Nou. 18. 91.  
Imprimatur,  


Gabr. Quadring, Procan.  
Io. Beaumond▪  
Io. Mountagu.  
Io. Spencer.     

AN ENQUIRY INTO Four Remarkable TEXTS OF THE New Testament Which contain Some DIFFICULTY in them: WITH A Probable Resolution Of them.  
By john Edwards B. D. sometime Fellow of St john's College in Cambridge.  
1 Cor. 13. 9 We know in part, and we prophesy in part.  
CAMBRIDGE, Printed by I. Hayes, Printer to the University; for W. Graves Bookseller there. 1692.   

The TEXTS Enquired into and Resolved are,  
S. Matth. II. 23.  
He shall be called a Nazarene.  
1 Corinth. XI. 14.  
Doth not even Nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?  
1 Corinth. XV. 29.  
Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptised for the dead?  
1 S. Peter III. 19, 20.  
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: who sometime were disobedient, etc.   

THE PREFACE.  
THat there are Obscurities and Difficulties in Holy Writ is acknowledged by all persons that are conversant in this Sacred Volume. And truly, if we consider things aright, we shall find that this is not unworthy either of God or of his Holy Word. Not of God himself who indicted the Sacred Scriptures, for he hath most Wisely ordered that there should be some things Obscure and Mysterious in them, to create a becoming Reverence, and to let us know that these Writings are not penned after an ordinary manner. These Clouds and Darkness are suitable to the Majesty of Heaven, they are proper to beget in us Humility, and Mean Thoughts of ourselves, to convince us of the Shallowness of our intellects, to show us how unbiased we are, to give check to our Presumption, to quash our towering Conceits of our knowledge, to supersede our Vain Boasting, to repel our Vaunting Pride and Insolence. They are serviceable also to rebuke our Sloth and Negligence, to provoke our Care and Study, and to excite our utmost Diligence. Thus it hath pleased God to exercise the Understandings of men, and to make trial of their Industry by these Difficult passages which occur in Scripture. If all places were easy, this Book would be liable to Contempt, and there would be no room left for our Diligent Search and Enquiry. But now at every reading of it we still find something to employ our understandings ●●resh, and to improve 〈◊〉 most inquisitive faculties. Here our minds may be perpetually busied, here is enough to entertain our greatest leisure and most earnest study. Here are many Mysteries to be unfolded, many Depths to be fathomed, many Abstrusities (both in the things and in the words that convey the notice of them to our minds) to be discovered: so that to the Greatest Student and most Ambitious Enquirer, that will happen which the Son of Sirach saith in another case, When a man hath done, than he beginneth. Here are not only Fords and Shallows which we may easily wade through, but here are unpassable Depths and Abysses. It hath seemed good to the Wise Governor of the world that there should be in the Holy Scripture Some things hard to be un●derstood (as St Peter particularly pronounceth of S Paul's Epistles,) that ●ereby the Excellency of these Sacred Writings might appear, that by this means it might be seen of what Universal use they are: far those places which are plain and clear are fitted to ordinary capacities, and those other portions which are deep and intricate are the proper entertainment of the Learned, and thus the Whole Book is calculated for the general benefit of all. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 36. in 1. ad Corinth.  St Chrysostom ●ath summed it up thus very briefly, All passages in Scripture are not plain and perspicuous lest we should be Lazy, nor are all obscure lest we should Despond. This Excellent Tempering of the Sacred Writ is a high commendation of it, and is no other than the Wise Contrivance of Heav●n.  
And as this Obscurity of some parts of Scripture is not unworthy of God himself, so neither is it any disparagement to his Sacred Word. For we must know that this Difficulty happens from the very nature of the things themselves which are here recorded. It cannot be otherwise but that some portions of Scripture must be dark and obscure, and consequently must labour under Different and Contrary Expositions, because they were written so long ago, and contain in them so many Old Customs and Usages, so many Relations concerning Different People, so many and various Idioms of Tongues, such diversity of Ancient Expressions, Laws, and Manners of all Nations in the world. It is unreasonable to expect that we should exactly understand all these. It is not to be wondered at that these occasion Doubts, Difficulties, Mistakes. And it is certain that the being ignorant of some of these is no blemish either to the Sacred Writings, or to the persons who read and study the●. Suppose I do not know what the house of Asuppim is, 1 Chron. 26. 15. or what kind of trees the Almug or Algum-trees are, 1 Kings 10. 12. 1 Chron. 20. 8. or who are meant by the Gammadim, Ezek. 27. 11. What though I am not so well skilled in the jewish Modes and Fashions, as to tell what kind of Womens-Ornament the houses of the soul are, in Isai. 3. 20. or what particular Idols or Pagan Deities Gad and Meni are, Isai. 65. 11. or which of the Heathen Gods is meant by Chiun or Remphan, Amos 5. 26. Acts 7. 43. Some of the Learnedest Expositors and Critics have confessed their ignorance as to these places of Scripture: particularly upon the last of them our Profound Antiquary hath these despairing words, 
* Me tam caecutire sentic ●t nihil omnino videam. Selden de D●s Syr. Syntag. 2. c. 14.  For my part I perceive my blindness to be such that I can see nothing at all. and to the same purpose this Admirable Person speaks concerning several other passages in Scripture, as of Nishroc, Nergal, and other Idols mentioned there, the origine and meaning of which Names are hid from us. Many other Reasons might be alleged of the real or seeming Difficulty of some places, namely the Sublimity of the Matter, the Ambiguity and Different Significations of the Words, the Inadvertency of Expositors, and sometimes their unskilfulness, and oftentimes their Wilful Designing to pervert the words, in order to the maintaining some opinions or practices which they adhere to. But no man of a sedate mind and reason can think that the Scriptures themselves are disparaged by these Difficulties and Mistakes, for they are not arguments of the Scriptures Imperfection, but of Man's. Besides, these Obscurities which are accompanied with the various ways of rendering some Expressions, and determining the Sense, are no proof of the Imperfection of this Holy Book, because in matters of Faith and Manners, which are the Main things we are concerned in, and for which the Bible was chiefly writ, these Writings are plain and intelligible. All Necessary and Fundamental Points of Religion are set down here in such expressions as are suitable to the capacities of the most simple and vulgar. God hath graciously condescended to the infirmities of the meanest and most unlearned, by speaking to them in these Writings after the manner of Men, and by propounding the greatest Mysteries in a Familiar stile and way. The Scripture, so far as it relates to our belief and Practice, is very easy and plain, yea much plainer than the Glosses and Comments upon it oftentimes are. In a word, most of the places of Scripture call not for an Interpreter, but a Practiser, As for other passages, which are Obscure and Intricate (but which are very few in respect of those that are plain,) they were designed (as hath been already suggested) to employ our more inquisitive and elaborate thoughts, and to whet our industry in the studying of this Holy Volume; that at last, when we have the happiness of retrieving the lost sense of the words, and restoring them to their genuine meaning, we may the more prize our acquest which hath cost us some pains. Or, if after all our attempts we cannot reach the true meaning, we have reason to entertain reverend thoughts of those Difficult Texts of Scripture, and to persuade ourselves that they are worthy of the Divine Enditer, though our weak minds cannot comprehend them. If Humane Author's delight to darken their writings sometimes, and it is accounted no blemish, surely we may conclude that the Mysteries of the Sacred and Inspired Style are rather an inhansment than a diminution of its Excellency. Shall we not think it fit to deal as fairly with the Sacred Code ●s Socrates did with Heraclitus' writings, that is, not only pronounce so much as we understand of them to be Excellent and Admirable, but believe also that what we do not understand is so too? It is certainly an undeniable truth, that neither the Wisdom of God nor the Credit of this Inspired Book are impaired by any Difficulties we find in it. Therefore when the men of the Roman persuasion make use of these Hard places in the Bible to disparage and discredit it, and to render the Scriptures useless as to the common people, questionless they take a wrong course: first they complain that these Writings are Obscure, and then they make them more so by locking them up from the sight of the people; whereas they should rather expose them to light, and endeavour to remove the obscurity by expounding them.  
This is that which I have done in this Critical Essay which I here venture into the world: of which it may be expected I should give some brief Account; therefore take it thus, In my first Attempt, viz. on those words, [He shall be called a Nazarene,] I reject (but not without showing my Reasons) the most generally received Interpretations, and offer another, namely that by a Nazarene is meant one of the city Nazareth, an Inhabitant of that place: and by the Prophets that foretold this, I understand some Inspired persons who predicted that our Saviour should dwell and converse at Nazareth: and this their Prediction was delivered from one to another till it came to St Matthew, who here sets it down in writing. Therefore let it not startle the Reader that I say in my Discourse on these words, There was such a Report or Tradition in this Evangelist's days: for though this is but a Conjecture, yet it is a very Probable one, I showing that the Apostles St Paul and St Judas made use of the like Reports and Traditions, and inserted them into their Writings. Wherefore it is not unlikely that the Evangelist here refers to a Tradition which was at that time concerning Christ's being a Nazarene, i. e. that he should be one of the city Nazareth. But because this is only Probable, I advance farther, and prove that this was not only spoken by some Uncertain and Unknown Prophets, and so conveyed to the jews, but that it was likewise foretold by those very Prophets who were the Penmen of the Holy Scripture: and accordingly I proceed to prove that these Writers directly predicted Christ's being related to the place called Nazareth, and his having his denomination thence, (for he was brought up there, Luke 4. 16. and therefore it is called his Country, 23 v.) and lastly I make it evident that this was actually fulfilled and accomplished in the plain and obvious meaning of the words, viz. that he was called a Nazarene, i e. One of Nazareth: he was reproached for being an Inhabitant of that place, and that not only by the Gentiles, but by the very Jews, for the Galilaeans, of whom the people of Nazareth were a part, were of Pagan extraction, as the Samaritans were: they were both of them looked upon by the grand body of the Jews as no Jews properly, a kind of barbarous people in comparison of themselves and other inhabitants of Judea.  
In my Exposition of the Second Text, which is this, Doth not nature it ●elf teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him? I take the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the largest extent, i. e. I consider the former, as it signifies Custom, and the Law of Natural Reason, and the Distinction of the Sexes; and the latter, as it denotes both the Length and the Decking of the hair, and accordingly I make it my business first to prove, that if a Man either indulgeth an Immoderate Length of hair, or is solicitous about the Composing and Adorning of it, he acts contrary to the Custom of the soberest part of mankind, whether they be Jews, Egyptians, Arabians, Grecians, Romans, etc. (all whose practice in t●is case I have represented from those Authors who treat of the manners of those people.) If it shall be objected, that there was a Different and Contrary Custom as to these things, I grant it, and yet this is no prejudice to what I maintain, for the Apostle without doubt means the Custom and Usage of the better and wiser part of mankind, and not of the worst. Then, in the next place, I demonstrate this to be disagreeable to the laws and rules of Reason, which I explain in several Particulars. Afterwards, I show it to be against the established Law of the Sexes, whereby one of them is distinguished from the other. So that taking the words in this Latitude, the meaning of the Apostle in them is this, That a Christian man should not do things repugnant to any of these three Rules, viz. Laudable Custom, Reason, and the Law which is proper to each Sex; and that he that wears his hair of an Immoderate Length, or after the guise of Women, offends against all these Rules. If any one object against the Latitude of this Exposition, I answer, that I take this for an allowed Verity, that when we meet with words in any place of Scripture which have different senses, and those senses are not inconsistent with one another, we may lawfully take them all into the meaning of the Text; and that is it which I do here, and thereby render the meaning of the words full and entire. However, take the words which way you will, and if you pitch upon any Particular Sense, I hope I have suggested that which will give light to it.  
I here adjoin something concerning the Custom of Covering and Uncovering the head among the different People and Nations of the world. The sum of what I say is, that the Eastern people went always with their heads covered, and the Greeks were always ●●covered, but the Romans took a middle way, for they thought they were bound as to this matter to distnguish between the times of Worship and of Common Conversation, and that the behaviour which was used in the one ought to be different from that of the other. Accordingly they always covered their heads in the time of Worshipping: from whence (as well as from what is recorded of them) we may gather that their practice was contrary when they were about their ordinary business, that is, that they were Uncovered. But from the Jews covering their heads when they worshipped, we cannot infer that they did not do so at other times, and the reason is because they made no distinction at all between one time and the other as to this behaviour. Only, I desire the Reader (that he may not misinterpret me) to distinguish between the Ancient Romans and those that came after them, for as to this usage (as well as to some others) these two exceedingly differed from one another: vea, the Latter Romans were strangely inclined to shift their customs, and differed from Themselves as well as the Old Romans, as I have showed. This I thought fit to mention here, lest any man should mistake me and the Truth itself. I have added something likewise concerning the custom of the Other Sex, and there you'll find that there is no Variation at all: the Women of all Nations generally covered their heads when they were abroad, and the Apostle is not willing they should lay aside so Landable and Catholic an usage.  
