliciting and striving with them. But the forenamed Expositors understand these words not of the Spirit of God, but of the spirit of man put into him by God. And accordingly they think that this phrase of the spirits in prison alludes to those very words. Because S^t Peter was about using a Similitude bo [...] ­rowed from Noahs time, he makes use, saith Grotius, of the very words of that History. But then you must note that he reads not the words as we do, i. e. my Spirit shall not strive with man, but according to the [...]. Septuagint andNon per­manebit. Vul­gar Latin, My Spirit shall not abide, or rest with man, or those men. And be­cause the Hebrew word [Iadon] comes fromNadan, vagina. another that signifies a Sheath or Scabbard, therefore he renders that place thus, according to Xantes Pagninus, (who herein follows R. Kimchi)Non erit ut in vagi­na spiritus mens cum homine. My spirit shall not be detain'd in man as in a Scab­bard. And then the meaning of the words is, that the spirit of soul which [Page 217] I gave and put into man shall not be useless, and produce no effect, as a Sword in a Scabbard, which doth nothing of that it was made for. A Scabbard is as it were a Prison to the Sword, and the Body is as 'twere a Sheath or Prison to the Soul. So the Souls of the An­tedil [...]vian sinners were immersed in their Bodies, Imprisoned, and Useless to any good purposes. Or thus, my Spirit shall not abide as a sword in a sheath, it shall no longer be sheathed in man, it shall not be Imprisoned and con [...]ined in him, i. e. I will destroy him, he shall not live any longer; for so it follows, v. 7, 13. This is Grotius's Notion, and he is of opinion that [the spirits in prison] re­fer to this. And among the Fathers, S^t Ierom favours this Interpretation. This Criticism is further confirmed (some think) by observing that the Chaldee word [...] which signifies a sheath, sig­nifies also a body, as is evident from Dan. 7. 15. And hence perhaps that Rabi­nical saying,Omnia corpora va­ginae sunt: beatum illud quod mere­tur ut sit va­gina Legis. Talm. Sa­nedr. All bodies are Sheaths: blessed is that which deserves to be the Sheath of the Law. From all these things put together some infer that the Apostle here alludes to this Notion, and that the spirits in prison are Souls sheathed, shut up, [Page 218] imprisoned in their bodies. Christ came and preached to these souls. viz. the sinners that lived in Noahs days, and he preached unto them by the Preaching of Noah.

But this Interpretation is by no means to be admitted, for 1. This quaint no­tion of the Sheath and the Body is a plain force upon that Text in Gen. 6. 3. which is truly and uncorruptly ren­dred according to the Hebrew, [My Spirit shall not strive▪] that is, I will no longer concern my self with these men, I will give them up to their own lusts and lewd desires; my Spirit shall not strive, as formerly, with them, they shall not be convinced by Noahs Preach­ing, nor wrought upon by the foresight of those Judgments which they cannot but see hang over their heads: and when I have thus given them up to their own vile imaginations▪ I will cut them off in their sins, and bereave them of all hopes of mercy for the future. This is the True import of those words, and conse­quently all that the foresaid Criticks sug­gest is nothing to the Text, but is a mere Distorting and Perverting of it. 2. Suppose this place of Scripture might be rendred as they have done it, yet who sees not that it is far from their purpose? [Page 219] What likeness is there between a sheath and a Prison? It must be strong fancy that perswades a man to think that the lat­ter is put here for the former, and con­sequently that the words I am now treat­ing of have reference to those in Gene­sis. Or, 3^ly, suppose it were so, yet all we learn from this strange expression is, that the sinners before the Floud had souls in their bodies, for that is the Eng­lish, it seems, of the spirits in prison, it is no more then souls in bodies. 4. This phrase might be made use of with more reason to prove the Platonick Praeexistence, and the Detrusion of souls into bodies, which they so much talk of. I wonder the Platonists never took no­tice of this Text. Their Hypothesis cannot be expressed more fully then tis here. If I were one that favour'd the Doctrine of Praeexistence, I should prize this place exceedingly: there is none like it. For the spirits in prison are the souls which are thrust into these Bodies as into Prisons. For the Body of man (as they are wont to speak) is but Ey­gastulum anim [...], the Prison or Dungeon of the Soul: here it is inclosed or im­prison'd as a Sword in a Sheath. And these Spirits which are thus immersed [Page 220] into Humane Bodies were sometime dis­obedient, i. e. they sinn'd in the state of Praeexistence, and therefore are sent into these bodies, and there Imprisoned. Thus this place may be alledg'd in fa­vour of that Hypothesis; but any man who duly weighs the scope of the words may see that they intend no such thing as this. The Defenders of that opinion might as well make use of that place, Psal. 142. 7. Bring my soul out of pri­son, and thence prove that humane souls are thrust into the prisons of these bo­dies, and that These are the spirits in prison meant by our Apostle. But 5^ly, that which unanswerably consounds This O­pinion (viz. that the words are to be understood of the Sinners before the Floud, and of Christs preaching to them by his Spirit) is this, that the Text speaks not of something done by Christ before his Resurrection, as his Descent into hell, when he was dead: but it speaks of something which Christ did after his Suffering and Resurrection, when he was indued with an extraordinary pow­er; therefore it cannot be thus meant. This is plain from the Context and the Words themselves, and therefore no­thing can more powerfully overthrow [Page 221] this Assertion then This doth: this ruines that Opinion without remedy. Besides, it is said here of those spirits, that they were sometime disobedient, as much as to say, they were not so then when Christ preached to them. But because this is not a Necessary Conse­quence, I will not urge it: for they might be disobedient before and then too, as I willingly grant, and shall have oc­casion to say more of it afterwards.

Therefore Others (seeing the Levity of this Opinion) though they hold that by the spirits in prison are meant the sinners that lived before the General De­luge in Noahs days, yet they understand their being in prison in another sense: as thus, Christ by his Spirit in Noah, who is call'd a2 Pet. 2. 5. Preacher of righteous­ness, did once preach to that genera­tion of men who lived before the Floud, whose spirits are now in prison, i. e. in Hell for their former disobedience. These spirits were imprisoned in Hell at the time when S^t Peter wrote this Epistle, but they were not in that Prison when Christ preached to them by the Spirit. The short is, Christ preached to these men in the days of Noah, who were in this infernal Prison in the days of the [Page 222] Apostles, and have been ever since. S^t Peter speaks of the spirits now in pri­son, or then in prison when he wrote, not of the spirits in prison when Christ preached to them. This Interpretation is approved of by many, but it is very Harsh and much Forced. For if you un­derstand the words fairly and without straining them, they must necessarily sig­nifie something which Christ did [...] to the spirits in prison. Now to say, they were not in prison when he did it to them in prison, is Absurd and Ridiculous: at least, it is Wresting the words, and not taking them in their Genuine sense which they appear to us in. And why we should abandon the Genuine and Plain sense for a Forced and [...]ar-Fetched one I can see no reason at all: therefore this sense must not have our Approbation, though it be so generally received.

