Works

VERS. III.

WHAT is wont to be understood here, is known well enough. For although the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 includes all mutual offices of living together, you see to what the Apostle applies it, verse. 5. and that not without reason, when the Jewish Masters seriously prescribed many ridiculous things of this matter; sometimes defining the appointed times of lying with the wife, sometimes allowing the Vow of abstinence. Modesty forbids to relate their trifles: I had rather the Reader should go to them himself, than defile our paper with them. Only these few things we cannot but produce, that a reason may in some measure appear, why the Apostle treats of this matter.

Lying with the wife, concerning which mention is made in the Law, is this: Gentlemen, who neither exercise merchandize, nor any other work, every day. Workmen, twice a week. Scholars of the wise Men, every Sabbath Eve.

VERS. V.

HE that by a Vow constrains his wife from his bed, according to the School of Shammai, let him do it for two weeks; according to the School of Hillel, for one only. Rambam upon the place writes thus, Let him keep this his Vow for one week only. But if he will keep it longer, let him put her away, and give her her dowry. But they say, Let the Scholars go forth to learn the Law, even without the permission of their wives, for thirty days. These indeed are the words of R. Eliezar. But according to the wise Men, it is lawful for two or three years: and the Tradition is according to the wise Men.

You have examples of some that far exceeded these bounds, in the Gemara at the place alleged, which see.

Rambam concludes, (concerning the common people) Know thou, that it is in the power of the wife to retain her husband, from going to Sea, or into the Army, unless it be near at hand; lest she might be defrauded of her due bed. She may also restrain him from passing from one work to another, lest her bed be thereby diminished: the study of the Law only excepted.

VERS. VI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , permission, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Command, do something answer to those words, very usual among the Fathers of the Traditions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now they would have marriage enjoined under a very severe command.

The man is commanded concerning begetting and multiplying, but not the woman. And when doth the m • n come under this command? From the age of sixteen or seventeen years. But if he exceeds twenty years without marrying, behold he violates, and renders an affirmative precept vain. But if he be studious in the Law, and conversant in it; and if he fears marriage, lest the care of providing for his wife hinder his study in the Law; he may still tarry. Because he that is employed in the precepts, is free from that precept: much more he that converseth in the study of the Law. He whose mind is always taken up in the study of the Law, as Ben Azzai, and he that is intent upon it all his days, if he marrieth not a wife, in his hand is no iniquity. But if affection prevail upon him, let him marry a wife, although he have now children, lest he fall into evil thoughts. Let not a man refrain himself from generation and multiplying, unless he hath children already. The Gemara upon this place thus, If he have children, let him refrain himself from generation and multiplying; but from marrying a wife, let him not refrain himself—It is forbid him to be without a wife, because it is said, It is not good for man to be alone. And whosoever gives not himself to generation and multiplying, is all one with a murderer—He is as though he diminished from the Image of God, &c.

The Apostle therefore determines against the Jewish Schools, that a man is not bound by the Law to marriage, but that he is in his own power in this affair, to contract himself, or not, as he finds himself continent or not. They said it is a Command, that everyone marry a wife; but he saith, I have not a Command.

VERS. IX.

THAT you may apprehend the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to burn, hear a story. Some captive women were brought to Nehardea, and disposed in the house, and in the Upper room ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of Rabh Amram. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They took away the ladder, or the stairs, (that the women might not go down, for they were shut up there, until they should be ransomed) As one of them passed by the window, the light of her great beauty shined into the house. Amram (taken with the woman's beauty) set up the stairs again, which ten men scarcely could do (that he might go up to the woman) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he was now got to the middle of the stairs, he delayed his feet (and stopped, struggling with that evil affection to overcome it) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And with a loud voice cried out Fire, Fire, in the house of Amram. (The Gloss saith, This he did, that the neighbors flocking thither, he might desist from his purpose, and from that affection out of shame) The Rabbins run to him, and (seeing nothing of fire or flame) say, Thou hast disgraced us. To whom he replied, It is better that ye be disgraced in the house of Amram in this World, than that ye be disgraced by me in the World to come. He adjured that evil affection to go out of him, and from thence it went out as a pillar of fire. To which he said, Thou art fire, and I am flesh, yet for all that I have prevailed against thee.