In my Third Undertaking, which is an interpretation of those so much controverted words; What shall they do that are baptised for the dead? I recite the various opinions of Authors concerning the meaning of this place▪ not that I delight to muster up whole Armies of Writers, some Ancient and some Modern, some at home, others abroad, but because the present affair requires it. There being several Expositions of these words, it was necessary to acquaint you with them before I offered that which I conceive to be the true and genuine sense of the Apostle. Accordingly, after I have rejected the interpretations of Others on the place, and have all along given you the Reasons why I do so, I at last expose my own sentiments in a plain and easy interpretation, such as every one may see is the genuine import of the words, viz. that to be baptised for the dead, is no other than to be baptised because of the dead, or for the sake of the dead, i. e. of those Holy Martyrs who laid down their lives for Christ and his Blessed Cause. The courage and bravery which these showed at their death did effectually invite great numbers of Infidels, who took notice of their Christian behaviour, to lay aside their false and idolatrous religion, and to embrace the Faith of Christ, and to desire to be admitted members of the Church by Baptism. By reason of the admirable carriage of those dying Martyrs, there were Converts daily gained to Christianity: many jews and Pagans were stirred up to own the same Holy Religion which they saw them defend so undauntedly. This made them eager of being baptised. This I take to be the plain meaning of their being baptised for the dead, i. e. they were baptised, and became Christians for the sake and on the account of those deceased Saints who they saw attested the truth of Christianity with their blood. How probable this Interpretation is, yea how preferable to all others, I hope I have convinced the Reader in the Discourse itself, to which I remit him.  
In my Last Effort, where I undertake to show who are the spirits in prison to whom Christ preached, I do (as before) enumerate the several Glosses which have been made upon the words. Some have fetshed the sense of them from Heaven, others from Hell, and some from a Middle place (as they fancy) between both: and many others have presented us with their Conjectures on this Text. But when I have discovered the invalidity of them, I proceed to let you see what Other more true account may be given of the words. And that is this, Christ by his Spirit in his Apostles and Ministers preached the Gospel to Sinners (and to whom else should be preach it?) to unconverted and Unregenerate persons, whether jews or Gentiles: and hereby many of them were converted to the faith, and were saved. This is the plain sense of this Text, which hath been so differently handled by Protestants and Papists: and this interpretation (as I think I have made it evident, but the Reader is to judge) is conformable to the scope of the Context, suitable to the Phrase and Language both of the Old and New Testament, and most agreeable to the Thing itself which is here represented by the Apostle. For there could not be a more Easy, and yet a more Significant expression to set forth the state of men in their fins then This of the spirits in prison. Those persons are, in a Religious and Spiritual way of speaking (which is the constant stile of the Holy Ghost in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles) Prisoners and Bondmen shut up in a miserable Durance: they sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron, as the Psalmist describes Poor Captives, Psal. 107. 10. This is a plain and obvious Metaphor, and at the very first propounding of it we are able to apprehend its meaning. Poor distressed souls that are under the bondage of sin and vice, are spirits in prison, but the Blessed jesus cometh and preacheth to them by the Ministry of his Apostles and servants, and thereby brings them out of darkness, and the shadow of death, and breaks their bonds in Sunder, as the same Divine Poet speaks in that place. Certainly then S● Peter (who had been a 
* Acts chains, 12. 16.  Prisoner and bound with and knew the hardships and misery of this sort of men) could not have made choice of any Similitude, could not have used any Expression whereby it was possible to give us a more Compendious Character, a more Lively and Natural Idea of the Deplorable Condition of unconverted Sinners, than this here doth. Which makes it somewhat strange that such multitudes of Expositors and Comment ators have not taken notice of it, but have rather chosen to give us some farfetched and strained interpretations of these words.  
This is the short Account which I thought good to premise before the following Exercitations. In the whole I hope I have faithfully discharged my task: this I am sure of, that I have not wilfully made any false steps. I have been very fair, and have used no violence upon the words, as it is the too common practice of Critics. They are people that rack their Fancy's and the Texts together, they stretch and serve the words, they ●eaze and worry, they torment and most unmercifully force and drag a Text to their side. You may observe it, an arrant Critic is a Resolate sort of man generally, he is very Earnest in his work, though in never so light a matter, and pusheth it on to the utmost extremity. I could mention several Professors of Critisism who are guilty of this miscarriage, who make it their business to force their may. You shall see them set downbefore a Text, and raise their Batteries against it, and play their Cannon and Mortars upon it. If this will not do, they come with greater force, and make a fresh assault with stronger Detachments from Poets, Orators, Historians, Philosophers etc. and fall on with greater fury, thinking by this means to bring it to a Parley, and then a Surrender: or rather, by their furious attacks we may guests they intent no other thing then to take it by Storm. And truly in this Imaginary Romantic Adventure they think they have done it, they persuade themselves they have taken possession of the Fort, and so the Campaigne is at an end, and there is a period to their doughty attempts. But I hate these Vinolent courses, this besieging of a Chapter and Verse. this investing of a Place of Scripture. I abhor the common practice of ravaging and preying upon the Bible: I do not like the Bombarding of Scripture, I approve not of the Storming of a Text, and taking it by force. It is a very unchristian and unbecoming employment to extort a sense from any place of Holy Writ, and by little Critical arts and fetches to bring over the words to a compliance with us, i e. to the meaning which we design. Indeed this (however it may be represented as a Mighty Work) is easily done by the aides of a Ready Invention, a Luxuriant Pen, and a show of some Reason and Argument, espeoially if these be backed with a strong Desire of venting some New Notion in the world. But then I do not think that the man believes the thing himself after all his flippant. Rhetoric and strained Logic: which methinks should make him very uneasy and much dissatisfied, for how can one offer that to others to be believed, which he gives no credit to himself▪ For my part, I love first to satisfy myself about any Point, before I design to expose it to others judgements: and this I have done in the Present Undertaking, otherwise I should think I had dealt very uncivilly (to say no worse) with the world. I have offered that upon These Texts which I conceived to be most Credible, which I found to have the warranty of Reason or some Good Probability. I am not conscious of any unhandsome and unjust dealing with the words which I have made the subject of my Discourses. I have not set any of the Texts upon the Rack, I have not put them to the Torture to confess what they never intended. I have let them speak freely and unconstrainedly: and then you may expect no other than Truth and Realities. If Others have different conceptions concerning these places of Scripture, I am not offended in the least. I have offered the Reasons of my assertions: let them show theirs, and then perhaps there will be no disagreement. However, my purpose is to be Friendly and Peaceable, and I desire to treat all Writers with a due respect and deference, though I cannot comply with them in every thing that they assert.  
To conclude, let all our Inquiries and Disputes about these Scripture Difficulties, be unfeignedly designed and referred to the Glory of the Supreme Eternal Being, to the advancement of our knowledge in the Inspired Writings, to the enlightening our minds in the True Religion, to the edification of the Church, and the advantage of the Christian world.   

The first TEXT Enquired into. viz. S. Matthew II. 23. He shall be called a Nazarene.  
THOUGH the Practical part of Christian Theology be infinitely more noble, more excellent, more useful than 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 very account justly call for our more serious disquisitions, and challenge our more intent inquiries. Questionless the explaining the Difficult passages of Holy Writ is not only a very Entertaining and Delightful 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 Practice 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: First, 
a Adu. Martion. l. 4.  Tertullian and 
b Demonstr. Evang. l. 7. c. 1.  Ensebius, and some other Ancient Father's thought it was an allusion to the Nazarites, a Religious and separate rank of persons among the jews spoken of in the Old Testament. And more particularly, St jerom on the place tells us that 
c Nazarenus 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 Ancients was this, that they have reference to those places where Christ is called Netzer, a Branch, as in Isai. 11. 1. & 60. 21. yea, St jerom himself, who seemed to have fixed on the former way of Interpretation, is inclined to think that this Prophecy 
d 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 etc.] 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 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 persuasion. Among these latter are Grotius and Hammond (to name no more,) the first whereof merits that Title which the Greeks gave Alexander Aphrodisaeus, the Ancientest Commentator on Aristotle, viz, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Interpreter, by way of Eminency. For certainly no man hath excelled him in giving the Literal 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 Critics 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 styled, and so Christ (saith he) was foretold in the Old Testament to be an Abstinent Mortified person, a True 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 persuasion 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 dwelled 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 than 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 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 wondered 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 fulfiled in his dwelling in a town called 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 dwelled 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 impertinent and foreign here: but the true, genuine, and unforced 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 dwelled 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 called 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 called a Nazarene, i. e. a man of Nazareth; and Secondly I am obliged to show 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 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 Prophetic spirit, who used to foretell the Coming of the Messias, and particularly to assign the Place of his general 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 St Matthew's words are true, that this was spoken by the Prophets, for it was the General Saying among them, when the jews enquired of them where the Messias' 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 jews, and passed for a Prophetic Saying, and thence the Evangelist makes use of it, and applies it here very appositely when he was relating how joseph being warned of God turned aside into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelled 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 Prophetic persons, which were transmitted from age to age. Thus we find St jude quotes enoch's Prophecy, which he had only by Tradition, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, v. 14. And St Paul makes mention of the Egyptian Sorcerers jannes' and jambres, 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 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 St 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 than the Place of his Nativity, Bethlehem, was predicted by some Inspired and Prophetic men.  
The next thing I am to prove is that this Prophetic 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 jesus 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 Expressly and Emphatically in Mat. 21. 11. This (say they) is jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee: he had this Name given him by his Friends and Followers, by his Apostles and Disciples, as you read in Luke 24. 19 john 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. john 18. 5. Acts 6. 14. and more especially by Pilate his Judge, who fixed this Title on the Cross, jesus of Nazareth King of the jews, john 〈…〉 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 jesus of Nazareth, saith he to the surious Saul's 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, said the prophets; 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 show 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 Reproachful words from the mouths of wicked men, that it is their usual 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, etc. 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 Despised jesus speaks that Evangelicall Prophet, His visage was married more than any man, and his form more than the Sons of men, Isai. 52. 14. He hath no form nor comeliness: 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 should 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 meanness 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 Prophecies which I have alleged 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 Individual 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. St Peter alleges 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 St 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 do not occur in any Prophetic Writer of the Old Testament, yet the meaning and Import of them is to be found in those Writings, as I have showed: 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 Prophecies which were by Tradition spoke expressly of this Appellation, 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 St 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 Father's 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 profaneness, he was aspersed as a Glutton and a Wine-bibber, he was reproached as a wilful 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 jesus. He was mocked at by the Sanhedrim, by their Great Doctors and Rabbis, men of Beard and Gravity: he was also shouted at by the Giddy Multitude, by the Common Rabble, and base 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 wilderness. The Laity endeavoured to surpass their Instructers, and doubled their spite against the Holy jesus. Nay, his own Relations disgraced and abused him, some of his Kindred looked upon him as no other than a Distracted and Frantic person, and accordingly they came in haste from Nazareth to lay hold on him, and confine him. He is not only besides himself, but he is Possessed, if you'll believe the Pharisees: he doth all his Miracles by Art Magic, 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 Cross, 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 men's Slanders and Reproaches. This Prophecy therefore in the Text was in the general fulfilled, in that he was thus egregiously reproached and traduced. This Prediction [He shall be called a Nazarene] is made good, for he was called by all those Names which signify Disgrace and Reproach, and This is one of them.  
Besides, it was accomplished in a general way, in as much as Christ's 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 jesus were a despised sort of men, that they were most unworthily aspersed and vilified, that they were loaden with all Obloquys and slanders. St 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 offscouring of all things, 1 Cor. 4. 12, 13. And those that succeeded these First Worthies of the Church sared no better. It was confidently reported by their Enemies that they worshipped, an Ass' head, whence they had the Name ●f Asinarii. It was said that they met 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 blood: and that when this was done, these Cannibals, these Devourers of their own kind proceeded to acts of Filthiness and Incest; yea, and that at all other times they lived in the practice of the most Flagitious sins, the most Execrable villainies. 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 men's Malicious Reviling, they had the impodence and effrontery to fasten upon the Christians even the Commission of those villainies 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 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 general 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 fastened 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 institutor of Christianity, were loaded with Contumelies and Reproaches.  