II. Others apply it to the Souls of the Dead. And here there is a great Difference both among those of the Po­pish and Protestant perswasion. 1. Some will have these spirits in prison to be the Souls of those Deceased sinners who lived before the Floud, and perished in it, and were sent to Purgatory. 2. The Souls of all the Saints and Righteous men who [Page 223] had been from the beginning of the world till Christ, are [...]eem'd by others to be these spirits in prison: and this Prison is [...]. 3. Some interpret it of the Damned Souls in Hell. Nay 4^ly ▪ the spirits in prison are the souls of the Blessed in Heaven, saith another.

First, [...] and some other Roman Catholicks understand this Text of Pur­gatory. This is the Prison wherein the souls of the Antediluvian sinners were kept, for these persons were Un [...]lievers and I [...]penitent all the time before the Floud came, but then they believed and re­pented. S^t Ierom▪ Austin and Hilary lean this way, interpreting the words to This purpose, that Christ went to deliver those poor [...]ouls who, when Noah preach­ed to them, and God patiently expected their repentance a hundred years, remain'd Incredulous and Disobedient, but after­wards, when they saw the Floud coming upon them, became very Penitent, and hated their former evil ways. To these Christ, being Dead, went and preached. So then in short, the Prison of Purga­tory is meant here by the Apostle, and Christ went perso [...]lly down thither, and preached to the people of that place. But I answer 1. They must evidently [Page 224] prove that there is such a Place and State as Purgatory, otherwise we have no ground to believe that This Text is meant of it. For this being but an Ob­scure place of Scripture (as all grant) we cannot lay any stress on it. And though some of the Fathers seem to un­derstand it of Purgatory, yet it is to be remembred that the Mystery of Iniquity began to work long before their time, and it is no wonder that This and other Cor­rupt Opinions crept into the Church, and that even some of the most Learned and Pious men were misled by them, for they were but Men, and so were liable to Mistake and Error. 2. The Patrons of this Opinion hold that Christ went personally to Purgatory, but no such thing is mention'd here; yea, another sort of Going is expresly named, for it is said, [by which, i. e. by the Spirit he went,] which seems to exclude a Lo­cal and Personal Going. 3. How in­consistent is this opinion with their do­ctrine of Purgatory? for they hold that those impure souls are sent to be purged in the other world, who had some Pu­nishment yet remaining to undergo, and who were not sufficiently Purged in this world. But this was not the case of the [Page 225] sinners who perished in the Floud. Ne­ver was there such a Punishment and Judgment, and never shall the like be again. And therefore according to the notion of these men, those persons were sufficiently Punished, and there was no­thing left to undergo. And then, as to their Moral Purgation, if those persons repented at all, it is reasonable to think that their Repentance in those unparal­lell'd circumstances was exceeding Great, and that it proved on all accounts Ef­fectual and Complete. Those Wa­ters were able to cleanse them sufficiently, so that they needed not to be sent to these Purging Flames. 4. This is a­gainst the received opinion of the Tor­ments of Purgatory, for they are said to end in a much shorter time. The Offenders of the Old World had lain shut up in this Prison almost three thou­sand years, according to these mens Inter­pretation of the Text; and yet it is the general doctrine of those that assert the Pains of P [...]rgatory, that they are much sooner over▪ and that it was not in­tended that these Torments should be of very long continuance. 5. Why did Christ go and take the Antediluvian Wretches out of the Prison of Purga­tory, [Page 226] and none else? For these are only mention'd here, and we read of no others any where else. Why did not [...] Sa­viour clear that place, and set open the Prison-doors to all, and make a Gene­ral Jail-Delivery? Or, will these men say that none went to Purgatory but those poor creatures who lived in [...] time? This they will hardly assert. These and several other reasons may induce us to believe that by the spirits in pri­son, are not meant the souls in Purga­tory.

Secondly, some imagine that Limb [...] Patrum is meant there by S^t Peter. Christ went to this place, say they, and fetche [...] thence all the Souls of the Saints who died before his Coming. Some of the Fathers, as Athanasius, Ambrose, Cyr [...]l of Alexandria, and others, interpret the Apostle's words thus: and it is their known Assertion that all the souls of the righteous, as soon as they were sepa­rated from their bodies, were imp [...]isone [...] in some Low Place under ground, and there were detain'd till our Saviour came and inlarged them. These are the spi­rits in [...]ison. [...] these words, telling us that the spirits in prison wh [...] Christ [...] [Page 227] were Separate Souls sent to that foresaid Apartment and Receptacle. And where­as it is said, Christ was quickned in the spirit, he saith this is meant of Christs Separate Soul: this being quickned went strait way to Limbo, to visit the sepa­rate souls there. But 1. Bellarmin talks very wi [...]dly on this point, for the Soul being Immortal, can't be said to be quick­ned or made alive, and therefore it was unwarily and groundlesly said by him that Christs soul was quickned. But 2^ly, I answer to what he and others alledg con­cerning Limbus Patrum, that there ne­ver was such a place for the separate souls to go to. This, according to those of the Church of Rome, is that place where the souls of the Patriarchs and Faithfull under the Old Testament were lodged. But this is a mere Fiction, for the spirits of the deceased Saints go pre­sently to Heaven, and are not detain'd in any Prison, much less so Long a time, before they reach that place of Bliss. Therefore we ought not to credit the Romanists, when they tell us with great confidence, that Christ went and preach­ed to Abraham and the rest of the Pa­triarchs when he left this world, and that he acquainted them that the work [Page 228] of Redemption was finished, and that he took them up with him to Heaven. Let them first prove that there was such a Prison (for they confess it is now de­molished, and hath been ever since Christ,) and then we shall attend to what they say, and not before. 3. This Exposi­tion is faulty, because it is too Wide for the Text, which refers only to those of Noahs days. Now supposing Christ preach'd to them in prison, how is it gather'd from the Text that Christ went and redeem'd All from that place? And on the other side, if they assert that Christ redeem'd only those who were be­fore the Floud, it would be proper to ask how they came to have this Privi­ledge above the rest, but it will be hard to give a Reason of it. So that one way or other it is Improbable.