VERS. X.

AND on the contrary, Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I speak, not the Lord.

I. Weigh first that distinction very usual in the Schools, between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A text of Scripture, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Opinion. Death by the sword is worse than death by the plague.: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will I will produce a Text of Scripture (to prove this) If you will I will produce reason, or my opinion. If you will I will produce an Opinion. That renders one abominable, but not this. If you will, I will produce Scripture, Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death (the plague) of his Saints. Famine is worse than the sword, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will, I will produce an opinion. Famine afflicts a long while, the sword not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will, I will produce Scripture: It is better for them that die by the sword, than that die by famine. And, A burnt offering that is killed not under its proper notion, the blood of it is not to be sprinkled under a notion that is not proper. If you will, I will produce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my opinion, or, reason, If you will, I will produce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Text of Scripture. And very many instances of that nature.

II. And now compare the words of the Apostle: These things I say not, but the Lord: that is, This is not my bare opinion, but so saith the Scripture. And on the contrary, These things I say, not the Lord: that is, This is my opinion, although there be not some Text of Scripture, which saith so in plain words. Thus he explains himself, Chap. IX. 8. Say I these things, and not the Law?

Nor without weighty reason doth he admonish concerning this thing also, since both among Jews and Gentiles, the opinion was too loose concerning the firmness of the marriage bond; and more loose among the Jews, than among the Gentiles.

I. Think first of the toleration of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among them, which take in their words, If any marry a young maid, and she afterward will not have him for her husband, she may put him away, and depart from him; and there is no need of a bill of Divorse. Hence this is the form 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a Bill of this kind of putting away (when the wife put away her husband) if it were demanded.

In the day N. of the week N. of the month N. of the year N. 〈◊〉 . the daughter of N. put away before us, and said: My mother or my brethren deceived me, and wedded me, or betrothed me, when I was a young maid, to N. the son of N. But I now reveal my mind before you, that I will not have him, &c.

II. Among them also there was departing from each other by mutual consent. A good man had a good wife: but because they had not children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They mutually put away one another. That good man married a bad wife, and she made him bad. That good woman married a bad husband, and she made him good.

They allow also the same license to the Heathen. R. Jochanan saith, The sons of Noah have not divorse, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they put away one another.

III. To omit the departure of the wife from the husband for the causes of lust, as Herodias departed from Philip, to be married to Herod, and Drusilla from Aziz, and married Felix . A perverse wife might compel her husband, to put her away. A wife which refuseth to lie with her husband, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rebellious: And they demand of her, why she is so rebellious: if she answers, I despise him, and cannot endure his bed, they compel him to put her away for a time. Yea, R. Jochanan saith, A wife may put away her husband.

Those departures therefore the Apostle altogether forbids. And when verse. 11. he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But and if she depart, he doth not so much tolerate them, as supposes them to happen, and provides against them all, as much as may be, by the following rules, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

VERS. XI.

COmpare Deut. XXIV. 4. Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife. For the bond which was there made, is not dissolved here. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He makes it void: it is made void: they are the words of Rabbi. (The Gloss is, The husband sends a bill of divorse to the wife: if either he himself afterwards goes to his wife, or sends a messenger to him, saying, The bill of Divorse, which I sent to thee, let it stand for nothing, it is nothing.) A Tradition. In former times he compelled the Bench in another place, who would make void the Bill, and made not the thing known to his wife. Gamaliel the Elder appointed, that they should not do this; because sometimes the wife not knowing of the withdrawing of the Bill, marrieth another, and so hath bastard children.

Behold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Reconciliation after a Divorse, (but the Apostle speaks not in this place of Divorse) and yet the Jews by their practice shown, that they thought the bond of marriage was loosed by any Divorse, for they admitted second marriages.

VERS. XIV.

A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unclean, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy, denote not children unlawfully begotten▪ and lawfully begotten, but Heathenism, and Christianism. There is indeed this Tradition among the Jews. A son by unlawful wedlock that is, unlawful by consangunity) is a son of the man in all regards, and is to be reputed for an Israelite, although he be misbegotten. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But a son begotten of a Heathen woman, is not his son. Where the Gloss, He is not called the son of the man, but the son of the woman.