But more particularly, we are to prove the Accomplishment of this Prophecy, by showing you that this individual Name of Nazarene, or one of Nazareth, was used as a Reproachful Appellative towards Christ and towards his Followers. We must know then that though Nazareth be called a City in this place of St Matthew, yet all agree that it was a Mean and Poor one, and rather deserved (if we look upon it in itself) to be called a Village. Which is no unusual thing in Scripture, where we find places that have the Name of Cities are also called Villages, as in jos. 19 7. 1 Chron. 4. 32. And in the New Testament, Small Towns or Villages are sometimes styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 john 7. 42. We meet with the like in other Authors: So Bethsura is called a City by 
e Antiqu. jud. l. 12. c. 14.  josephus, 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? john 1. 46. It was, as appears by this Common Saying, a sorry Contemptible place, and yielded no inhabitant of any Note and Worth, unless 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 inferred that 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 pitiful fellow. But this, you will say, is Conjecture 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 Spruce Orator Tertallus, for being a Ringleader of the sect of the nazarenes, i, e. of the Christians, who were called so from Christ jesus of Nazareth their first Founder and Master. He being bred in that sorry 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. ● Acts 2. 7. yea, the Name lasted till some hundreds of years after Christ, as may be gathered from julian the Apostate's crying out, (when he was struck 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 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Philopatr.  Bald Pate Galil●●●● by Lucian, but all the Primitive Christians were generally stigmatised with the title of Galilaeans by julian, 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 emphatically styled nazarenes from that Town of this Name in Galilee, where jesus was brought up and dwelled the greatest part of his life. This is with great evidence testified and confirmed by Epipha●i●s, who not only tells us that there was a ●ort of Heretics called Nazarenes, out that the Orthodox Christians also bore that name, Heass●res 〈◊〉 that these were commonly known by the name of 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Adu. 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 jews 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 style the Christians Nazarenes. Grot. in Acts 24. 5. It is undeniable then that both Christ and his followers bore the name of nazarenes, 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 Particular 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of Nazareth. The former word is but an Abreviature of this latter, which is no unusual 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 Grammarians will confess) is 
g Thence it is sometimes Nazara, as well as Nazareth, according to that of juvencus, 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 than may be either rendered 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 remembered 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 scorned 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 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 downright reproaching and speaking against 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 beginning of this Discourse. If we do so, the Connection of the words is Illogicall, Irrational and Absurd. This is my present apprehension of this place▪ and if I be mistaken, let it be remembered 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.   

The Second TEXT Enquired into, viz. 1 Corinth. XI. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?  
IN this Chapter the Apostle treats of these two things, First, of the Decent Habit of men and women in their public 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 reputes this practice. First, before he comes directly to it, he premiseth and s●●leth 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 Mediator is subordinate to God the Father, and man is next in dignity to Christ, and the woman to the man. Christ jesus is the Head to whom the Man is immediately subject, and aught to be Governed by: and though Christ be the Head of the Woman also, yet it is 
a Viro 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 man's Superiority over the Woman, which St 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 man's 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 shows his ●reedom and Dominion, by the other the Woman testifies her subjection, And here the Apostle lays open the Disorder and faultiness 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 Governor, they used a Custom which was contrary to it. It was This, the Women among them after the Heathenish way laid aside their Veils in public and religious Assemblies, and appeared with their naked heads: and the men took the women's Veils, and covered their heads and faces with them. The Un●itness and Unreasonableness of which practice (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 covered 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 uncovered is a sign 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 showing 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 shaved, which is most Indecorous and Shameful. Baldness or Shaving is Unnatural, and therefore Hateful in a Woman, for she should rather nourish her hair; of which afterwards. This may give some Light to that in Deut. 21. 11, 12. When thou seest among the Captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire to her, that thou ●ouldest have her to thy wi●e, than thou shalt 〈◊〉 her home to thy house, and she shall shave her head, and pair 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 raiment of her captivity, i. e. the Handsome Attire she was in when she was taken captive, and she must put on Mournful Sordid Apparel a full month, as you read in the next words. All which showeth that she was to be kept up in the man's house (who took her in war) in a Neglectful, yea Deformed plight, and that shaving her head was part of that Deformity: and consequently that this is Uncomely and Disgraceful, 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 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 shaved (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 Original 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 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 Administering and Subservient to Man: consequently she is not superior to him, but she is to behave herself 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 St Paul's Divinity, yet in the two next verses he doth a little moderate his discourse, and qualify what he had said in the 8th and 9th verses, to which this aught 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, v. 11, 12. Having thus salved his harsh doctrine, he proceeds to a new Topick, namely the Natural Congruity and Decency of the thing itself 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. men's praying with their heads covered, and Women, with theirs uncovered. judge in yourselves (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 itself 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 women's wearing their Hair. Expositors have exceedingly varied in their endeavours to Join these words with the former: many things very much Strained 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 Veiled or Covered, and Men Uncovered when they pray. To persuade 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 enjoins them: and This disalloweth of that which he forbids them. As if he had said, yourselves may in your own minds and consciences judge of the Decency of men's uncovering their heads when they pray, and of the contrary Indecency of this practice in Women. I have showed you that these are founded on the Appointment of Heaven, the Order of our Universal Governor, 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 you are endued with, suggests the observance of them. As now, because I am speaking of Covering or Uncovering 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 yourselves, and the Natural suggestions of your minds, you shall plainly discover what is your duty. Even nature itself 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 do 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 inquire 1. What is meant by Nature. 2. What is meant by having long hair, or rather what the Greek word, which is here so rendered, truly signifies.  
First, let us inquire 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 ourselves 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 Apostasy 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 man's breast. Thus the Gentiles do by nature the things contained 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 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Nature, 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 men's hearts as such. What is dictated by Right Reason or the Law of Nature may be said to be dictated by God Himself. Therefore St Chrysostom on this place faith, that 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Discrimination of the Sex, and what is suitable or disagreeable to this Discrimination. Nature here must needs signify 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, josephus, Philo, etc. Salmasius proves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Sexus: and answerably to this meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are understood in Diodorus Siculus, josephus 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 Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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; and again, what we Use ourselves to doth as it were become Natural to us; thence Custom is said to be a second Nature, yea, a 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Long and Inveterate Custom is stronger than Nature itself. 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 Belgic 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 itself teach you, that etc. 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 itself teach you, that etc. 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 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 rendered 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 meaning 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 long hair,] let us inquire 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 jews, secondly among the Gentiles. First, what was the Custom of the jews? Among them the Divine Law forbade the Priests to 
c Leu. 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 shunned 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 enjoined the Priests, and they were to be Examples 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 jewish 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 Learned 
f Bonfrerius, 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, 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 joined 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 joined together again in Deut. 14. 1. and in jer. 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 practice 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. jer. 7. 29. Mic. 7. 18. They would not have been called upon to Lament after this manner, if it had been sinful. So then, this Baldness or Tonsure at Funerals and other Sad Occasions was not unlawful among the jews, 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 Sepulchers of the dead, and devoting them to the departed souls, and such like practices 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 Extreme, viz. of indulging Uncut and Long Hair. And This is as evident as the other, for the practice of the Nazarites is a demonstration of it. These were a peculiar sort of Devotionists among the jews who suffered their hair to grow, and wore it Long, and put it in fillets, or knots and locks, as the women than did. Samson was 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 Absalon (who cut his hair the thirtieth day of his Vow,) and St 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 St Paul.) And such were the Nazarites spoken of in Acts 21. 23, 24. Yea Dr 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 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 persuaded 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 (though but for a time) proves that the wearing of Long Hair was not the common usage of the Jewish people. If it was peculiar to few, and that by Vow, than it was not the practice of the general body of the Nation. The Nazarites abstained 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 Generality 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 jews. 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 practice 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, job 1. 20. And this was so notorious that 
h In Thaliâ.  Herodotus testifies of them that they were clipped as Apollo was, in a round figure, they cut off all the angles about their temples. These are thought by some to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in jer. 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 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. cap. 36.  Herodotus acquaints us that the Egyptians (contrary to the jews) in the days of Mourning let their hair grow Long on their heads. The truth of which is confirmed to us by 
k Gen. 41. 14.  the Sacred Records, which tell us that joseph cut his hair when he was released from Prison, and was to go 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 Hieroglyphics, 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▪ so neither did their Priests; for the ●ore said Author relates that they were so far from this, that they were all of them Shave, But the Grecians make the greatest figure here, and therefore I will in the next place show 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 Lacedæmonians especially were noted for this. But if you would know how they came to alter their primitive usage, I am able to satisfy you by offering. These following things to your thoughts. 1. It was a Philosophic 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 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 loosely on their shoulders, another while they were shorn to the very Skin: and both these Extremes were the effects of Sordin●ess and Covetousness, and because they had a mind to spare Charges. Some of the Philosophers wore short hair on their Heads, but Long Beards. But the Cynics and Stoics 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 wonder th●● Mortals were induced to imitate the Gods. 3. They indulged a great Length of hair because they thought it Beautiful. This is a reason Eustathius gives of the Epithet in Homer before mentioned. It seems the Greeks very much affected Comeliness and Beauty, and they persuaded themselves that these were augmented by their Dangling Locks; hereupon they were very solicitous to nourish them. 4. Another Reason (which may be thought to be almost inconsistent with the former) was this, they did it to strike Terror into thei● Enemies. Thus particularly of the Lacedæmonians, 
l 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 disheveled, to fright their Enemies. Hence the forenamed Commentator on Homer, when he gives an account why the Grecian soldiers 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 show at once the Lustre and Terror, the Bravery and Dreadfulness of War. But however the Grecians thought and acted in, those ages when they became Corrupted, 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 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Soldiers 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 
n Iliad. ●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was partly put in practice 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 Soldiers shaved their heads, saith 
o In Theses.  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 Lacedæmonians the Freemen only did nourish their hair: whence that of Aristophanes, 
p In A●ibus.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou being but a servant wearest long hair, which is a very Unsitting thing in thee. Of these Spartans' 
q' 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 Badge 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, or Hercules, o● to the Nymphs, or the country Rivers where they were born, as 
r Hom. 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, as 
s Plutarch, 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 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were thus dedicated by them, and when they came to men's 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 testified their Mourning not only by Baldness, but by letting their hair grow Long. They imitated the contrary Customs of the jews 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 expressly witnessed by Plutarch, who saith that 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest Roman.  if any Calamity happened 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, 
u Lib. 1.  Herodotus assures us that in his days the Argives (the Ancientest 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 consult 
x De animal. sacr.  Bochart, who will supply him with a great many. Now from these Contraries and Extremes 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 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 than wore their hair Moderately, but by degrees, and for several pretended reasons (as hath been showed) 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 afraid of Shipwreck they shaved their heads, as appears from that of juvenal, 
Tuti stagna sinus gaudent ibi vertice raso,  
Garrula securi narrare pericula naut●.  Petronius Arbiter and others confirm this usage, and perhaps this is the meaning of St Paul's 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 to mankind, and consequently they looked upon the being Deprived of it as a Penal and Shameful thing. Accordingly Shaving the head was the hedge 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 clapped him up in prison (saith 
y In vitâ Apollon. l. 7.  Philostratus) he sent a barber thither to poll his head, and cut off his Philosophic beard. Hence it is that Lucian brings in a Philosopher in one of his Dialogues, and Charon cutting off his beard. The 
z Cyprian. 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 they 
a Vt ego ●odie raso capite calves' 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 Variety as to this among the Gentiles, which being not taken notice of hath occasioned Mistakes among some Critics. 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 looked on Hair as a great Decency and Ornament. But not withstanding this, I do not find that the better and more knowing Romans, were Excessive in the length of their hair. I grant that before they were Civilised, and taught to govern themselves in some tolerable manner, they neglected the cutting of their hair. 