Thirdly, there are Others who by the Spirits in prison understand the Damned spirits or souls in Hell. Here I will not deny that the word Prison hath respect unto the Place of the Damned (as I shall shew you afterwards:) but that Christ went into Hell, and Preached there to the inhabitants of that place, I am not convinc'd how it can be made good from This Text▪ Though I grant [Page 229] that some of the Antient Fathers make use of this place of Scripture to prove that Christ descended locally and per­sonally into those infernal regions. Par­ticularly S^t Augustin indeavours to prove it from these very words, and concludes at last,Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum? Epist. 99. who but an Infidel will deny that Christ was in Hell? As for seve­ral Other Writers of the Church, they are divided in their Comments on this Text; some think it refers to Limbus Patrum, others to Purgatory, and a third sort conceive it speaks of Hell, that place where the souls of the Wicked and Re­probate are tormented. This is the Pri­son the Apostle here means, say they. But how did Christ preach to the spi­rits there? This Preaching is interpreted after a different manner: for some say our Saviour went to Punish and Affright the devils, to Triumph over the dam­ned, and to shew himself a Conqueror over Satan and all the Infernal Powers. But these men grosly abuse S^t Peter's words when they expound them thus, i. e. when they interpret Christs Preach­ing to the spirits in prison, of his T [...]i­umphing over the damned in hell, the word [preaching] being never in the Sa­cred Writings understood in such a man­ner, [Page 230] but all that are acquainted with the Holy Stile must needs acknowledge that 'tis taken in a far other meaning: there­fore this must be look'd upon as a down­right perverting of the Apostle's words, only to serve their own ends. Others are not content to say that Christ went to Triumph over the damned, but they talk of something Higher, viz. the Re­lieving yea the Delivering of the dam­ned out of hell. This, say they, is the Preaching here spoken of. This is a Bold Flight, and but few of theClemens Alexand. strom. 6. Origen. c [...]nt. Cels. l. 2. With whom may be reckon'd Cyril of A­lexandria, and O [...]cu­menius, who seem to favour this opinion. Fa­thers have ventured to soar so High. But who would expect any such thing as this from the Learned Author of the Mystery of Godliness? Yet there you will find him giving This Interpretation of the words, viz. that the spirits in prison, i. e. ‘the Disobedient souls in Hell, were redeemed by Christs Preaching: they were a glorious spoil taken out of the hands of the devil. But it doth not follow (saith he) there is any Re­demption out of Hell now, much less any Purgatory. For there were two Notable Occasions for This, such as will never happen again. For it respects the souls of them that were suddenly swept away in the Deluge, and the [Page 231] Solemnity of our Saviours Crucifixion and As [...]nsion. He undermined the Prince of death in the midst of death, and at his Ascension victoriously carried away those first-fruits of his suffering into heaven. At the solemn Corona­ [...]ion of a Great Prince the Prison-doors are flung open.’ This is the interpre­tation of D^r Henry More. But I am sorry this Worthy person hath given those men an occasion to think well of their doctrine of Purgatory, and even Redemption from the pains of the Bot­tomless Pit, those men (I say) whom he doth not use to gratifie at other times, by his too lavish concessions. He hath open'd the door here, and All, as well as those Antediluvian sinners, may go forth. If Hell be not a fixed place or state, if it be not a Close-Prison, then there is hope that Every man at length may be set free from it, and walk at large. And this is that whichDe h [...]res. ad Qu [...]d vult deum. S^t Au­gustin tells us some indeavour'd to prove from This Text, viz. that All shall at last be freed from Hell-Torments. But the Doctor declares he intends no such thing, but is perswaded only that the words speak of a Singular and never to be Parallell'd Instance. But in answer [Page 232] to what he and others before have asser­ted, I will briefly make It good that the words speak not at all of Christs going down to Hell, or of his Preaching there. For 1. These words refe [...]ring to the souls of those who lived in Noahs time, what was the reason that our Sa­viour went into Hell to preach to These rather then the rest? how came these despisers of Noahs preaching to have this Priviledge above all other persons, that Christ should descend to the Infernal Pit to relieve them particularly? Why did not the Sodomit [...]s and others share in the like kindness 2^ly, It is here intimated that the words are not meant of Christ's Local Descent into hell, for 'tis said he went by the spirit; which signifies ano­ther thing, and what that is I have told you. But I have mention'd this before. 3. It can't be spoken of Christs going to Hell, because the words are of some­thing that he did after his Resurrection, as hath been before suggested. The or­der of the Apostle's words is this, first Christ was put to death, then he was quickned or rose again, and after that he went and preached: therefore it is im­possible that this Preaching should be meant of any sort of Preaching to those [Page 233] in Hell, unless you will make Christs Descent into hell follow his Resurrection from the dead, which was never dreamt of yet. Let this therefore be remembred, that the Text speaks of something which our Saviour did after he was risen from the dead, and then it must be acknow­ledged that this is a plain con [...]utation of the Adversaries Opinion. 4. This [...] spoils their Interpretation, for when 'tis said they were sometime disobedient, it is implied (I do not say absolutely inferred) that they are not so now.