But the present discourse of the Apostle turns not upon this hing, namely, whether a son sprung from parents, whereof one was a Christian, the other a Heathen, be a legitimate issue, but whether it be a Christian issue. For it is sufficiently known, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy, is very frequently taken for those that profess Christianity: and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Holiness in the Talmudists is taken in a like sense.

Au husband, and wife being made Proselytes, are separated from each other ninety days, that distinction may be made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Between an issue born in holiness, and an issue born out of holiness. The daughter of a Proselytess, made a Proselytess with her mother, if she play the whore (after espousal) is to be strangled. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if she conceive without Holiness, and bring forth in holiness, then she is to be stoned. Again, A Proselytess, which was married to a Proselyte; and they beget a son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Although both his conception, and his birth be in Holiness, yet it is permitted him to marry a bastard woman.

You see at first sight, what that expression, In Holiness, means. An offspring born out of Holiness, was an offspring born while the Parents were yet Heathens: Within Holiness, when they were now made Proselytes. In the same sense the Apostle; Your children are born in Holiness, that is within Christianity, if either father or mother be Christian. And the children themselves are holy, that is, Christians.

The Heatheus were reckoned by the Jews for unclean, and so unclean indeed, that they could not contract uncleanness, no not from the most unclean thing, a Sepulcher . Hence Heathen children were to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unclean, and the children of Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy. To which sense, very well known to the Nation, the Apostle alludes in these words.

VERS. XVIII.

IN Talmudic Language, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

VERS. XIX.

AMong many things which may here be spoken, we will observe only two; one from the very practice of the Jews, the other from the chief end of circumcision.

I. You will wonder perhaps, Reader, when you hear, that some Jews always went uncircumcised; yea, that some Priests not circumcised, ministered at the Altar, and that without the complaint of any, and indeed without any fault. But the Fathers of the Traditions themselves do confess this. Very frequent mention is made in the Talmudists of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An uncircumcised Israelite, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An uncircumcised Priest.

Hence if the first, second, third son should die by circumcision, those that were born after were not circumcised, but were always uncircumcised, and yet Israelites in all respects, Priests in all respects. R. Nathan saith, I travailed to Cesarea of Cappadocia, and there was a woman there, who had brought forth male children, which had died of circumcision, the first, the second, the third: they brought the fourth to me, and I looked upon him, and saw not in him the blood of the Covenant. He advised them to permit him a little while, though not circumcised, and they permitted him, &c.

Now Jew, tell me, Whether Circumcision is anything, especially whether it be of so much account, either to Justification, or to Sanctification, as you esteem it, when an Israelite might be a true Israelite, and a Priest a true Priest, without Circumcision.

II. Circumcision is nothing, in respect of the time, for now it was vanished, the end of it, for which it had been instituted, being accomplished. That end the Apostle shows in those words Rom. IV. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A seal of the Righteousness of the Faith in uncircumcision. But I fear the words, are not sufficiently fitted by most Versions to the end of Circumcision, and the scope of the Apostle; while they insert something of their own. The French Translation thus, Scean de la justice de foy Laquelle il avoyt durant le prepuce. A seal of the righteousness of Faith, which he had during uncircumcision. The Italian thus, Segno della giustitia della feed laquale fu nella circoncisione. A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which was without circumcision. The Syriac reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And a sign of the Righteousness of his Faith, The Arabic, of the righteousness of Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which was in uncircumcision. Others to the same sense; as though Circumcision were given to Abraham for a sign of that righteousness, which he had, while as yet he was uncircumcised: which we deny not in some sense to be true: but we believe Circumcision especially looks far another way.

Give me leave to render the words thus, And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which should hereafter be in Uncircumcision. I say, Which should be, not, which had been. Not, which had been to Abraham, as yet uncircumcised, but which should be to his seed uncircumcised, that is, To the Gentiles, that should hereafter imitate the faith of Abraham.

For mark well upon what occasion Circumcision was appointed to Abraham, laying before your eyes the history of it, Gen. XVII.