b Dear 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 lopped their locks. The Pictures of the very Emperors (even the most effeminate of them) present them not immoderate 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 men's wearing their hair in respect of length or shortness. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the signification of Custom in this place, than you know what the Apostle referred to▪ viz. the practice 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 jews 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 were the more Barbarous Nations that offended as to this, as the Scythians, Goths and Vandals, etc. who perpetually wore their hair long: and so did the Ancient and Savage Britain's, as Caesar records. The like is observed of the Wild Irish by Giraldus. And concerning the Picts (who were the Old Barbarous and Northern Britain's) 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 Ancient Celtae, Galls, and Franks. And we read that among these Old Franks this custom prevailed so much, that with the Antie●● Kings of France, to be shaved was to be Deposed, or Disabled to reign. And Short Hair became Ignominious and Reproachful, as is manifest from that French Proverb, Il a perdu ses cheveux, he hath lopped his hair, i. e. his honour. Which arose hence, saith 
c His French Dictionary.  Mr Howel, that in the first race of French Kings there was a Law that the Nobles only should wear Long Hair (it was 〈◊〉 thing so prized that they engrossed 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 lafoy 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 disannulled as a Pag●●●● Constitution. But the people who were in any measure Masters of Civility and Hu●●anity, even among the Heathens, practised 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 adjoin what the usage of Others hath been since. Among the Turks all their Slaves are shaved, to show ho● Shameful and Vile a thing it is to be destitute of hair; but they likewise show 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 people 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 Ancient 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 Extremes 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 called Pogonatus, whilst others have so hated them, as if they were a kin to the Apostate julian who ●●iled himself Misopogan.) But as the Mahometans, who are a Grave so●t of people, do 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 Extremes 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. 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 practice 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 St Ambrose, Quam reverenda caesaries in senibus? quam veneranda in sacerdotibus? A Moderate head of hair was so far from being unblamable 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 Monastic Life, let their hair grow in an Extravagant manner. St Augustin calls the Monks of his time, whom he sharply inveighs against, 
d 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 by the way observe that the Ancient 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 show their bald crowns. Yea, their Monks now are shaved for the same reason that heretofore they let their hair grow to that excessive 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 Ancient Councils. 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 the 
f Cap. Vxcratûs.  latter Decrees say that a woman cannot be ordained, 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 Orders and Constitutions, and contrary to the Practice before mentioned, yet it is probable it was derived from some Other practice and custom of the Church in former days. And That, as I conceive, was this; the Ancient 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 Ancient but Contrary Practices which I have mentioned. Since suffering the Hair to grow very Long was a mark of Mortification among the Old monastics, and was reckoned such by some of the Benitents, who by their Cutting their hair at their Restitution to the Church showed 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 by some men as tokens of Renouncing the world, and acts of Religious Severity, it may be concluded from these Unusual and Extraordinary occurrences (as I said before in the like case) what was the Usual and Constant practice of the Christians in wearing their hair. These things which I have alleged are but Superstitious derivations from the Stated course they observed. Wherefore laying aside these Extremes, 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, Goths, 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 Country's, 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 Epoch of this Custom among Christians; and it is a sufficient Disparagement to it that it came in at the same time that Rudeness, Violence and Barbarity entered 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 show what effect this hath had. Though this evil usage, brought in by Savage people, prevailed 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 our 
g Matth. 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 ago, when we borrowed from France this evil practice, as we have done many others. If a Synod now should follow the example of that before mentioned, and show 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 Itself 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 than 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 Intrinsically Unlawful, and Sinful in Itself 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 intrinsic nature, and immutably sinful, it could not have been made otherwise by God himself, and consequently it could not have been enjoined 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 show 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 itself? This you may be satisfied in from what hath been said already. The Soberest part of the world every where (jews and Infidels, as well as Christians) wear not their hair at an Extravagant Length. What was the reason that the Stoics cut their hair so short (as hath been observed before?) It was no other than this, that they who were Immodest and 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 
h 〈◊〉.  Satirist of them, the hair of their head was shorter than that of their eyebrows. Hence their disciples are called 
i Pers●●s.  Detonsa juventus. Thus they did, because Short hair was looked upon as a sign of Modesty and Chastity, and was in use among those that were most Virtuous. 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 Apostle here in this Chapter, and even to the end of the 14th corrects the miscarriages of the corinthians in their public meetings, and then concludes all thus, 
k 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 itself teach you, etc. [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, than a person acts Decently or Fitly: but when these are not observed, he acts Vnbecomingly, and what he doth is Unseemly 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, 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch.  that none of the Judges of that Bench should be permitted to write Comedies. The reason was because it was Unseemly 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 man's life, as might be showed. 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 Unseemly, Incongruous, Uncomely, because it is not suitable to the state and condition of Men, who ought to do things agreeable to their Rank and Quality, who ought to show 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 incline 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 cannot be more useful in any case then in the wearing of Habits, and of Hair. These aught 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 Useful 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 Ancientest persons among them, and therefore was fittest for Christians, especially for Priests; and it was at that time generally made use of by 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 men's 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 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 Unmanly 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 Woman's 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 Gore sinister are signs there of Cowardice and Womanish disposition.  
Fifthly, it might be added that so far as Long Hair may prove Incommodious 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 possess these men's 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 Warriors, they would then certainly feel the mischief of this Encumbrance 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 do nothing that is Shameful and Opprobious, Disgraceful and Dishonourable; but such is a man's having of Long Hair. It is, saith the Apostle, a 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 shows this rendering 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 Unnatural: which leads me to the next Particular which I propounded. But before I enter upon That, I will sum 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 Learned 
m De 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 Extreme: the other is maintained by Poimenander, who looks upon this Text as a kind of Depilatory Text. So far is this Dutch Divine from approving of Salmasius' Long Locks, that he will not suffer a man's hair to reach any further than 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 Clipped and Polled 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 itself in some measure, especially if it be reduced to that Low Cut which was mentioned before. Here than we are concerned to avoid Extremes 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 jew in his days of Mourning with his hair torn off, like a Cropped Synick, or like a Shave Monk. But there is a Decent Medium to be preferred 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 Controversy 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 Quarrelsome, 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.  
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 badge 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 Emperor (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 forbade 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, Leu. 19 27. This latter, viz. the spoiling of the angles of the Beard by 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 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 sum 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 shamefacedness proper to them, as the consequent of the Subjection they owe, which is to be showed 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 so vice versâ. It must needs then be a shame to a Man to have hair of the Length which a Woman hath: for than he is truly travesty, dressed in another's Clothes, (which is the import of that French word,) and for which he may be justly Ridiculed. 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 Disgraceful. 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 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 than 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 wear their hair at Length, though it was Long, for they tied it up, and to this purpose made use of fillets, laces, ribbons. 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 Ancientest Writers. From them we may learn that all the Greek and Roman▪ yea and all European women bound up their hair in a handsome manner. It is true, at Funerals, and when Extraordinary Grief surprised 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 disheveled. 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 fantastic Top-knot of their own hair is taken notice of and reproved by St Paul in 1 Tim. 2. 9 where he tells us that the Christian women must not be adorned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate [with broidered 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 called Corymbus. This you may satisfy yourselves 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 signify 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 guests what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are, in the more comprehensive sense of the word. We render it (as I have said) by [broidered hair,] but I conjecture the word is falsely 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 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 [Broidered] was mistake 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 St 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 Uncut, 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 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 Grammar and Criticism. And accordingly some of them derive it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curare, colere, ●rnare, to take care of, trim, deck, adorn. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is women's hair properly, because it requires great Care and Art to keep it, dress it, and tie it up. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be careful 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 show 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 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 Disheveled is no Glory, no Ornament, no Honour, 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 solely, for that was no Comeliness or Decorum, much less, Glory to the Greek or Roman, or any European women▪ but on the contrary, it was thought Indecent, and was a sign of Neglect●u●ness and Squalidity, and therefore used in case of great Mourning and Lamentation. Secondly, in this same verse it is said that the woman's hair is given her, 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro velamine.  for a Covering. Hence than 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 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 fastened 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 public Assemblies, and are engaged 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 with their heads uncovered is even all one as if they were shaved: and accordingly he adds, If a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. Nature doth as it were show 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 gathered 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 wrapped 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 woman's Natural Veil or Covering for her head, and given her to that purpose. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is her proper Ornament, and is even styled by the Apostle, her Glory, as hath been often said. But this, as lawful as it is 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 show how Nature teacheth that a Man ought not to wear his hair after this manner. And here we will take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Triple 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 unpolled, 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 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 Curled 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 station comas. 
o Sat. 8.  juvenal corrects the pride of the Roman Gallants in wearing their hair finely dressed: and 
p Lib. 2. Ode 5.  Horace lashes them for 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 busy 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 the 
q Lib. 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 Christian Men. And this further appears from that Ancient Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage, Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam, which was made against the Massaliani, a sort of Heretics then in Africa who indulged an Effeminate wearing of their Hair, of whom likewise 
r H●res. 80.  Epiphanius and St 
s De opere 〈◊〉. cap▪ 31.  Augustin speak. But though this Vi●ious practice spread itself 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 Counsels, 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 Practices or Customs on foot at that time, one of the Rude and Debauched part of the world, the other of the Better and Civilised fort of people▪ now, we cannot think that the Apostle appeals here to the Custom of the former, 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 practice 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 itself, i. e. the dictate of Natural Reason, Nature's 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 dictates against Adorned Hair in men on the same accounts that it was against their Long Hair, viz. because it is Indecent, because it is of no Good Report, because it is subservient to Pride and Wantonness, because it is contrary to the Practice of those who are most guided by the conduct of Reason, etc. 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 
t Ps. 96. 10 & 110▪ 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Beauty or Comeliness 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 7th 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 Roman Orator is true, 
u 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 joins Godliness and Honesty together in 1 Tim. 2. 2. the latter word in the 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek may denote that Grave and Decent deportment of life which I am speaking of▪ Religion regards Civility, Christianity concerns itself in a Sober, Decent, and Orderly carriage, in a Modest and Reverend 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 and 
y F●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 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 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 trained 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 encroach on the other, and usurp the rights and usages proper to it. As (to approach 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 jews 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 the Reason of this Law saith, The Mosaic Law takes care of the Habit of man and woman, forbidding the former to wear what belongs to the other, 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De F●rtiludine.  that not the least footstep or shadow of Effeminacy might disparage the Masculine kind. And again, he saith, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  The Man ought to wear no Garment that is a badge of Unmanliness. For (as he adds) 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  the Law follows Nature, and observes and enjoins 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 told 
c Stobaeus i● Serm. 164.  that when Aristotle beheld a yc●th finely tricked 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 thyself a Woman? The Poets indeed acquaint us that Hercules for Omphale's fake put on woman's apparel, and spun, using the Distaff instead of his Club: and Achilles, to avoid the wars, disguised himself in a Female dress. This was indulged as a Shift for a time; But no men of Sober Morals among the Gentiles allowed of this Change of Habit as an usual practice. Seneca represents their sense when he speaks thus to his friend, 
d 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 defy its Laws. The Poet who said, 
Quem praestare potest mulier galeata pudorem,  
Quae fugit à sexu?  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 jews 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 Council of Gangra that a woman is not to wear m●ns clothes, nor a man the woman's. 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 that a Fitting and Distinct Dress is a good guard of Honesty, is serviceable to promote Modesty and shamefacedness, 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 manifested 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 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 Moralised 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, 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, engaged to observe this very thing. On this consideration 
e De 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 men's being uncovered, to denote their Superiority, and the women's 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 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 women's 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 St 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, etc. 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Ancient Father on the like occasion saith, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Ale ●and. Paedag●g. l. 2.  To 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 itself (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 Usage 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 women's 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 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 show 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 Uncovering the head as it was used in Divine Worship, yet, to show 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 jews and other Eastern people. As for the Common and Civil usage among them they seldom were Bareheaded in public. And the mode used in Civil conversation gave the rule also for Religious Worship. The jews went always with their heads covered, and so continued even at Divine Worship: and most of the Eastern people did the like. The jews of old, both Priests that sacrificed, and People that were present, had their heads covered. Not only women but men hid their heads and faces with a Veil when they prayed, as the Learned 
h Harmony of the N. Test. 1 Corinth. 11.  Dr Lightfoot hath proved. The Hebrew Doctors who tell us that they came in this posture into the Temple, and there remained 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 heretofore, 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. jer. 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' 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 jews, 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 jews used. Their Priests had a Particular Covering for their heads, which is called Migbanoth, Ex. 29. 9 Leu. 8. 13. Exod. 28. 40. and sometimes, Zaniph, Zech. 3. 5. which are rendered 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 Turban, which I gather from Ex. 39 28. where 'tis expressly said that it was made of fine linen, and from Ex. 29. 9 & Leu. 8. 13. where 'tis said it was bound upon their heads. Besides, the verb Zanaph, circumvolvere, circumligare, whence Zamph comes, shows that this was a Cove●ing that was rolled and tied about the head. And as for the 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 Elizabeth's reign. It is most probable that this was a sort of Turbans, and that the jews 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 pulled off with ease, and so it was not a custom to show Respect to their Superiors 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 Bareheaded. They had another way of showing Reverence and Respect to God and men, viz. by Bowing; which prevailed with all other Oriental people genrally. They showed also their Respect and Obeisance by bearing their feet. Hence Moses put off his shoes: instead of Uncovering 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. show 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 Ancient Eastern people in those Countries,) these (I say,) as well as the Persians, wearing Turbans (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 uncovered to Men, they will not be so to God. They perform their Religious Worship with their Turbans 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 jews and other Eastern Nations.  