Fourthly, (and which shews the vast Dif­ference between the Judgements of men on this place) whereas some Protestants and most Papists think Hell is meant here, Calvin believes the contrary, and vouches Heaven to be understood by this word [...], which is not a Prison according to him, but a watch-tower; and so in­deed the word signifies sometimes. The spirits or [...]ouls of the faithful were [...] in specu [...]a, on their watch-tower, viz. in Heaven, Thither Christ a­scended, and there he found the Saint [...] of the Old World very Incent on the Salvation promised by Christ, they con­fidently hoped for it and his Coming, and as it were Look'd for these as from [Page 234] some Watch tower. But I confess I do not see what reason that Learned Wri­ter had to alter the ordinary Translation of the word [...] and to render it here a Watch-tower. He might have re­tain'd the Other Translation, and yet have kept his Interpretation entire. For what better word could there be to ex­press Heaven then [...] as it signifies a [...], a Hold, a place of Safety, like [...], which some ren­der Abraham's Port or Haven. Christ being raisd from the grave went and preached to the spirits in safe custody, [...] in Heaven: there he declar'd to them what Great things he had done, and how he had finished the work of mans Redemption. As the words before spoke of Christs Death and Resurrection, so these of his Ascension and Exalta­tion. This is the sense of that Learn­ed Man, and if he had not alter'd the usual version of the word [...], it would have done as well. But against his interpretation, I alledg first his Wave­ring in the solution of this Text, for in his Institutions [...] and upon the Place, he expounds it of the souls of the Faithful, but in his Psychopannychia he tells us, that Christ went and preach'd [Page 235] not only Remission of sins to the spirits of the Godly, but also Confusion to the spirits of the ungodly: thus he takes in both Heaven and Hell. Secondly, to what purpose did Christ go and preach to the Saints in heaven, when they could not but know the certainty of their Sal­vation by Their being in that place? It was needless to preach to them what they knew already. Therefore I can't see how this word can be applied to Hea­ven. But the main thing which hinders my Assent to his Interpretation is This, that the words have relation to Noahs days, and the particular people of that time. Now 1. It is probable that the greatest numbers of them perished ever­lastingly, as theLuke 17. 26. 2 Pet. 2. 5. Scripture, when it speaks of the sinners of the Old World, doth more then intimate▪ These were so far from being placed in a High Watch-tower, a place whence they might look for, and es­pie a Saviour, that they were plunged into the Lowest Abyss of misery and despair. 2. Supposing that people were Saved, and in Heaven, yet wherefore did Christ, when he ascended thither, preach to These rather then others? And why were These separate souls above all the rest continually upon their Watch, in [Page 236] hopes of the promised salvation? I do not apprehend any ground for this, and consequently I cannot admit of this Ex­position. These are the several Judg­ments of those Expositors who under­stand the words concerning the souls of the deceased. Now I proceed to the Last Cla [...]is of Interpreters.

III. Others apply the words to the Preaching of the Gospel to unbelievers in the Apostles times, understanding by the spirits in prison, the Heathens, and by Christs Preaching to them, his Sending his Disciples and Apostles to preach to them.Institut. l. 4. c. 30. Episcopius andTheolog. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 13. Limborch are the men who offer this Interpretation, and I take it to be the Fairest of all those which have been named. But yet as it is delivered by those persons I can­not wholly subscribe to it: therefore I shall only proceed on the main and ge­neral ground which they have laid, and I shall make bold to add several things which I find wholly wanting in those A [...]thors Comments, and thereby give you a perfect resolution of the Text. First then, the Spirits are the same with Souls, and Souls are as much as Men or Persons with bodies and souls: so in the next verse eight [...]souls are said to be sa­ved, [Page 237] i. e. eight persons who were in the Ark. This is an usual Synecdoche: as Bo­dy is put for the whole man often▪ so Soul or Spirit signifies the same. [Spi­rit] is not always (though most com­monly) applied to the Souls of the De­ceased, as some would perswade us. Li­ving men are call'd Spirits, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 1 Iohn 4. 1, 3. Seducing spirits are se­ducers, or persons that seduce. Or, if you will not grant this interpretation in these places, yet you must needs grant that persons may be meant by spirits as well as by souls, which latter you can­not deny, if you consult Rom. 13. 1. and several other places, where by soul is meant a person, i. e. a man consisting of body and soul, or (which is the same thing) spirit. Or, if [Spirits] be meant of the Souls of Dead men properly, then also there is reason to apply it here, because they are Dead in sin, and they are as it were destined to Eternal Death. Those who are Spiritually dead are rightly call'd Spirits. These spirits, i. e. these Men are no other then the Gentile I­dolaters (say the above named Exposi­tors,) who lived in the days of Christ and the Apostles. And because it is said, they were sometime disobedient, Episco­pius [Page 238] gives this account of it▪ He rec­kons all the Gentiles from Noahs time, as one and the same people, (which is a thing not unusual with the Holy Wri­t [...]s:) and so when Christ preach'd to the Gentiles of his time, and the A­postles times, he may be said to preach to the Gentiles of Noahs time, who were a part of the whole body of the Gen­tiles. So that if you ask of him, How could these people that lived in the A­postles times be said to be disobedient in the days of Noah, his answer is, that the whole race of wicked men is con­sfidered here as one Body, and conse­quently what the first and chief of them did, those that came after them may be said to have done. These wicked Gen­tiles that lived in the Apostles times are justly said to have been disobedient in the days of Noah, because they were a part of the whole, and included in the main Body of sinners. But I question whether this will be look'd upon by the Inquisitive as a Satisfactory Resolution. For my part, I cannot prevail with my self to think it such, and therefore I shall anon offer another Interpretation. Moreover, I most add this, why may we not understand these words [who were [Page 239] sometime disobedient] not only of the [...] but of the Iews also? The Text (as I conceive) speaks both of the C [...]version of Iews and Gentiles▪ the Gospel being preached, and Salvation off [...]red to both these. I see therefore no reason why the Exposition should be con­fined to one only, viz. to the P [...]gan Infidels, and such as were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel. Christ preach­ed to both Iews and Heathens, who were heretofore, or sometime disobedient. The former of these, both under the Old and New Testament, are noted to be such, they are complain'd of as a [...] people. That forefathers even of those who we in the Apostles days were disobedient, and therefore those may be said to be sometime disobedient, because they are included in their fore­fathers. Or rather, this may be meant of the [...] Lives and Manners of those individual persons who then lived. And as the Iews had lived in Super­stion and Ignorance, and gross Rebellion against God, so the Gentiles had been brought up in Idolatry, and in most lewd and prophane practises. Christ after his Resurrection and Ascension pitied the miserable condition of both these sorts [Page 240] of [...] Sinne [...]s. They had been disobe­dient, but now Christ by his Apostles (whom he sent forth to preach the Gospel) effectually reminded them of it, of which more [...] which we have hitherto suggested (and which was the first thing to be done) is this, that these Iewish [...]nd Pagan peopl [...] who had heretofore [...] so [...]gnally disobedient, are the spirits or persons here spoken of, who are also said to be in prison.