First, This promise was made him, Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations; in what sense, the Apostle explains in that Chapter: and then a double Seal is subjoined to establish the thing, viz. The changing of the name Abram into Abraham; and the institution of Circumcision: ver. 4. Behold my Covenant is with thee, Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. Why is his name called Abraham? For the sealing of this promise, Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. And why was, Circumcision appointed him? For sealing the same promise, Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. So that this may be the sense of the Apostle, very agreeable to the institution of Circumcision: He received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteouss of Faith, which hereafter the Uncircumcision (or the Gentiles) was to have and obtain.

Abraham had a double Seed: a natural seed, that of the Jews; and a Faithful seed, that of the believing Gentiles. The Natural seed is signed with the sign of Circumcision, first indeed for the distinguishing itself from all other nations, while they were not as yet the seed of Abraham. But especially, in memory of the justification of the Gentiles by Faith, when at last they were his seed. Therefore upon good reason Circumcision was to cease, when the Gentiles should be brought in to the Faith, because then it had obtained to its last and chief end; and from thenceforth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Circumcision is nothing.

VERS. XXIII.

I Ask whether the Apostle speaks these words directly, and as his own sense; or by way of objection, to which he answereth in the verse following. The Jews were wont thus to object concerning themselves, by reason of their liberty obtained by the redemption out of Egypt; so that they would not endure by any means to be called Not free. Joh. VIII. 33. Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said, The blessed Lord saith, The ear which heard my voice upon mount Sinai, at what time I said, For the children of Israel are my Servants, and not the Servants of Servants, but it goes, and obtains to its self the Lord, let that ear be bored.

Perhaps these new Christians, that were of a servile condition, labored under this pride, not as yet instructed concerning the true sense of Evangelical Liberty. Or this scruple stuck with them, whether it were lawful for a Christian to serve a Heathen, An Atheist, An Idolater, &c. such Questions are moved by the Masters, Whether an Israelite is to be sold for a Servant to a Heathen, Whether an Israelite that is a Servant is to be pressed with the same service, as a Canaanite.

If the Apostle speaks directly, he does not discourse concerning Servants particularly, but of all Christians in general. And it is far from his intention to take away the relation, that is between Masters and Servants: but he admonisheth all Christians, that they serve not the evil lusts and wills of men, but him that redeemed them with a price.

VERS. XXVI.

AND by and by, verse. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The time is short, it remaineth. The Corinthians inquired of the Apostle by a letter in the case of marriage, as it seems by his answer.

I. Concerning Marriages between a believer, and an unbeliever, whether they were to be continued, or not continued.

II. Concerning the Marriages of Virgins, or single persons. But now, how a scruple should arise to them in this latter, is somewhat obscure. Among the Jewish Christians a scruple might arise, whether it were lawful for a single man to abstain from marriage, because in that nation, as we have observed, they commanded matrimony by Law. But if the question were, whether it was lawful for a Virgin, or a single man to contract Matrimony (For the Apostle answereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou hast not sinned, as though it were asked rather, whether it were lawful to marry, than whether it were lawful not to marry) then you will scarcely conjecture whence it should arise but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From the present necessity.

Our Apostle teacheth, that some forbad marriage, 1 Tim. IV. 3. But under what pretence? Either under this, that they babbled that marriage opposed the purity of the Gospel, as Satur • ilus in Jereny; or that they avoided marriages for those calamities that hung over them. They forbid marriage, saith the Apostle, and command to abstain from meats. Hear the Gemarists a little.

From the time that the second Temple was destroyed, Pharisees (Separatists) were multiplied in Israel, who eat not flesh, nor drunk wine. To whom R. Joshua, Why, O my Sons, do ye not eat flesh, nor drink wine? And they answered, should we eat flesh, of which we were wont to offer on the Altar, and now it is perished? And shall we drink wine, of which we were wont to pour out upon the Altar, and now it is ceased.—When a wicked Empire ruled over Israel, and decreed rough things against them, and made the Law, and the precept cease from them, and permitted them not to circumcise their children, they said to R. Jesus, It is fit, that we resolve among ourselves, not to contract marriage, nor beget Sons, &c.