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 enured to sharp erterprises 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 dogskin hats: nor was it a frequent custom to veil 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 appeared in another posture at their public Devotions. Besides, the Temples or Places consecrated to the Gods were 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. Whilst 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 bareheaded. Yea, 
i Sueton. in Jul. Caes.  Iul●us Caesar reckoned it the Greatest favour and honour that could be done him by the people, that they bestowed 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, Suetonius, Ovid, Horace, Sallust, 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 Traveled their heads were covered against the injury of the weather. Although generally when ●hey went abroad they were bareheaded, 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 Medals present their Commanders and Soldiers bareheaded: 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 Wether required it, as in Rain, Snow, Hail, great Winds, or when the Sun beat on them extraordinarily, they took part of their Gown, and clapped it on their heads: but that was no formal Covering. So 7 lie, when they Mourned, they covered their heads. 8 lie, 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 employed about Religious Worship, they were not Bareheaded but Covered. And yet though they generally worshipped their Gods with Veiled heads, I know not how it came to pass, but so it was, they worshipped 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 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 Worshipped the Gods, viz. 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Virgil's third Aeneid, that the Italians covered their heads in time of Worship, of Sacrificing especially. Nothing is more acknowledged by the Learned then that the Romans covered their heads in their Temples, and at their Religious Service, as the jews did; whom they imitated also in Veiling themselves in time of Mourning. And from the custom of having their heads covered when they Worshipped and when they Mourned, we may infer that they used the Contrary practice at other times, and consequently that they went with Bareheads. Here I might remark that (contrary to the custom of the jews and all Eastern people) Uncovering the head to Magistrates and Superiors as they passed by was used by the Ancient Romans as a token of Respect and Honour. This was an usage for a time, as Varro and Plautarch testify: 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 appeared in this posture. Though after this Another Custom prevailed, and in a short time Uncovering 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 go Bareheaded, and their heads are as hard as blocks. This being their custom, no wonder that these Blockheads are Uncovered 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 enjoins 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 men's praying with the head uncovered, from the jews 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 ideas a Decent and Reverend Observance? I answer, St Paul writing to the Grecians (for so the Corinthians were) followed the Grecian custom, among whom it was usual to be Bareheaded 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 badge of Inferiority and Subjection, that it was rather a token of Honour 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, nay 
l 2 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 men's Uncovering 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 fashions 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 enjoin 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 practice which the Apostle here urgeth is founded even on a Civil Custom which obtained 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 testify 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 prevailed in the Roman and jewish Worship be made use of in the Christian one. For it is reasonable to think that the Apostle here rebukes the Custom of the Corinthians about the men's being Covered, because it was borrowed from the Roman Idolaters and from the jews. 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 Covered and Veiled 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 jews, who without any Prescription and Order from God wrapped up their heads in Veils when they were at their Public 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 would not suffer them to ape the jewish people in this kind of Hoodwinked Devotion. For These Reasons and for Others suggested in this Chapter, St Pawles will is that the Corinthian Men, who were Converts and Saints, should be Bareheaded in their Religious Assemblies And from St 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 Uncovering 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 adjoin a few words 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 employed in Religious Worship. The Covering or Veiling the head among that Sex is no New thing. It was an ancient 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 jacob 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 joined the man and woman in marriage used to Cover the head of the bride with the end of the linen which hung down from the bridegrooms neck. To which they say Ruth referred when she spoke to Boaz to spre●d his Skirt (the end of his garment) ●-ver her, Ruth 3. 9 And hence Marriage itself is called Chuppah, from Chippah, to cover. The jewish women generally after they were married used a Veil; they went covered with this into the Temple and Synagogues, and they wore it wherever they appeared publicly. As for the women among the Romans, it is well Known that Nubere, 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 Woman's being sub potest a●e viri (as they speak,) under the power of her husband. A woman, when she marries, puts herself into a state of Subjection, and this without doubt was signified heretofore by the Veiling her. Thus it was among the jews 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 show 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 concenning men's Uncovering their heads) is taken from the Civil usage among Women at that time (not excluding) the Other Reasons assigned by the Apostle in this Chapter on which he grounds this practice.) All modest and honest Matron's, Wives, and even Virgins wore certain Veils: or Cover on their heads, and they never used to appear publicly 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 show 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 unfitting to come. Unvelled and Uncovered into the Public Congregation. Hence he enjoins 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 Prayed and Preached publicly (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, and would needs have their Faces seen as well as their Voices heard. The Apostle soon took notice of this bold disorder, and here enjoins them (together with all other women) a modest Veil, or rather he doth but bid them practise the known Custom used by that Sex. This Injunction without doubt was observeed by all the Faithful women; and we may inform ourselves 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 Emperor Decius' 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 Bareheaded, for which they gave This Reason, 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cedrens. 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 Choice for which that Sex is smartly reprehended by Tertullian, in his piece de Velandis Virginibus: where his main endeavour is to prove that Virgins as well as Married Women were to be Veiled 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 women's behaviour in the Churches did not only oblige the Women of that time, but is obligatory to this very day. All Christian women are engaged by virtue 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 jews and the Turks meet apart from the Men when they pray in public: 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 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 show 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 ancient practice of their Sex, observe the Apostles Injunction though not for that one Particular Reason which he mentions, viz. to testify Subjection to their husbands. Suppose that be Obsolete, and Antiquated 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 an unseemly behaviour, the extraordinary Modesty as well as Reverence which they are obliged to express whiles they are concerned in the Worship of God, the deep sense of their being observed 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 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Public 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 Governors of the Church, the Prophets that Prophesied in the Congregation, and they think that St 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) that 
o Harmony of the N. Test.  women must not expose their faces in the public congregation lest the Devil make a bait of their beauty, and thereby in't angle the hearts and eyes of the men. Lastly, I could offer a conjecture of my own, viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a mistake of the Transcribers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because 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 Faithful for no other end, therefore let them not dare to show 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 Work 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 enjoins the women to cover their heads because of the Angels, he proceeds 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 women's modest behaviour in the Congregation because of these Angels. As if the Apostle had said, If Men be disregarded 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 sum 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 to the Institution of God and the Dictates of Reason. But especially the latter of these practices is confuted 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.   

The third TEXT Enquired into, viz. 1 Corinth. XV. 29. Else what shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they also baptised for the dead? Or thus, Moreover, what shall they do that are baptised for the sake of the dead, if the dead are not raised at all? why are they even (or therefore) baptised for the sake of the dead?  
IF I should say of these words as St 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 St Paul's Epistles which St Peter tells us are 
a 2 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 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 Church, But whether St 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 easy 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 Surprising 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 attain to this Resurrection and 〈◊〉 of the dead in this Chapter. Give me leave to present you with a Brief Account of their Several Endeavours 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 Controversy, 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 Grammar 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 Baptising or Washing will engage me most of all in This Discourse, and That is threefold, 1. Sacramental, which is no other than that Holy Ordinance of Christ's 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 jews as often as they were defiled by touching the dead: and this was done either in their own persons, or by another 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 Baptising. 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 Clinics, those who lay on their sick beds, and receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Fifthly, others understand it of Baptising over the dead, over the Tombs of the Deceased Martyrs. Sixthly, there are some who think it is meant of Baptising in the place and stead of the dead. Seventhly, there is a Learned man who thinks it is spoken of an Annual Baptising for the benefit of the dead. Eightly, Another conceveth in refers to Baptising with the imposition of the names of the dead. Lastly, there is a Learned Critic who dissents from all the forenamed Opinions, and is persuaded 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 Baptised Christians, who by this very Sacrament professed to the world that they were Spiritually dead. So that to be baptised for the dead is as much as to be reputed as dead persons when they were baptised, 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 publicly 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 some 
b St Ierom, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius.  Ancient Fathers: with whom agree a few of the 
c Melanchton, Cajetan, etc.  Moderns, amongst whom a 
d Philip. à Limborch Theolog. Christian. l. 6. c. 10.  Late Writer expresses his sense thus, Baptised for the dead are they who when they are baptised declare that they are ready to Die to 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 baptised for the dead, of those that are spiritually dead, because it is generally advised by all Sober Interpreters of Scripture, that we should not fly 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 itself 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, than who will think there is any Consequence in the Apostles Reasoning, whilst he argueth from a Spiritual 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 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 espouse this Second: for they thought fit to join both these together, viz. the Spiritual and the Bodily Death, asserting that the Representation or Resemblance of both was intended here by the Apostle. 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 signify the Death of Christ, and their Coming out denoted 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 styled by St Chrysostom 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 tenor 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 baptised into Christ were baptised 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, 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 Style, or Mode of speech, not the same Significancy and Real Matter couched in both these places which wrought 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 baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dead, signifies to be baptised 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 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 than 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 signify 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 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 administered of old) were Representative of the Death and Resurrection both of Christ and Believers: but that St Paul's 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 rendered [for the dead] not [for dead.]  
3. The next interpretation is that of St Chrysostom, (for you must know it is usual with Him to adjoin one Opinion to another, as here he thinks fit to add This which I am now mentioning, to those other two which I named before) and he is followed by Theophylact and O●cumenius, and they by Hemmingius and our Learned Hammond. The baptised for the dead, say they, were those who were baptised upon● the Article of the Resurrection of the dead, and consequently in hope of that Resurrection. 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 baptised 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, 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Not. in 18 Can. Concil. Carthag.  What shall they do that are baptised in the hope of the resurrection of the dead? Which answers to the exposition of Theophylact, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In l●cum.  What shall they do who are baptised on the Expectation of the deads' rising again? But 1. though it be universally acknowledged that soon after the Apostle's time, a Public Profession of the Creed was required of those that presented themselves to be Baptised, 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 the Rehearsal of the Creed. 2 lie, 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 than it should rather have been said, What shall they do that are baptised for those that are Risen from the dead, not barely, for the dead? Nay 3 lie, who sees not yet farther a Greater Impropriety and Harshness in the Apostle's way of speaking, if to be baptised for the dead must be interpreted thus, to be baptised 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 St Chrysostoms' Gloss on the words, 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as St Chrysost▪ would have it. Nay 4 lie, 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 Baptising here in the Sacramentalsense, and hold that the baptised for the dead were those persons who had That Sacrament administered to them when they were close upon the confines of death, and just expiring their last. This Exposition is abetted by Calvin. The baptised for the dead, saith he, are they who are baptised when they are Dying, 
i Qui jam mortui censeantur, & qui de vitâ ●mnino desperaverint.  when they are given over, and looked upon as dead. And so the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as the Latin pro, as when they say, habere pro derelieto. 
k 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 Book 
l H●res. 28.  against Heretics, who acquaints us that when it so chanced that the Catachumeni or New Comers to Christianity were overtaken with some Mortal distemper, and there was an utter Despair of their Living till they could be brought to the Sacred Font, they used to be baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they lay in their Beds: and from that usage of theirs the Clinici or Bedridden took their Name. For you must know that it was usual with those that were converted to Christianity to defer their Baptism. Perhaps (say some) at first it proceeded from fear and cowardice, 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 baptised before they left the world. This was one sort of Clinics. But there was a second sert who deferred their Baptism on other accounts: These were no New Converts, but such as had embraced Christianity a considerable time; yet they purposely deferred their Baptism on one pretended ground or other. Thus Constantine the Great was not baptised till the 
m Socrat. 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 
n De vit. Constant. l. 4. c 61.  Eusebius testifies) that he delayed his Baptism because he intended to be Baptised in the River jordan, the place which was so famous for the fi●st Baptising, and where our Saviour himself was baptised ●ut he was hindered from going thither, (though I see no Cause of that hindrance in so many years,) and being Aged he fell sick, and was Baptised 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 Baptised. I know this is Contradicted, and it is said he was not baptised 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●om 
o Damas' 〈◊〉. Pontif  one of the Roman Bishops, who wrote Sylvesters Life, and asserts that He baptised Constantine telling us withal that this Emperor, among other Admirable Ornaments and Utensils, kept in his Palace the Font wherein he was baptised▪ and describes the Make and Costliness of it. 
p Dr Burnet's Travels.  It seems it is since translated or thought to be translated to Rome, and there is kept as a Choice Memorial And as for the Occasion of Constantine's being Baptised, they tell us it was This, he being guilty of his son Crispus' blood and other unnatural murders, was struck by God with Leprosy, which Affected him so much that he applied himself to the Bishop, and showed 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 baptised 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, but 
q Constantine's Life, book 4. ●h. 61, 62.  tells us that he was baptised 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 St jerom, St Ambrose, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and others, and seems to be the True Account of the Emperor's Baptism. To hasten then out of this Digression, this Example of Constantine's deferring his Baptism was followed by several other succeeding Emperors. Thus his son Constantius 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. de Syn. Arimini & Seleuc.  was baptised at the point of Death: Theodosius the Great falling sick was thereupon baptised, and Recovered upon it: but he had deferred his Baptism longer 
s Socrat. l. 5. c. 25.  if his sickness had not hastened it. The next 
t Oros. l. 7. c. 33.  Theodosius was not baptised till he was very old. Ecclesiastical History acquaints us also that the Emperor Valentini●n put off his Baptism, that he might receive that Sacrament from St Ambrose, but he was prevented by death. We read the same of some of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church: St jerom and St Ambrose were not baptised 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 baptised by the foresaid St Ambrose the famous Bishop of Milan. Thus it was also in the Greek Church: some of the most Eminent persons (besides the Emperors before spoken of) deferred their Baptism till they came to some ripeness of years. Thus Chrysostom, though born of and bred up under a Christian Mother, and Gregory Nazianzen born of Christian Parents, were not baptised till they arrived to be Men. Nectarius, Archbishop of Constantinople, entered into Episcopal Orders before he was baptised. Now, there are Different, yea Contrary Reasons alleged for this practice: 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 alleging This in his favour, that he was not yet Baptised. They did it also that they might not sin after the celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism, for S Cyprian tells us they had This fond and groundless notion, that there was no Pardon for those that relapsed into sin after Baptism. 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. 