Of the Reasonableness and Consisten­cy of which interpretation I will give you this following account. They are called the spirits in prison, 1. because they were shut up in Ignorance, as in a spiritual Prison▪ They refused the knowledge of God, [...] wilfully blinded themselves, and so became, like the Egyptians, 1 Wisd. 17. 2. Pri­soners of darkness, and lay fetter'd in the bond [...] of night [...] 2. Because they were not only shut up in the Dark Dun­g [...]n of wilful Ignorance, but were (as our Church exp [...]esseth it) tied and bound with the chain of their other grosser sins. Whence you read of the cords or chains of sin, [...]. 70. Prov. 5. 22. In this re­spect very bad men are said to beActs 8. 23. in the bond of iniquity▪ and to be2 Tim. 2▪ 26. [...] his will. 3^ly, This [Page 241] expresses the Misery they were in. They were spirits in Prison, that is, unspeaka­bly Distressed and Wretched. This you will find to be the Stile of Scripture: and accordingly the Psalmist saith, The Lord despiseth not his Prisoners, i. e. those that are in Distress and Misery, Psal. 69. 33. And thus That in Ps. 79. 11. may be understood, Let the sighing of the Prisoners come before thee. And a­gain he prays, Bring my soul out of Pri­son, Ps. 142. 8. Soul is to be taken here for the Person, and Prison ( [...] is the very word used by the Septuagint) for Calamity or Misery, and so this is the like manner of speech with that in the Text, The spirits, or souls in prison. We pity those poor wretches who are in Du­rance, who can only look through the Grates, but are denied the liberty of go­ing abroad to help themselves; we rec­kon their condition very sad and deplo­rable. But it is certain that these poor [...]ouls who are imprison'd and Fetter'd by their Sins are in a far worse case, because Sin is the greatest Bondage. They, like Samson, grind in the prison-house, they are put to excessive Drudgery and Sla­very, which are so much the Worse be­cause they are not Sensible of it. 4. This [Page 242] shews their Inability to relieve them­selves. They are as it were in some Str [...]ng and Close Prison, whence there is no delivery without Gods help, and the special assistance of Divine Grace. They are shut up in their Dark Cells, and know not how to free themselves, they are so fast in prison that they cannot get forth. 5^ly and lastly, As I have be­fore suggested, Hell is call'd a Prison in the Stile of Scripture. Thus in Mat. 5. 25. to be cast into prison is to be cast into Hell: and accordingly the Sy­riack Version of the word is Sheol, which is the word used sometimes for Hell. God cast the Angels down to hell, saith S'Peter, and immediately he adds that he delivered them into Chains of darkness, 2 Pet. 2. 4. and S^t Iude (v. 6.) speaks after the same manner. Hell implys Chains, and that those who are in that place are Bound in the house of their prison. So Satan is said to be bound with a great chain, Rev. 20. 1, 2. i. e. he was Confined to Hell; and after­wards, he was loosed out of that Prison, v. 7. Now, Wicked and Ungodly men are deservedly said to be in This pri­son, even before they are actually cast into it, because they are as sure to be [Page 243] there, i. e. to be Damned as if they were actually so. They are as certainly to be shut up in the Prison of Hell, as if they were now in it. In this sense In­fidels and Unbelievers are said to be con­demned already, John 3. 18. All wil­ful sinners are clapt up in the Prison, are consign'd as it were to Hell, unless they hearken to the Preaching of the Gospel, and Repent, and be Converted, and so escape the damnation of Hell. From all these particulars you may be satisfied how Fit an expression this is▪ how Appositely those Vnbelievers and Idola­ters to whom the Gospel was preached are stiled spirits in Prison. I will yet further observe to you, how the Scrip­ture delights in This way of expression. As I have shewd you from thence how Sinners are Imprisoned persons, so I have This likewise to take notice of from Scripture, that the Converting of souls by Christs coming and preaching, is ex­pressly set forth to us by Freeing them from prison. Which confirms This no­tion, and the Use of this Phrase, that [...]inners, whilst they are in their Unre­generate state, whilst they are they are under the power of their sins are in prison: for they cannot be taken out thence, unless they [Page 244] had been in it. To this purpose we may observe the prophet Isaiah's words, ch. 42. v. 7. where describing the Of­fice of the Messias, he makes this the summ of it, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in dark­ness out of the prison house. And again, speaking of the blessed design of the Messias, he expresseth it thus, ch. 49. v. 9. That thou mayest say to the pri­soners, Go forth. And further in ch. 61. v. 1. he introduceth the Messias him­self declaring with his own mouth, that he was sent to proclaim liberty to the cap­tives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. Which (as well as the former passages) is meant of the Spiritual Loosing of men from their sins by the saving coming of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel, as is evident from what our Saviour said when he read these words of Isaiah, This day, saith he, is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears, Luke 4. 21. As much as if he had said, This is the grand end and purpose of my appearing in the world, and of all my undertakings for mankind, name­ly, to set them at liberty, to save them from their sins. This was long since fore­told by the prophet Isaiah, and now be­hold, [Page 245] it is accomplished in me at this time, who speak unto you and preach the Gospel of Salvation. I came to seek and save that which was lost, I came to bless you in turning you from your ini­quities, I came to rescue you from the bondage of sin and Satan. This is the meaning of opening the prison to them that are bound, of saying to the priso­ners, Go forth, of bringing the prisoners out of the prison house. We see then that from the stile of this Evangelical Prophet we are directed to a right un­derstanding of S^t Peters words, we are informed that the spirits in prison are men in their sins. Jesus by his Spirit in his Apostles went and preached to these Pri­soners, he proclaimed Liberty to these poor miserable Captives.