Behold men prepared, and sworn almost to perpetual abstinence from marriage by reason of calamities. From the like cause also I suspect, some Christians might be in doubt, in the times of the Apostles. Our Savior had foretold, that those times should be very rough, that went before the Destruction of Jerusalem, Mat. XXIV. And that not within the bounds of Judea only: but that judgment should begin from the Temple of God everywhere, 1 Pet. IV. 17. and a day of Temptation should come upon the whole world, Revel. III. 20. So that that prediction being known to the Churches, and the times now inclining towards those calamities, it is no wonder, if concern and care about those straits invaded the Christians, and deterred very many single persons from marriage.

VERS. I.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Knowledge, of which the Apostle here speaks, is the knowledge of the liberty of the Gospel: but these words are spoken Ironically: as if he had said, It is concluded by all, that they know sufficiently that Evangelic liberty, and thereupon some run out into things which are not convenient. That Knowledge puffeth up, renders men bold, neglects the consciences of others, and he that in this sense seems to know something, as yet knows nothing as he ought to know.

VERS. IV.

I Render it, We know that there is no Idol in the World: that is a representation of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Idol, as the Lexicographers teach, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A likeness, an Image, a Sign, a Character, a Shadow. Idols indeed are in the World, made of wood, stone, gold, silver, &c. but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there is No Idol; there is no representation, or figure of God, and none can be. The Apostle hitherto, as I indeed think, puts on the person of those, who made no scruple in eating things offered to Idols: as though he had said, You say,

VERS. X.

COmpare those passages of the Talmudists. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that adores an Idol out of love or fear, Rabba saith, he is free, Abai saith, he is guilty. Abai saith, he is guilty, because he worships it. Rabba saith, he is free: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he take it for God, he i • so, he is guilty; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he doth not, he is not. And a little after, If he supposeth the Idol Temple to be the Synagogue, and adore an Idol, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Behold his heart is towards God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he see a statue, and adore it, if he take it for God, he is guilty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as doing presump • uously. But if he takes it not for God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is nothing at all. The Gloss there is Behold his heart is towards God: although he know that that house is an Idol Temple, and he adores God in it, it is no crime, &c. If he see a statue, such as they are wont to set up for the picture of the King, and adore it, not under the Notion of an Idol, but in honor of the King, it is nothing.

Hieronymus à sancta Fide cites this Talmudic passage in these words. They say in the book Sanhedrin, If any worship an Idol out of love or fear, he is free; and R. Solomon glosseth thus; By love is understood, that if any Master should ask his Servant that out of love to him, he would adore him. By fear, that if any Master should threaten him, unless he would. Nevertheless R. Moses of Egypt glosseth otherwise, saying, that by love is understood if he be in love with the beauty of the image of that Idol; by fear, that if he fear, the Idol should hurt him; as the Worshippers of it think, that it can profit, or hurt, and that if he adore it in such a case, he is free.

An excellent School, and excellent doctrine indeed! To omit other things, mark that, which prevailed also with these Corinthians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he acknowledge not the Idol under the notion of God, it is nothing: and these men said also, An Idol is nothing. Therefore to be in an Idol Temple, to eat things offered to Idols, is nothing: for I own nothing of the Deity in the Idol, I know it is wood or stone, &c. But saith the Apostle.

First however the Idol itself be wood or stone, yet those things which are offered to it, are offered to Devils, Chap. X. 20. And

Secondly, However you think yourself so wise, as to judge of an Idol as a matter of nothing; yet all have not so accurate a judgment; and you by your example encourage others to eat things offered to Idols, even under the notion of things offered to Idols.

VERS. II.

HE useth the very same argument and reason, Rom. XIV. 15. And his words respect the quality of the person, than rather the person himself, barely considered. As though he had said, for tender consciences, and trembling at the word of God, for those that are burdened and groan under the yoke and weight of the Law, for such as sweat and pant in the ways of the Lord, to keep faith and a good Conscience; for such Christ died; and will you destroy such an one by your meat? He died, to loosen those yokes, and to lighten consciences pressed under those weights, and will you destroy such with your meat?

VERS. I.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Knowledge, of which the Apostle here speaks, is the knowledge of the liberty of the Gospel: but these words are spoken Ironically: as if he had said, It is concluded by all, that they know sufficiently that Evangelic liberty, and thereupon some run out into things which are not convenient. That Knowledge puffeth up, renders men bold, neglects the consciences of others, and he that in this sense seems to know something, as yet knows nothing as he ought to know.