u Orat. de baptismum differentibus.  Gregory Nyssen hath a whole Oration against it, and 
x Orat. 40 de Baptismo.  Gregory Nazianzen and 
y Hom. 1 & 23 in Act. Apost.  Chrysostom inveigh against it very zealously. So St Augustin (whose parents delayed his Baptism on purpose, because they feared the Young man's Relapse into his former vices) 
z Serm. 97. de Temp.  complains of This Abuse in the Church, which prevailed 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, than 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 called 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 Ancients. This was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 
a Orat. de baptism. differentib.  Gregory Nyssen, because they desired to be Baptised and to Die at once. Of these speak 
b Epist. 7 ad Magnum.  St Cyprian, 
c 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 Deathbeds, 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 Clinics who were newly converted from Paganism is here meant, because in those first days Fear and Faint-heartedness 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 publicly maintain the Faith they had espoused: yea, they gloried in their sufferings for the Cause of Christ, and rejoiced in their persecutions for it, as the Acts of the Apostles assure us. It is not likely therefore that These deferred their being baptised 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 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 forementioned Custom of the believers requesting baptism in the very close of their lives prevailed 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 Gloss on the words can have but a slender foundation. Or 3 lie, say that such an Use obtained even in the Apostles days, yet will not St Paul's Argument have any force at all by relating unto That▪ For thus it must proceed, What shall the baptised Clinics do if the dead rise not at all? why are they also baptised 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 answered, 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 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, Christ's 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 happiness of their Souls, though their Bodies were unconcerned. But 4 lie, to say no more, This Interpretation of the words is faulty in the same kind that the two former were, that is, it is irreconcilable 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 baptised for the dead, and to be baptised 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 is countenanced by the Authority of Luther, Piscator, and the Admirable Vossius in his Thesis concerning the Resurrection. They will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over the dead, i. e over the dead corpse as they lay in the Coemeteries or Bu●ying places: or over the dead, i. e. upon the Tombs, and over the Sepulchers of the newly deceased Martyrs, which were called Memoriae Martyrum, and so the words refer to the Custom of baptising persons over the dead Martyrs graves or tombs. Here first, I shall grant that according to the Syriack it is rendered super mortuos, upon, above, or over the dead. Secondly, I grant that the Innocent Commemorations of the Holy Martyrs, even at the Time of administering 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 Easy 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 Preposition in the Text frequently signifies over or above, and that with a Genitive case, when it is applied to a place, yet it may be questioned whether it hath the same signification when it is joined with persons, as here: for though the baptising 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 St Paul. Again, if this Ceremony of administering 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 that 
d john 3 28.  jordan and 
e john ● 23.  Aenon, not Churchyards and Vaults, but Rivers were made use of for Baptising: although it is true Ecclesiastical History relates that in After-Ages the Fonts and the Graves were together, the Baptisteria and the Martyr's Tombs were close to one another: But that they were so at First, and that the Memoriae M●rtyrum, so often spoken of in St Cyprian, and St 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 applied 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 show 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 some 
f Justellus (ad Can. 12. Council. Necessary.) 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 entreated to be baptised for them, i. e. in their stead▪ and the persons that were deceased, though unbaptised, were reputed to be baptised, because they were so in their Representatives. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vice vel loco mortuorum, in the room and place of the dead. And that the Preposition 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 soldiers enroled 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 Preposition signifies a Substitution, a putting one person in the place of another, as 
g De 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 Critic saith concerning This Interpretation, vice mortuorum, viz. 
h 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 
i De Resurrect. carn. 〈◊〉. 48. & 〈◊〉. Mareion. l. 5. c. 10.  Tertullian imputes it to the Marcionites, and so doth Chrysostom, but 
k H●res. ●8.  Epiphanius relates it as an Heresy of the Cerinthians,) yet neither of these Fathers acquaint us that it obtained in the days when St 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 St Paul, the Great Master of Logic and Discourse, would argue from a thing so Obscure and Apocryphal, and not openly received at that time, especially in a Catholic Epistle, directed not only to the Corinthian Church, but unto all that in every place call upon the name of jesus 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 Heretics? If there were such a thing as a Posthumous Baptism (if I may so call it,) a Representative Washing, Vicarium Baptisma, as Tertullian styles it, a Sacrament by a Proxy or Deputy, even when the party most concerned 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 designed 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 Heretics? Would the Apostle proceed upon the Errors of others? This would be no Simple and Absolute Proof, but 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 men's Praying Veiled, and of the women's Praying unveiled in the Public 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? St Chrysostom in his Homily on This 15th Chap. of the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians, relates the manner of this Absurd practice of those Heretics, 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 Baptised: whereupon he that was under the bed made Answer for the dead, and desired Baptism, and him they immediately baptised in the place of the dead. This the Good Father relates there at large, but he tells his Auditors before hand, that 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he knows he shall in rehearsing the Antic Custom of those Heretics move them to no little laughter, it being a piece of mere Mockery, an Histrionical Sacrament, a Ludicrous Profanation of Baptism, for those Ridiculous Sectaries (as he expresses it) did but 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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? St Paul needed not to have sought for Aides from falsehood and Error, when the Truth itself 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 baptised only for Others: but than it cannot be denied that at the same time they were really Baptised 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 Learned 
n Not. in N. T.  joseph Scaliger, according to whom the baptised for the dead, are those who are baptised 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 than This, that the Apostle here in mentioning the susception of Baptism for the dead, points at some Pious Office of Bathing or Baptising the dead, or being Baptised for them in order to the Refreshment of their souls. The rise of it, he saith, was This, that the Ancients thought the souls of the dead were Imprisoned in the earth till the day of Judgement, which he labours to prove out of Tertullian, Augustin, and Lactantius: and from That Error, saith this Great man, was propagated the doctrine of Christ's 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 Prayed, and made Oblations for them, and they were willing to do Any thing, that their departed friends might far 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, as 
o C●ntr. Martion. 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 
p Disputat. 17. de Baptismo.  Vossius also testifies of the Ethiopian Christians. And Scaliger explains This Custom yet further out of Lactantius and St 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 Critic would prove that the Practice, from which the Argument in the Text is drawn, was no ways Good and Laudable, though the Argument itself 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 quickened 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 shameful 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 err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Mat. 22. 29. And as for the use of that Officious Baptising 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 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 persuade ourselves 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 St Paul, and That of St Peter in his 1 Epist. 3d d Chap. and 19th v. (of which we shall next speak,) with other places of Sacred Writ, have been forcibly drawn by perverse men to patronise the Gainful 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, baptised for the dead, to free their friends 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 baptised for the Benefit of the dead. For the Annual Baptising on a certain day, which he allegeth for his purpose, argues no such thing. It was done only in remembrance and reverence of Christ's Baptism, which was performed by St john on the Calends of February, according to some, or on the Epiphany, according to others. That day is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Ancients, either because of john Baptist the Forerunner, the True Evangelical Phosphorus, or because 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 6. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that consults the Ancients shall find that they generally assert Christ was Born and Baptised on the same day of the year, which they think they prove from Luke 3. 23. This day being, according to their opinion, so signalised by our Saviour's 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 Baptism on that day. And for this reason some of the Abissine christian's (whom Scaliger calls the Ethiopian Church) yearly Baptise 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 Baptising for the benefit of the dead? No assuredly. I am ready to grant also, that Baptising 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 3d d Council of Carthage, and the 83 of the Council of Trullo, in which you find a Prohibition against that administering the Eucharist and Baptism to the bodies of the deceased. And the above named 
r Balsamon & Zonar as.  Canonists in their Comments on the 18th Canon of Carthage, acquaint us with the Ground of this Baptising the dead, and likewise of the Baptising the living in the room of the dead, namely, upon the Misunderstanding these words of the Apostle, What shall they do that are baptised for the dead? The jews it seems had the like Superstitious opinion and practice as to Circumcision; for 
s Sy●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 solemnised a Marriage between the parties after death. Such a piece of Folly was the Baptising 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 Unprejudiced man may see that there is not the least foundation in the words for such a Practice: for it is impossible to make These two one, Baptising the dead, or baptising persons when they are dead, and being Baptised 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, saith 
t In Exercitat. Sacr. in locum.  H●insi●s (who is the only Expositor 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 styles them) were first derived from the jews 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 Naming of S● john 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 excelled an virtue 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 seemed to Survive in those that bore their Names. These were said to be Baptised for the dead, i. e. (saith that Learned Critic,) in gratiam & memoriam mortuorum. They might justly be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to raise up the Name of the dead, as those were said to do among the jews, who being next of kin married the widow of the deceased. The Apostle than is thought by Him to refer to That giving of the Names of the dead to those that were Baptised, 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 Baptised 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 Soul's 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 fond do they act who are thus baptised themselves, or baptise others in Memory of the Dead, if they believe 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 Baptising, 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 than 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.  
9 In the next place I will propound the Opinion of that late Learned Critic 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 baptised for the dead, is to be baptised 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 Synecdoche, or Enallage numeri (call it as you please) is frequent in the Sacred Style, 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 shows he means it in the true proper sense. For it were tolerable to put the Plural for the Singular once, but to repeat 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 satisfy ourselves very well with the Propriety of speech, we have no reason to fancy Improprieties, and then to fly to that meaning which is contained 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 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 Baptising 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 styled 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 corpse before their Interment, and what St Luke tells us of Tabytha, 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 before they laid 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 signify? to what end is it? why are all nations solicitous about the liveless carcase? to what tends all this care of theirs if the body shall not experience the happiness of a Restauration? The Reply to this is easy, 1. The notion of baptising according to this interpretation, is forced and distorted, for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may and doth signify 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 dead, to show that their Souls were cleansed from sin by Confession and Penance. 3. This Funeral Washing was in use among the jews 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 from 
u Quod 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 seemed to be dead were only benumbed, they might be revived and roused 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 cleared the Skin of its pollution, and then made use of their Perfumed Ointments. Virgil giving account of Misenus' Funeral Obsequies, takes notice of this practice, 

x Aeneid. 6.  Post calidos latices, & ahena undantia flammis  
Expediunt, corpusque lavant frigentis, & ungunt.  And Ennius doth the like, speaking of deceased Tarquin, Tarquinii corpus bona faemina lavit & unxit. And 
y Iliud 9  Homer describes Patroclus' funerals after the same manner. And by the by, I might insert that it is probable they Washed our Saviour's body, seeing we read that 
z Mark 16. 1.  Mary Magdalen and other women Anointed it after his death, as did also 
a Io●n 19 38, 39, 40.  joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. 
b Homil. 84. in johan.  St Chrysostom is Positive that Christ's body was Washed after he was taken down from the Cross. Thus jews 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 myself, 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 only 
c Poslq●am peperit, pueros lavare jussit. In Amphitr●on,  Plautus, but several Others take notice of it, and the very Sacred Records expressly mention it, 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 Entering into the world, and their Leaving it had the like 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, than 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 Criticising 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 any Affinity between the one and the other. Therefore this Sepulchral Washing aught to be dissallowed here; Grammar 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 fond) of opinion that the words refer to a Legal and Ceremonious Washing used among the jews after their touching of a dead body, or going into the Sepulchers, 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 Apocryphal Author, in Eccles. 34. 25. Nay St Mark applies the word in this sense, Mark 7. 4. Except they wash (or be baptised) they eat not. And the Arabic Version of the Text seems to favour thi● opinion, which renders it thus, 
e Quid facient qui propersonis mortuis baptizantur?  What shall they do that are baptised because of the dead persons, viz. whom they have Touched, and so Polluted themselves? 
f In Cipp. Hebrai●.  Hottinger therefore understands the Apostle of this Ceremonial Baptism of the Old Testament (as he calls it) which he saith was instituted to remind the Israelites of the Resurrection of the dead. But I do not find that he hath gained any considerable Proselytes to his opinion, it being so sorrily contrived, and having so little reason to rely upon. For to be baptised 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 Mosaic Washing hath no Grammar, so neither hath it any Logic 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 Jesuit, who will needs have this baptising 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 jews, 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 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 Resurrection 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 Baptising means any other then Sacramental Baptism; Thirdly, any man may guests that the Jesuit chiefly designed this Exposition for the sake of his so much admired doctrine of Pargatory.  