And these are the dead to whom the Gospel was preached, 1 Pet. 4. 6. A place of Scripture which hath mightily puzzled Expositors. D^r Hammond and others understand by these dead the sin­ners of the Old World: for these were dead (say they) when Peter wrote this Epistle, though they were alive when they were preached to. So that place, Ruth 1. 8. is interpreted, The Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with [Page 246] the dead, i. e. my sons and your hus­bands who are now dead, (when Nao­mi spoke this to her daughters in law) but were alive when the kindness was shewd to them. But I have observ'd before that this is a Strain'd sense, and therefore where a more Natural one of­fers it self we ought to accept of it. The most Plain and Proper meaning of [the dead] here is that they were dead at that very time when the Gospel was preached to them. I understand it of Spi­ritual death, which brings Eternal death with it without repentance. The wi­dow that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth, 1 Tim. 5. 6. It is usual to call Sinners dead men, because (as the same Apostle saith) they are dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. 2. 1. Yea, it were easie to shew that this way of speak­ing was not unusual with the Gentile Mo­ralists. So the dead here to whom the Gospel was preached were such as were Spiritually dead. Otherwise you can't make sense of the Reason or End of the Gospels being preached to them, viz. that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. Castalio, after his mo­dest way in the like cases, professes that [Page 247] Hunc lo­cum n [...]n in­telling [...]. he knows not what to make of these words. Some tell us that they speak of Penitent sinners involved in a Com­mon Ruine, that though they were judg'd in the flesh, i. e. in respect of their Bo­dies, as far as Men can see, yet in their Spirit or Soul they rest, and live with God. But it cannot be proved that the Apostle here refers to any such Common Calamity, and therefore this Exposition is not to be admitted. Others alter it a little thus, These words (say they) are added to remove the scandal laid in the way of Religion by Infidels and Pagans, who (as you read v. 4.) thought it strange that the Christians ran not with them to the same excess of riot, and spake evil of them on that account. They censured, defamed, and even condemned them be­cause they were not like themselves. But though they were condemned as to their flesh, their outward man, yet their spirits, their in ward man obtain'd favour, and even eternal life with God. But how this is brought in as a Reason, as it is here, [For, for this cause &c.] no man can discover, and therefo [...]e we cannot satisfie ourselves with this interpretation of the place. Others would understand it thus, That they might be judged accor­ding [Page 248] to men in the flesh, i. e. that those who lived carnally and wickedly might be damned, and live according to God in the spirit, i. e. that those who lived god­lily and righteously might be saved. But this is a manifest perverting of the words, turning the [but] into [and,] and ma­king this place speak of two sorts of persons, when it is most apparent that it speaks but of one. But now accor­ding to the Sense I have before propoun­ded, the Reason in these words is plain, viz. thus, For, for this cause, viz. that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, i. e. that they might pass a severe Judgement upon themselves, and mortifie all their sinful lusts, but live according to God in the spirit, i. e. live new and holy lives, was the Gospel preached to those that are dead. Here you may observe a clear Antithesis in the words; being judged or condemned is opposed to living, and flesh to spirit, and according to men, to according to God. For this cause the Gospel was preach'd to them that are dead in sin, viz. that being once Converted they may judge and con­demn themselves, and mortisie the flesh, and die to sin, (as Judging and passing Sentence are in order to Execution and [Page 249] putting to Death among men, or accor­ding to men) but be Alive to the spirit, and walk according to Gods holy laws. So then these two places mutually explain each other: the dead to whom the Gospel was preached are the same with the spi­rits in prison, to whom Christ went and preach'd. In both places are meant the Spiritually dead, those that are under the power and dominion of their sins.

Thus I hope I have fully shew'd who are the spirits in prison. Now it re­mains that I explain how Christ went and preached to these spirits. The Preach­ing, here is not Christ Personal Preach­ing, but his preaching by his Apostles, after his Resurrection, yea his Ascension, at which time he sent his Holy Spirit to them, by which they were enabled to preach the Gospel to Iews and Gen­tiles. By which spirit (for [ [...]] is as much as [ [...]]) poured forth on his Apostles he preached, i. e. he caused them to preach to the Unconverted world, Jews and Gentiles, who were yet in their sins. It is rightly said that He preached, because what was done by the Apostles, Christs Ministers, is said to be done by Christ himself. And this which is here inserted, [he went,] though [Page 250] if is thought by D^r Hammond to be a mere Expletive, yet it is not so, but hath its particular weight and import. These two things, I conceive are suggested to us by it, 1. the Deputation of his A­postles. Christ went not in his own per­son, but he may be truly said to have gone by his Delegates and Ministers. These went, and that from place to place to preach the Gospel. I look upon Eph. 2. 17. to be a parallel Text with this which I am insisting on. He came (or, he went) and preached peace to you who were afar off, viz. to the Ephesians who were Gentiles and Idolaters. He came not to these in person, but he came, or went by those whom he sent to preach to them. Thus he went, and preached to these spirits in prison. So more sig­nally he went to the Iews, yea to them indeed first, as S^t Peter speaks, Acts 3. 26. Vnto you first, God having raised up his son Iesus, sent him to bless you. God sent him after his Ascension, not him in person, but Others in his name to preach repentance, to turn every one of them from their iniquities, as it fol­lows in that place. Thus Christ went: he sent those who went. 2. This speaks the Freeness of the act. Neither Christ [Page 251] nor his Apostles staied till the Gentiles and Iews sought for the Gospel, and Sal­vation by it, but they went to them. them, they freely offer'd these to them. The word then is not redundant and super­fluous, but very Pregnant and Empha­tical. God offers his grace freely, God the Father sends, God the Son goes. With what Courtship and Unparallel'd Address did he seek and woe the love of Sinners whilst he was here on earth? With what Concernedness and Passion did he beseech and sollicit the degene­rate race of mankind? And when he left this world and went to his Father, behold, he sent his Spirit to actuate his Church, especially his Apostles, whom he appointed to instruct and convert souls throughout the whole world. He in­spired them with extraordinary Gifts and Graces, to make them able to discharge their office. And accordingly they did discharge it with great power and vi­gour, with marvellous and unexpected suc­cess. They preached to the spirits in pri­son, and that so effectually that they set them free from their Imprisonment.