VERS. IV.

I Render it, We know that there is no Idol in the World: that is a representation of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Idol, as the Lexicographers teach, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A likeness, an Image, a Sign, a Character, a Shadow. Idols indeed are in the World, made of wood, stone, gold, silver, &c. but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there is No Idol; there is no representation, or figure of God, and none can be. The Apostle hitherto, as I indeed think, puts on the person of those, who made no scruple in eating things offered to Idols: as though he had said, You say,

VERS. X.

COmpare those passages of the Talmudists. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that adores an Idol out of love or fear, Rabba saith, he is free, Abai saith, he is guilty. Abai saith, he is guilty, because he worships it. Rabba saith, he is free: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he take it for God, he i • so, he is guilty; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he doth not, he is not. And a little after, If he supposeth the Idol Temple to be the Synagogue, and adore an Idol, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Behold his heart is towards God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he see a statue, and adore it, if he take it for God, he is guilty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as doing presump • uously. But if he takes it not for God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is nothing at all. The Gloss there is Behold his heart is towards God: although he know that that house is an Idol Temple, and he adores God in it, it is no crime, &c. If he see a statue, such as they are wont to set up for the picture of the King, and adore it, not under the Notion of an Idol, but in honor of the King, it is nothing.

Hieronymus à sancta Fide cites this Talmudic passage in these words. They say in the book Sanhedrin, If any worship an Idol out of love or fear, he is free; and R. Solomon glosseth thus; By love is understood, that if any Master should ask his Servant that out of love to him, he would adore him. By fear, that if any Master should threaten him, unless he would. Nevertheless R. Moses of Egypt glosseth otherwise, saying, that by love is understood if he be in love with the beauty of the image of that Idol; by fear, that if he fear, the Idol should hurt him; as the Worshippers of it think, that it can profit, or hurt, and that if he adore it in such a case, he is free.

An excellent School, and excellent doctrine indeed! To omit other things, mark that, which prevailed also with these Corinthians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If he acknowledge not the Idol under the notion of God, it is nothing: and these men said also, An Idol is nothing. Therefore to be in an Idol Temple, to eat things offered to Idols, is nothing: for I own nothing of the Deity in the Idol, I know it is wood or stone, &c. But saith the Apostle.

First however the Idol itself be wood or stone, yet those things which are offered to it, are offered to Devils, Chap. X. 20. And

Secondly, However you think yourself so wise, as to judge of an Idol as a matter of nothing; yet all have not so accurate a judgment; and you by your example encourage others to eat things offered to Idols, even under the notion of things offered to Idols.

VERS. II.

HE useth the very same argument and reason, Rom. XIV. 15. And his words respect the quality of the person, than rather the person himself, barely considered. As though he had said, for tender consciences, and trembling at the word of God, for those that are burdened and groan under the yoke and weight of the Law, for such as sweat and pant in the ways of the Lord, to keep faith and a good Conscience; for such Christ died; and will you destroy such an one by your meat? He died, to loosen those yokes, and to lighten consciences pressed under those weights, and will you destroy such with your meat?

VERS. I.

HERE some Interpreters in their Versions vary the order of the clauses, and read, Am I not free? and then after that, Am I not an Apostle? Moved to it hence undoubtedly, because it is greater to be an Apostle, than to be Free; and they supposed they should keep true order, if they proceeded from a lower degree to a higher. But they should have considered, that Paul did not barely treat of Christian Liberty, but of Apostolic Liberty: which appears also sufficiently verse. 5: Nor could he use a more accurate method in his business, than by first proving himself an Apostle, and then proving his Apostolic Liberty.

He is about to treat of his Liberty, or how lawful it is for him, to require maintenance for himself, his wife and family, if he had them, for his ministry in the Gospel among the Heathen, which Peter and the rest of the Apostles did among the Jews. It was formerly appointed by Jewish Lawyers, that Tithes were not to be required and taken of the Gentiles, maintenance was not to be asked from Heathens, and that a Jew should not make himself any ways beholden to an Heathen. Which so much the more also prevailed among them, because there was not any permission in the Law concerning these things, or at least that there was deep silence in the Law concerning them. These matters could not but raise a contest against him, concerning his maintenance among the Heathen, while he preached the Gospel to them.