And for that end have Others of the Church of Rome fastened 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 Baptising 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 Washing, is meant Affliction or Suffering, in Mat. 20. 23. therefore the persons who are said to be baptised for the dead, are such Kind souls who, to do the dead a courtesy, undergo all sorts of Afflictions and Hardships. As if St 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 baptise themselves as 'twere in their Sweat and Tears, and bathe themselves in their own Blood 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 Fast? Why do they undergo the Baptism of Penance 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 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 baptised or afflicted for the dead? Certainly this Baptising will mitigate the flames of Purgatory, and enable the distressed Prisoners to get loose the sooner out of that Painful 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 Almsdeeds, among Afflictions and Sufferings and Punishments. This is a doctrine which no Divines but themselves ever taught. 2. Let it be remembered that although Penances for the dead were in use among the Pagans, yet God's 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 jews? 3. Any man may see that This is a plain fetch to establish That Doctrine which hath brought the Church of Rome so much Profit, and therefore must be maintained right or wrong. 4. Whereas they say the end of these Services and Undertake of the living for the Dead is that the Souls detained in Purgatory may be released; I reply that this is fond 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 Mystical notion of being Baptised, is but seldom used in the Style of Scripture, and then (one place of St Luke excepted) it hath an Explanation added after it, as 
g Thes. 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 Dr Lightfoot, who is the only Protestant of any note▪ except Vostius, who interprets this place of the Metaphorical Baptism, the Baptism of Suffering. What shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead etc. is as much, saith he, as if the Apostle had said, 
h Harmony of the N. Test.  If the dead rise not again, what will become of those that are baptised with a Martyrial Baptism, or that do suffer Death for the profession of the Truth: And he adds, to confirm this Interpretation, that the jewish Baptizing or Dipping 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 signify 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 jewish 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 jewish Baptisms might be made use of to express Great Severities, yea Death itself, yet what is this to being baptised for the dead? Baptism may represent Martyrdom, but who can reasonably thence infer that the baptised 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 mentioned carry with them a greater semblance of Truth or Probability, and have some Antiquity 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 intent to adhere to the First rank of Expositors, who (as you may remember) understand the words of Baptism Properly so called, 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 by 
i De D●ctrinâ Christianâ. l. 3. c. 10.  St Austin, that we ought not to interpret those things Allegorically which are spoken Properly, 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 fly to Borrowed and Figutative senses, so long as the Natural and Genuine one will serve our turns. This than 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 Preposition. Therefore  
2 lie, I premise this, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Preposition, and it is Usual and Obvious in Writers of all sorts, so that it is a Wonder it hath been overlooked 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 largely showed this to be notoriously false, and thereby convinced the Learned how faulty the Grammar, as well as the Divinity of that Heretic 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 glorify God for his mercy, Rom. 15. 9 i e. because of his mercy showed 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 Christ's 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 Christ's sake, as we rightly render it, and so the Preposition ought to be rendered in the Text. I might observe that this Praepositive particle in the Greek, answers exactly to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many places of the 
k Psal. 44. 22. For thy sake we are killed, etc. (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 it, What shall they do that are baptised by reason of the dead, or for their sakes▪ (How This is to be applied I will show you anon.) Having thus laid down what I understand by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in which the Main difficulty of the Text lies,) I must also Premise and Observe this to you,  
3 lie, 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 that 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 heightened 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 twice, and it being likely (as I will make it appear) that it particularly relates to something mentioned before in this Chapter. So that the words are to run thus, What shall they do that are baptised 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 St 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 maintained by several Arguments; the first whereof is Christ's 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 St Stephen by the Evangelist St Luke: and without doubt our Apostle speaks here of St Stephen, who was stoned to death, (Acts 7. 60.) and of St james the first Martyr of all the Apostles, who was beheaded by Herod Agripppa, Acts, 12. 2. And 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 7.  Clemens tells us that another died at the very same time: he relates how the person that carried St james 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 james, who was also called james, the Just; who was barbarously knocked on the head by the Jews in Nero's time, as Eusebius reports. But whether This james was put to death before St Paul writ. This Epistle to the Corinthians, I will not confidently determine. We might also here reckon Philip the Apostle, who was put to death at the same time that james the Just 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 john the Baptist, who was the First Martyr, fell asleep before all These, being beheaded by a former Herod, in the first year of our Saviour's 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. 18th 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 sleep in jesus, and in v. 16. the dead in Christ, (the blessed Martyrs who died for Christ's 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 Baptised. 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 from the 23. v. to the words of my Text) he falls into a Fresh Argument thus, Else what shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they also baptised 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 rendered [Moreover,] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying sometimes so in the Septuagints Version, as in 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Psalm. 78. 20. and in Profane, Authors, as in 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lib. 2.  Herodotus, and 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 which I have been discoursing of; what shall they do that are baptised 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 baptised 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 stirred 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 Blood of dying Saints is the seed of the Church, which the more plentifully it is sown and shed, yieldeth 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 persuaded 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 courageously, and hereupon they are zealous to be made members of the Christian Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. This is to be baptised 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 profane life? or what makes the Wilful jew 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 embrace 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 Shoals of Converts come into the Baptismal Waters? What shall they do that are thus baptised? 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 Martyrs? 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 Baptised: and if these demand the Reason of it, is not This their Reply, we come to be Baptised 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 the world. What Interpretation can be Plainer and Clearer than this? And yet I know not any Writer excepting One, or 
p Cloppenburg. 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 sum, there were Bold Suppositions, but Slender Proofs. Whereas you may observe that in This Interpretation which I have tendered 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 discovered: and the History of the Ancient Church, and the Relation of the best Antiquity concur to make This Exposition Solid and Authentic. Here is nothing begged, but all is free and unconstrained. This is the clearest and most reasonable Sense in itself, and likewise the most accommodate to the Present Purpose of the Apostle in this Chapter, to the Style 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 profess that Religion which was attested by the Death, and sealed with the Blood 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 Blood in the service of our Lord and Saviour, let us not count our Lives dear unto us, so that we may finish our course with joy, and testify the Gospel of the grace of God, as our 
q Acts 20. 24.  Apostle speaketh. Let us, like the Primitive Saints, 
r Acts 5. 41.  rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame, and even Death for the Name of Christ. Let us cheerfully sacrifice our Lives for the sake of him who Died for us, let us drown our Affections to the world in our own Blood, 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 flocked 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 Blood of a Holy Martyr baptised whole Cities. This I conceive was to be baptised for the dead. This I offer as the most Plain and Easie, the most Natural and Genuine Meaning of the Text.   

The fourth TEXT Enquired into, viz. 1 St Peter III. 19, 20. By which also he went and preached unto the Spirits in prison: which sometime were disobedient, etc.  
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 Virtues and Graces which are required in all Christians, as Meekness, Patience, Mercifulness, and all the obliging and endearing offices of Love. The Apostle chiefly exhorts to Patience, that is, to suffer with submission and cheerfulness what ever should be inflicted on them. And here he shows particularly how they ought to behave themselves 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 sanctify 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 persuasion; 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 falsely 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 suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, v. 18. This highly commends the Sufferings of the Blessed jesus that he was himself an Innocent person, and that he suffered 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 Christ's suffering, and the Happy effects of it, to the end of this Chapter, and in part of the next. He shows the Design of our Saviour's Passion, viz. that he might bring us to God, v. 18. that he might make us Holy and Righteous and endue 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 suffered death, yet he soon rose from the dead, as you read in that 18. v. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened 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 quickened or enlivened with a Spiritual one, for Christ's soul and the souls of all the Saints after death (say they) are clothed with Subtle and Aetherial bodies. To let this pass, the Plain Meaning of the place is this (and it is confirmed by several of the 
a Athanasius, Augustin, Oecumenius.  Fathers) that this jesus though he suffered and was put to death for us in the flesh, as a Man, as he had a Humane Body, yet he was quickened by the Spirit, that is, he rose from the dead by the virtue 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 quickened 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 virtue of his Divine Power. He died as Man, but restored himself to life as he was God. It was by Christ's Divine Spirit that his separated soul and body were reunited: which you find thus asserted by St Paul, Rom. ●. 4. He was declared to be the son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. The humane spirit of Christ was joined again to his body by his Eternal Spirit. By Christ's Divinity his Humanity was raised up, and restored. And now our Apostle enlarges here further upon this Quickening Power of Christ's Spirit or Divinity, in these words, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: which sometime were disobedient etc. The Greek which is here translated [By which,] is rendered 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 Preposition [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] 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 moreover it is added, that these spirits were sometimes disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, etc. This is differently understood by Expositors, for 1. some apply it to those who were Alive before and at the time of the Flood. 2. Others understand it of the Souls of the dead. And what dead these are you shall hear when I come to enlarge 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 Flood. 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 Noah's Ark. Those eight souls, as they are called in the 20th 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 Noah's 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 apply to any of these eight. It is true we read that afterwards I'm 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 Imprisoned 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 Dr Hammond. And 
b Epist. 99 ad Eucd.  St 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 preached to them. This is plainly intimated in Gen. 6. 3. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. The Spirit than did strive with the men of that Age, though at last the Almighty declareth that he will put a period to his Spirits soliciting 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 St Peter was about using a Similitude borrowed from Noah's time, he makes use, saith Grotius, of the very words of that History. But than 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 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Septuagint and 
d Non permanebit.  Vulgar Latin, My Spirit shall not abide, or rest with man, or those men. And because the Hebrew word [jadon] comes from 
e Nadan, vagina.  another that signifies a Sheath or Scabbard, therefore he renders that place thus, according to Xantes Pagninus, (who herein follows R. Kimchi) 
f Non erit ut in vagina spiritus mens cum homine.  My spirit shall not be detained in man as in a Scabbard. And then the meaning of the words is, that the spirit of soul which 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 Antediluvian 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 confined in him, i. e. I will destroy him, he shall not live any longer; for so it follows, v. 7, 13. This is Grotius' Notion, and he is of opinion that [the spirits in prison] refer to this. And among the Fathers, St jerom 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, 
g 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, imprisoned in their bodies. Christ came and preached to these souls. viz. the sinners that lived in Noah's days, and he preached unto them by the Preaching of Noah.  
But this Interpretation is by no means to be admitted, for 1. This acquaint notion of the Sheath and the Body is a plain force upon that Text in Gen. 6. 3. which is truly and uncorruptly rendered according to the Hebrew, [My Spirit shall not strive▪] that is, I will no longer concern myself 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 Noah's Preaching, nor wrought upon by the foresight of those Judgements 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 Critics suggest is nothing to the Text, but is a mere Distorting and Perverting of it. 2. Suppose this place of Scripture might be rendered as they have done it, yet who sees not that it is far from their purpose? What likeness is there between a sheath and a Prison? It must be strong fancy that persuades 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 lie, suppose it were so, yet all we learn from this strange expression is, that the sinners before the Flood had souls in their bodies, for that is the English, it seems, of the spirits in prison, it is no more than souls in bodies. 4. This phrase might be made use of with more reason to prove the Platonic 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 than 'tis here. If I were one that favoured the Doctrine of Praeexistence, I should prise 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 enclosed or imprisoned as a Sword in a Sheath. And these Spirits which are thus immersed into Humane Bodies were sometime disobedient, i. e. they sinned in the state of Praeexistence, and therefore are sent into these bodies, and there Imprisoned. Thus this place may be alleged in favour of that Hypothesis; but any man who duly weighs the scope of the words may see that they intent 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 lie, that which unanswerably consounds This Opinion (viz. that the words are to be understood of the Sinners before the Flood, and of Christ's 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 endued 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 this Assertion than This doth: this ruins 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 Noah's days, yet they understand their being in prison in another sense: as thus, Christ by his Spirit in Noah, who is called a 
h 2 Pet. 2. 5.  Preacher of righteousness, did once preach to that generation of men who lived before the Flood, whose spirits are now in prison, i. e. in Hell for their former disobedience. These spirits were imprisoned in Hell at the time when St 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 Apostles, and have been ever since. St 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 signify 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 farfetched 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 persuasion. 1. Some will have these spirits in prison to be the Souls of those Deceased sinners who lived before the Flood, and perished in it, and were sent to Purgatory. 2. The Souls of all the Saints and Righteous men who 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 lie▪ the spirits in prison are the souls of the Blessed in Heaven, saith another.  