But here it will be Objected, what is this to the purpose? what reason have you to assert that These words speak [Page 252] of Christ preaching by his Apostles to the Unbelievers, both Jews and Gen­tiles, in those times, when as the Text plainly refers to the days of the Old World only, for the preaching to the spirits in prison, is said to have been when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was pre­paring? How then can this belong to the times of the Apostles, and their preaching to unbelieving Iews and Gen­tiles? To solve this, I have told you al­ready that the words do not altogether refer to those Antediluvian Transgressors, but in a Latitude and by way of Ana­logy they comprehend all that have some­time been disobedient. But because what the Learned Episcopius hath offer'd, viz. that the several generations of the Wick­ed are look'd upon as One Body of men, and in this Large consideration the Preaching to those who lived in the days of Noah may reach even to them in the A­postles times, because (I say) this may seem Unsatisfactory, I will offer That which will abundantly satisfie all persons. It is this, that in these words there is an Ellipsis, which is a Figure that is commonly made use of in the Scripture, and therefore it ought not to seem strange in this [Page 253] place. That this Ellipsis or Leaving out of a word is very frequent, you may satisfie yourselves from those Writers who have made it their bufiness to treat of the Stile and Phraseology of the Bible: they will let you see at one view what a number of Defective speeches there are in the Holy Writ. So it is here: and there being a Defect, a Supplement must be made. And what is that? The Greek word [...], or [...], or [...]. is to be in­serted before the word [...]; and the words are to be read thus, By which he went and preach'd to the spirits in prison who were sometime disobedient, as when once the long-suffring, or patience of God waited in the days of Noah. This word [as] which is a note of Similitude or Com­parison, being left out in the Greek, ought to be supplied in the Translation. That it ought to be so, to make the sense entire, will appear by setting be­fore you some places of Scripture (for I will not trouble you with instances of the Ellipsis of this particle in Pro­phane Writers, though I could produce very many) where this word is left out in the Original, but is supplied by the Translators. As in Gen. 16. 12. Pag­nine inserts tanquam, and reads it thus, [Page 254] He will be as a wild men. In Psal, 11, 1. the Septuagint add [...], and the vul­gar Latin sicut, and our English Tran­slators [as,] and read the words thus, Flee as a bird to your mountain, notwith­standing that Adverb is not in the He­brew. In Psal. 12. 6. our Translators thought it requisite to supply the sense with an [as,] though this particle be not in the Original: for thus they ren­der the place, The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace, &c. In Ps. 22. 13. [...] is Prefixed by the Seventy, and sicut by the Vulgar Latin, and ut by Pagnine, and as by our Translators, [as a ravening and a roar­ing Lion,] but the Note of Compari­son is omitted in the Hebrew. So in those words, My tongue is the pen of a ready writer, [as] is implied: wherefore in Pagnine's Interlineary Version [ut] is added in the margent, to compleat the sense. I might mention Gen. 49. 9. Iu­deh is a lions whelp, where [as] ought to be inserted. So in Cant. 1. 15. & 4. 1. thy eyes are doves, (for so it is accor­ding to the Hebrew,) the meaning with­out doubt is, [as doves,] viz. as doves eyes. Likewise in Iam. 1. 11. this word is left out, for [...] is supposed to [Page 255] answer to [...], although this latter be not expressed by the Inspired Writer. Lastly, (to name no more, though se­veral other places might be produced) the omission of [...] in 2 Pet. 3. 4. is most palpable, and therefore there is a supply made by our Translators, All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, as if the Greek were [...], whereas it is barely [...]. You see then that it hath been thought necessary to add this word in several places of Ho­ly Scripture. The same necessity is in the Text which is before us at present. This word [as] being inserted, makes the sense Clear and Manifest; for this plain­ly shews that there is a Comparison here between what was done in the Apostles days, and what happened in the days of Noah. The Long-suffering of God in the times of the Apostles, was like that in Noah's age. As Christ the Eternal Wisdom preached by Noah to those who were disobedient before the Floud, so he did by the Apostles to those who were such in their times. As God here­tofore shew'd an extraodinary Patience and Mercy towards the people of the Old World, giving them a sufficient space [Page 256] to Repent in, no less then 120 years, which yet was not Improved by them; only a few, hearkning to Gods Voice, were deliver'd and saved by the Ark: So Christ was pleased to give proof of his Singular Long-suffering and Kindness towards the disobedient Jews and Gen­tiles, who lived in the days of the A­postles: he by these his Messengers offe­red grace to those profligate sinners, shut up and consign'd as 'twere to Execution and Destruction: yet he went and preach­ed the Gospel to them, and freely ten­der'd the happy fruits of his Redemp­tion. But the greatest part of them e­villy requited his Kindness, they con­tinued in their Unbelief and Impenitence: only there was a select number among them which accepted of the divine fa­vour and mercy, and was saved. Thus the Similitude or Comparison runs. This word [as] being added to the Text, the sense is obvious and evident, which o­therwise was very obscure and uncertain, notwithstanding what the forementioned Expositors had said of it. The Text for want of inserting this Note of Similitude hath led men to several fond Conjectures and Mistakes (as you have heard;) but now it is very Clear, and we have not [Page 257] made it subservient to any Improbable and Absurd Opinions.

This then we are obliged to take no­tice of in a special manner, viz. how These two are Alike, the Preaching of Christ or the Apostles to the unbelievers of that time, and the Preaching of Noah to the people of the Old World. The Likeness is mention'd in a General way here: but (to illustrate the words) let us take a view of the Particulars of it. 1. Here is a parallel between Him that preach'd to those before the Floud, and Him that preach'd to the Heathens and Jews under the Gospel. Or rather in­deed this is One and the same Person, Christ, the essential Wisdom of the Fa­ther, God blessed for evermore. This is He that preached to the men of All Ages. As he spake to the people in Noahs time, so he did the same afterwards, and he spake to the Unbelievers of the Last days, Iesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever. 2. He spoke to both by the spirit. By this he went and preached to them, and by this (even his Eternal Spirit) he hath preach'd to all genera­tions of men ever since the world was. But 3^ly, this was not an Immediate [Page 258] Preaching, for as the Son of God made use of Noah and his sons to admonish the sinners before the Deluge, so he stirr'd up the Disciples and Apostles to preach to the Jews and Gentiles in the primitive times of Christianity. 4. Here is a Comparison between the Hearers as well as the Preachers. As the greatest part of the men of the Old World were disobedient to Noahs preaching, so most of the Jews and Heathens were disobe­dient to the preaching of the Apostles. Yet again, as some of the Antediluvians were obedient to the Spirit and Noahs preaching, so some of the Others believed and were converted when the Apostles were sent to them. 5. The Parallel is observable as to the Effect, or rather the Consequence of both Preachings: some Perished, others were Saved. The Im­penitent and Hardned sinners perished in the water, but the family of Noah was by the singular mercy of Heaven rescued from destruction. 6^ly, Therefore the Comparison is too evident in the Paucity of the persons saved on both sides. This you find particularly taken notice of. As in Noahs days few, that is eight souls were saved, so when Christ came [Page 259] and preached by his Apostles and Mi­nisters, those that believed were but a very small number: a remnant shall be saved, Rom. 9. 27. 7^ly, and lastly, Observe the Analogy between the Ark and Baptism, which were the signal at­tendants of Christs Preaching, the one in Noahs, the other in the Apostles days, This being particularly mention'd here, I will explain what the Apostle means by it. In the Ark, saith he, eight souls were saved by water: that is, they were preserved and delivered out of the wa­ter of the Deluge: for saving by water, is as much as saving out of the water: as saving by fire, (1 Cor. 3. 15.) is saving out of the fire. Or thus, saved by water, may be all one with being saved by means of the water, viz. by the waves lifting up the Ark, and carrying it aloft, and so saving them from being overwhel­med. The waters of the floud bore up the Ark, and thereby kept the persons in it from drowning. The like figure (or Antitype) whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us, v. 21. That is, the holy Ordinance of Baptism resembleth the Ark in the Floud: for as This was the happy means of saving Noah and his [Page 260] family, so That was appointed by Christ under the Gospel to be the blessed instru­ment of Salvation. Unless you will take the word [...] here for a Con­trary Figure (as it signifies sometimes, according to the different rendring of [...]) and then the sense is, that Saving is now by water, as heretofore it was by escaping it. The Water of Baptism is now the means of our Safety, as of old the water of the Deluge was the means of Destruction. Thus the Comparison holds good in all these particulars. It was without doubt design'd that one shold be a Representation of the other. I had reason therefore to insert the Note of Similitude [as,] to give you the true meaning of the words. And you see there was ground for inserting it, there being several Examples of the like nature in the Holy Scriptures.