Our Apostle therefore, the Minister of the Uncircumcision, flies to that, namely to defend himself by his Apostolical power among them, who had raised a difference against him about this business, Ver. 3. Be it granted, that it was appointed by the Traditional Laws, concerning taking no maintenance from Heathens; yea though it were granted, that it were so decreed by the Law of Moses; but I am an Apostle, I am free from such Laws; yea it is in my power to institute this for a Law to the converted Heathen, that those that preach the Gospel should be sustained by the Gospel.

PAUL saw the Lord twice. First in his journey to Damascus, when he was marked out for an Apostle. Secondly, In his Trance at Jerusalem, when he was marked out for the Apostle of the Gentiles, Act. XXII. 21. He alone among the Apostles saw the Lord after his ascension.

VERS. III.

THE Apology itself follows, Have we not power, &c. unto ver. 15. The necessity of his Apology was, that he was accused by some of receiving maintenance from Heathen Churches for his preaching the Gospel: or it was observed with a stern countenance by some Cavilers, whether he would receive it, or not. Hence it was, that he applied himself to mechanic labor, whereby he might sustain himself, and get his living: Not that it was unlawful for him to demand a livelihood of the Gentiles, but because he would not; to stop the mouths of the Jews that barked against him. Hence are those words, verse. 19, 20. I am free from all men, and yet I am become the Servant of all. To the Jews I became as a Jew, &c. Compare III. Joh. ver. 7. They took nothing of the Gentiles.

VERS. XIII.

HE distinguisheth between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , laboring about holy things, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Waiting at the Altar. For there were some who wrought in the holy things, besides those who served at the Altar: concerning whom see the Tract Shekalim. Among the rest were they 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Who picked the wormt out of the wood, which was to be laid upon the Altar: who being touched and infected with some spot, were not fit to minister at the Altar; but they were deputed to this office, and nourished out of the consecrated things.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Assidentes Altari, sitting at the Altar, not in the proper and strictest sense: for it was lawful for none to sit within the Court, but for the King alone. But rather Obsidentes, Besieging the Altar, and spread everywhere about it in the service of it. Some taking away the ashes, some killing the Sacrifice, others sprinkling the blood, others laying the pieces of the Sacrifice upon the Altar, &c. Concerning which see the Tract Tamid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also to lay snares, which may also be applied to that emulous diligence, wherewith they did as it were lay snares for the Altar, contending in former times who should first go up thither to take away the ashes, and to make the fire, &c. concerning which these things are related. In former times whosoever would clear the Altar of its ashes, did it (in the morning:) But when many strove together about that business, and ran, and went up by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ascent of the Altar, &c. There was a time when two strove together, and ran with equal speed, and went up by the Ascent of the Altar, and one thrust the other, so that he fell, and his leg was broke, &c.

VERS. XXI.

HE distinguished, as it seems by the verse before, between the Jews, and those that are under the Law. Which may be understood of the Jews in general, and of the Pharisees in particular: because the Pharisees seemed more to subject themselves to the Law, than the rest of the Nation. But by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such are without Law, whether he means the Sadducees, who altogether opposed the Laws of Pharisees, or whether the Heathen, inquire. How he could yield himself conformable to the Heathen, it is not easy to judge; to the Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees he might conform himself in some things without scruple, that he might gain them: this only being understood of the Sadducees, that his conformity is to be understood in rites, not in the heresy about the Resurrection.

VERS. XXVII.

A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word very usual among the Masters: especially, as it is opposed to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, approved, fit, either thing or person: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the contrary denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Not approved, not fit.

VERS. I.

HERE some Interpreters in their Versions vary the order of the clauses, and read, Am I not free? and then after that, Am I not an Apostle? Moved to it hence undoubtedly, because it is greater to be an Apostle, than to be Free; and they supposed they should keep true order, if they proceeded from a lower degree to a higher. But they should have considered, that Paul did not barely treat of Christian Liberty, but of Apostolic Liberty: which appears also sufficiently verse. 5: Nor could he use a more accurate method in his business, than by first proving himself an Apostle, and then proving his Apostolic Liberty.