First, 〈◊〉 and some other Roman Catholics understand this Text of Purgatory. This is the Prison wherein the souls of the Antediluvian sinners were kept, for these persons were Unbelievers and Impenitent all the time before the Flood came, but then they believed and repent. St 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, remained Incredulous and Disobedient, but afterwards, when they saw the Flood 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 personally down thither, and preached to the people of that place. But I answer 1. They must evidently 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 remembered 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 mentioned here; yea, another sort of Going is expressly 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 sinners who perished in the Flood. Never was there such a Punishment and Judgement, 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 repent at all, it is reasonable to think that their Repentance in those unparallelled 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 men's Interpretation of the Text; and yet it is the general doctrine of those that assert the Pains of Purgatory, 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, and none else? For these are only mentioned 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 St 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 detained till our Saviour came and enlarged them. These are the spirits in ●●ison. 〈…〉 these words, telling us that the spirits in prison wh●● Christ 〈…〉 were Separate Souls sent to that foresaid Apartment and Receptacle. And whereas it is said, Christ was quickened in the spirit, he saith this is meant of Christ's Separate Soul: this being quickened went straight 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 quickened or made alive, and therefore it was unwarily and groundlessly said by him that Christ's soul was quickened. But 2 lie, I answer to what he and others allege 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 Patriarches and Faithful 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 detained 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 Patriarches when he left this world, and that he acquainted them that the work 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 Noah's days. Now supposing Christ preached to them in prison, how is it gathered from the Text that Christ went and redeemed All from that place? And on the other side, if they assert that Christ redeemed only those who were before the Flood, it would be proper to ask how they came to have this Privilege 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 show you afterwards:) but that Christ went into Hell, and Preached there to the inhabitants of that place, I am not convinced how it can be made good from This Text▪ Though I grant that some of the Ancient Fathers make use of this place of Scripture to prove that Christ descended locally and personally into those infernal regions. Particularly St Augustin endeavours to prove it from these very words, and concludes at last, 
k 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 show himself a Conqueror over Satan and all the Infernal Powers. But these men grossly abuse St Peter's words when they expound them thus, i. e. when they interpret Christ's Preaching to the spirits in prison, of his Triumphing over the damned in hell, the word [preaching] being never in the Sacred Writings understood in such a manner, but all that are acquainted with the Holy Style must needs acknowledge that 'tis taken in a far other meaning: therefore this must be looked 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 the 
1 Clemens Alexand. storm. 6. Origen. c●nt. Cels. l. 2. With whom may be reckoned 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 Christ's 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 Solemnity of our Saviour's 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 Coronation of a Great Prince the Prison-doors are flung open. This is the interpretation of Dr 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 gratify at other times, by his too lavish concessions. He hath opened 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, than there is hope that Every man at length may be set free from it, and walk at large. And this is that which 
m De h●●res. ad Qu●d vult deum.  St Augustin tells us some endeavoured 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 persuaded only that the words speak of a Singular and never to be Paralleled Instance. But in answer to what he and others before have asserted, I will briefly make It good that the words speak not at all of Christ's going down to Hell, or of his Preaching there. For 1. These words referring to the souls of those who lived in Noah's time, what was the reason that our Saviour went into Hell to preach to These rather than the rest? how came these despisers of Noah's preaching to have this Privilege above all other persons, that Christ should descend to the Infernal Pit to relieve them particularly? Why did not the Sodomites and others share in the like kindness 2 lie, 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 mentioned this before. 3. It can't be spoken of Christ's 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, than he was quickened 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 in Hell, unless you will make Christ's Descent into hell follow his Resurrection from the dead, which was never dreamt of yet. Let this therefore be remembered, 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 confutation 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 shows 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 watchtower; and so indeed the word signifies sometimes. The spirits or ●ouls of the faithful were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in specu●a, on their watchtower, 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 Looked for these as from 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 Watchtower. He might have retained 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 raised from the grave went and preached to the spirits in safe custody, 〈◊〉 in Heaven: there he declared to them what Great things he had done, and how he had finished the work of man's Redemption. As the words before spoke of Christ's Death and Resurrection, so these of his Ascension and Exaltation. This is the sense of that Learned Man, and if he had not altered the usual version of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it would have done as well. But against his interpretation, I allege 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 preached 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 Noah's days, and the particular people of that time. Now 1. It is probable that the greatest numbers of them perished everlastingly, as the 
o Luke 17. 26. 2 Pet. 2. 5.  Scripture, when it speaks of the sinners of the Old World, doth more than intimate▪ These were so far from being placed in a High Watchtower, a place whence they might look for, and espy 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 than others? And why were These separate souls above all the rest continually upon their Watch, in 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 Judgements of those Expositors who understand the words concerning the souls of the deceased. Now I proceed to the Last Classis 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 Christ's Preaching to them, his Sending his Disciples and Apostles to preach to them. 
p Institut. l. 4. c. 30.  Episcopius and 
q Theolog. 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 Author's 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, 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 persuade us. Living men are called Spirits, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 1 john 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 called Spirits. These spirits, i. e. these Men are no other than 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 gives this account of it▪ He reckons all the Gentiles from Noah's time, as one and the same people, (which is a thing not unusual with the Holy Writers:) and so when Christ preached to the Gentiles of his time, and the Apostles times, he may be said to preach to the Gentiles of Noah's 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 looked upon by the Inquisitive as a Satisfactory Resolution. For my part, I cannot prevail with myself 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 sometime disobedient] not only of the 〈◊〉 but of the jews also? The Text (as I conceive) speaks both of the Conversion of jews and Gentiles▪ the Gospel being preached, and Salvation offered to both these. I see therefore no reason why the Exposition should be confined to one only, viz. to the Pagan Infidels, and such as were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel. Christ preached to both jews 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 complained 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 jews had lived in Superstition and Ignorance, and gross Rebellion against God, so the Gentiles had been brought up in Idolatry, and in most lewd and profane practices. Christ after his Resurrection and Ascension pitied the miserable condition of both these sorts of 〈◊〉 Sinners. 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 people who had heretofore 〈◊〉 so signally 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, 
r 1 Wisd. 17. 2.  Prisoners of darkness, and lay fettered in the bond● of night● 2. Because they were not only shut up in the Dark Dungeon 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, 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 70.  Prov. 5. 22. In this respect very bad men are said to be 
t Acts 8. 23.  in the bond of iniquity▪ and to be 
u 2 Tim. 2▪ 26.  〈…〉 his will. 3 lie, This expresses the Misery they were in. They were spirits in Prison, that is, unspeakably Distressed and Wretched. This you will find to be the Style 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 imprisoned and Fettered by their Sins are in a far worse case, because Sin is the greatest Bondage. They, like Samson, grind in the prisonhouse, they are put to excessive Drudgery and Slavery, which are so much the Worse because they are not Sensible of it. 4. This shows their Inability to relieve themselves. They are as it were in some Str●ng and Close Prison, whence there is no delivery without God's 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 lie and lastly, As I have before suggested, Hell is called a Prison in the Style 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 SH' Peter, and immediately he adds that he delivered them into Chains of darkness, 2 Pet. 2. 4. and St jude (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 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 clapped up in the Prison, are consigned as it were to Hell, unless they harken 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 unbelievers and Idolaters to whom the Gospel was preached are styled spirits in Prison. I will yet further observe to you, how the Scripture delights in This way of expression. As I have showed 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 Christ's 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 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 sum 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 Losing 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 undertake 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, 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 St Peter 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. Dr 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 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 showed to them. But I have observed before that this is a Strained sense, and therefore where a more Natural one offers itself 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 easy to show 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 Gospel's 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 
x 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 Ruin, that though they were judged 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 spoke 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 obtained favour, and even eternal life with God. But how this is brought in as a Reason, as it is here, [For, for this cause etc.] no man can discover, and therefore we cannot satisfy ourselves with this interpretation of the place. Others would understand it thus, That they might be judged according 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 mortify 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 preached to them that are dead in sin, viz. that being once Converted they may judge and condemn themselves, and mortify the flesh, and die to sin, (as Judging and passing Sentence are in order to Execution and putting to Death among men, or according to men) but be Alive to the spirit, and walk according to God's 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 preached. 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 showed 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 jews 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, Christ's Ministers, is said to be done by Christ himself. And this which is here inserted, [he went,] though if is thought by Dr 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 jews, yea to them indeed first, as St Peter speaks, Acts 3. 26. Unto you first, God having raised up his son jesus, 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 nor his Apostles stayed till the Gentiles and jews sought for the Gospel, and Salvation by it, but they went to them. them, they freely offered these to them. The word than 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 Unparallelled 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 solicit 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 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 jews and Gentiles? To solve this, I have told you already that the words do not altogether refer to those Antediluvian Transgressor's, but in a Latitude and by way of Analogy they comprehend all that have sometime been disobedient. But because what the Learned Episcopius hath offered, viz. that the several generations of the Wicked are looked 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 satisfy 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 place. That this Ellipsis or Leaving out of a word is very frequent, you may satisfy yourselves from those Writers who have made it their business to treat of the Style 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 preached 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, aught 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 Profane 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, 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, etc. 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 margin, to complete the sense. I might mention Gen. 49. 9 judeh is a lion's whelp, where [as] aught 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 jam. 1. 11. this word is left out, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is supposed to 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 shows 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 Flood, so he did by the Apostles to those who were such in their times. As God heretofore showed an extraordinary Patience and Mercy towards the people of the Old World, giving them a sufficient space to Repent in, no less than 120 years, which yet was not Improved by them; only a few, harkening to God's Voice, were delivered 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 consigned as 'twere to Execution and Destruction: yet he went and preached the Gospel to them, and freely tendered 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 made it subservient to any Improbable and Absurd Opinions.  
This than 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 mentioned 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 preached to those before the Flood, and Him that preached 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 spoke to the people in Noah's time, so he did the same afterwards, and he spoke to the Unbelievers of the Last days, jesus 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 preached to all generations of men ever since the world was. But 3 lie, this was not an Immediate Preaching, for as the Son of God made use of Noah and his sons to admonish the sinners before the Deluge, so he stirred 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 Noah's 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 Noah's 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 Hardened sinners perished in the water, but the family of Noah was by the singular mercy of Heaven rescued from destruction. 6 lie, 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 Noah's days few, that is eight souls were saved, so when Christ came 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 lie, and lastly, Observe the Analogy between the Ark and Baptism, which were the signal attendants of Christ's Preaching, the one in Noah's, the other in the Apostles days, This being particularly mentioned 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 flood 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 Flood: for as This was the happy means of saving Noah and his 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 rendering 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 designed that one should 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 suffered for sins, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: who sometime were disobedient, as when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 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, remained still in the same miserable condition, rejecting the Gospel, and in that were like unto the disobedient sinners in Noah's, 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 believed in jesus, and forsook their sins, being washed from them by the waters of Baptism, which was prefigured by Noah's Ark. This is that which the words present us with, and it is no other than 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 St 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 successless: 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 God's Long-suffering, as well as of the Impenitence and Refractoriness of sinners, therefore Gods sparing the jews and Gentiles afterwards, and sending the Apostles to Preach the Gospel to them, are very fitly paralleled with the Preaching of Noah, and Gods Long-suffering towards the people of that time. The Apostle here, to give a Remarkable Instance of God's Patience, chooses out the days of Noah, a most Polluted and Degenerate Age, as you will find it deciphered in Gen. 6. Hence among the Rabbins, the Age of the Flood is used to express the most Wicked and Profane 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 St 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 believed 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 Noah's days were saved in the Ark by water. Yea, I am bold to say, that Noah's Preaching to the sinners of that first age, is a figure of the Preaching of the Gospel even to the end of the world: which was intimated by 
y Epist. 99 ad Euodium.  St Augustin, who tells us, that the Age of Noah was a Type of the Ages to come. Let Us then, on whom the ends of the world are come, think ourselves concerned 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 Fettered, to be set Free, and to be Saved.  
Thus I have finished the task I undertook, which was to explain this Obscure 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 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 late 
z David 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 etc. 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 show 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 myself to the giving you the True and Uncorrupted Meaning of the words, i. e. to show you who these spirits in prison are. I have, I hope, let in some Light to them, yea I have Opened their Prison-doors which were so fast locked up by the seveal Mistaken Glosses on there words. But in this, as in the Other Expositions of Scripture which I have tendered, I am always ready to submit to those who are of more Sagacious Judgements.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 21. line 9 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 61. l. 27. r. lost p. 67. l. 9 r. deviations. p. 72. l. 21. deal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 75. against l. 12 add in the Margin, de Pallio. p 76. l. 21. deal the. p. 81. 1. 9 r. Cynic. p. 94. l. 23. r. curl.