Now then let us read the words, Christ hath once suffer'd for sins, being put to death in the flesh, but quickned by the Spirit, by which also he went and preach'd unto the spirits in prison: who sometime were disobedient, as when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of [Page 261] Noah, while the Ark was preparing, where­in few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us. The plain meaning of all which is This, that Christ after his Crucifixion was raised from the dead by the Spirit of God, and by the same Spirit communicated to the Apostles he preached the Gospel to the stubborn Jews and the Idolatrous Gentiles. And upon this preaching to them, most of those poor wretches who were Shut up in darkness and ignorance, who were Imprisoned by Satan, and Bound with the chain of their sins, remain'd still in the same miserable condition, rejecting the Gospel, and in that were like unto the disobedient sinners in Noahs, days, who refused the preaching of Noah, and of the Spirit by him. But as there were some, though a few, in that age who attended to that Preacher of righteous­ness, and found favour with God, so was it likewise in the times of the Apostles Preaching, a small company (that is, Small in respect of those who refused the tenders of Salvation, but other­wise very Great and Numerous) were so effectually wrought upon that they [Page 262] believed in Iesus, and forsook their sins, being washed from them by the waters of Baptism, which was prefigured by Noahs Ark. This is that which the words present us with, and it is no other then the Great Mystery of Godliness (as it is set forth in 1 Tim. 3. 16.) God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, preached unto the Gentiles, be­lieved on in the world. This is the sub­stance of the words which I have been treating of, this is the High and Noble Theme which S^t Peter here briefly hand­leth. Though the Generality of men (both then and since) refuse the offers of Grace and Mercy in Christ Jesus, yet the Preaching of the Gospel is not in­effectual and succes [...]ess: both in those first ages of the world, and in these of late, there have continually been added unto the Church such as shall be Saved. But because the Old World was the Greatest Example and Instance of Gods Long-suffering, as well as of the Impe­nitence and Refractoriness of sinners, therefore Gods sparing the Iews and Gen­tiles afterwards, and sending the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to them, are very fitly parallel'd with the Preaching of Noah, [Page 263] and Gods Long-suffering towards the peo­ple of that time. The Apostle here, to give a Remarkable Instance of Gods Pa­tience, chooses out the days of Noah, a most Polluted and Degenerate Age, as you will find it decipher'd in Gen. 6. Hence among the Rabbins, the Age of the Floud is used to express the most Wick­ed and Prophane generation of men: for of all sinners those Antediluvians are reckoned to be the Worst and Vilest. It is like the Age of the Giants, noted among the Pagans, especially their Poets. For this reason S^t Peter particularly men­tions That Age, and makes the Preach­ing of Noah to them to be a Figure and Representation of Christ and his Apostles Preaching to the sinners of their time. They that in these days were disobedient and believed not the Gospel, whilst the Christian Church was building up, are represented by Those Sinners of old who believ'd not, whilst the Ark was build­ing. And so likewise, Those that be­lieved in the Apostles times, and were saved by Baptism, were prefigured by those who in Noahs days were saved in the Ark by water. Yea, I am bold to say, that Noahs Preaching to the sinners [Page 264] of that first age, is a figure of the Preach­ing of the Gospel even to the end of the world: which was intimated byEpist. 99. ad Euo­dium. S^s Au­gustin, who tells us, that the Age of Noah was a Type of the Ages to come. Let Vs then, on whom the ends of the world are come, think our selves concern'd here. The Long-suffering of God hath waited in Our days, calling us to repentance and Amendment of life. O that we may not abuse this Patience of the Almighty, but that we may be­fore it is too late, attend to the Preach­ing of Christ by his Holy Ministers, and by his Sacred Spirit in our hearts, and that we may be willing to come out of prison, to leave our sins, in which we have been Fetter'd, to be set Free, and to be Saved.

Thus I have finished the task I un­dertook, which was to explain this Ob­s [...]ure Text. I know there are Other Solutions of the words, but I cannot think that they will be of any weight with lntelligent Readers. Some will read [...] in stead of [...], and there­by alter the sense, but this is against all the Greek Copies and the Syriack. Others tell us there is an Hyperbaton [Page 265] in the words, that the Grammatical Or­der of them is transposed, and thence they proceed to point them after ano­ther manner, and then to raise a New Sense: but this is generally exploded. A lateDavid Cleric. Qu [...]str Sacr. Author from Geneva would have the words read thus, He went and preached with the spirits in prison: Christ went with the Angels, those Good Spirits &c. and thence he frames a very odd interpretation of the Text. But these and some others I have for­born to trouble you with, because I believe you would look upon them as very extra­vagant. If any one shall entertain the same thought of that Exposition which I have offered, I shall not be offended, on condition he will shew me good rea­son for his thinking so. Otherwise I shall not attend to what he saith, but shall be the more confirmed in the Sense of the words which I have offered. In brief, I have rejected the Wild Comments and Gemara's which have been made on this Text, and I have seriously applied my self to the giving you the True and Un­corrupted Meaning of the words, i. e. to shew you who these spirits in prison are. I have, I hope, let in some Light [Page 266] to them, yea I have Opened their Pri­son-doors which were so fast lock'd up by the seveal Mistaken Glosses on there words. But in this, as in the Other Ex­positions of Scripture which I have ten­dred, I am always ready to submit to those who are of more Sagacious Judg­ments.