He is about to treat of his Liberty, or how lawful it is for him, to require maintenance for himself, his wife and family, if he had them, for his ministry in the Gospel among the Heathen, which Peter and the rest of the Apostles did among the Jews. It was formerly appointed by Jewish Lawyers, that Tithes were not to be required and taken of the Gentiles, maintenance was not to be asked from Heathens, and that a Jew should not make himself any ways beholden to an Heathen. Which so much the more also prevailed among them, because there was not any permission in the Law concerning these things, or at least that there was deep silence in the Law concerning them. These matters could not but raise a contest against him, concerning his maintenance among the Heathen, while he preached the Gospel to them.

Our Apostle therefore, the Minister of the Uncircumcision, flies to that, namely to defend himself by his Apostolical power among them, who had raised a difference against him about this business, Ver. 3. Be it granted, that it was appointed by the Traditional Laws, concerning taking no maintenance from Heathens; yea though it were granted, that it were so decreed by the Law of Moses; but I am an Apostle, I am free from such Laws; yea it is in my power to institute this for a Law to the converted Heathen, that those that preach the Gospel should be sustained by the Gospel.

PAUL saw the Lord twice. First in his journey to Damascus, when he was marked out for an Apostle. Secondly, In his Trance at Jerusalem, when he was marked out for the Apostle of the Gentiles, Act. XXII. 21. He alone among the Apostles saw the Lord after his ascension.

VERS. III.

THE Apology itself follows, Have we not power, &c. unto ver. 15. The necessity of his Apology was, that he was accused by some of receiving maintenance from Heathen Churches for his preaching the Gospel: or it was observed with a stern countenance by some Cavilers, whether he would receive it, or not. Hence it was, that he applied himself to mechanic labor, whereby he might sustain himself, and get his living: Not that it was unlawful for him to demand a livelihood of the Gentiles, but because he would not; to stop the mouths of the Jews that barked against him. Hence are those words, verse. 19, 20. I am free from all men, and yet I am become the Servant of all. To the Jews I became as a Jew, &c. Compare III. Joh. ver. 7. They took nothing of the Gentiles.

VERS. XIII.

HE distinguisheth between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , laboring about holy things, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Waiting at the Altar. For there were some who wrought in the holy things, besides those who served at the Altar: concerning whom see the Tract Shekalim. Among the rest were they 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Who picked the wormt out of the wood, which was to be laid upon the Altar: who being touched and infected with some spot, were not fit to minister at the Altar; but they were deputed to this office, and nourished out of the consecrated things.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Assidentes Altari, sitting at the Altar, not in the proper and strictest sense: for it was lawful for none to sit within the Court, but for the King alone. But rather Obsidentes, Besieging the Altar, and spread everywhere about it in the service of it. Some taking away the ashes, some killing the Sacrifice, others sprinkling the blood, others laying the pieces of the Sacrifice upon the Altar, &c. Concerning which see the Tract Tamid.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also to lay snares, which may also be applied to that emulous diligence, wherewith they did as it were lay snares for the Altar, contending in former times who should first go up thither to take away the ashes, and to make the fire, &c. concerning which these things are related. In former times whosoever would clear the Altar of its ashes, did it (in the morning:) But when many strove together about that business, and ran, and went up by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ascent of the Altar, &c. There was a time when two strove together, and ran with equal speed, and went up by the Ascent of the Altar, and one thrust the other, so that he fell, and his leg was broke, &c.

VERS. XXI.

HE distinguished, as it seems by the verse before, between the Jews, and those that are under the Law. Which may be understood of the Jews in general, and of the Pharisees in particular: because the Pharisees seemed more to subject themselves to the Law, than the rest of the Nation. But by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such are without Law, whether he means the Sadducees, who altogether opposed the Laws of Pharisees, or whether the Heathen, inquire. How he could yield himself conformable to the Heathen, it is not easy to judge; to the Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees he might conform himself in some things without scruple, that he might gain them: this only being understood of the Sadducees, that his conformity is to be understood in rites, not in the heresy about the Resurrection.

VERS. XXVII.

A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word very usual among the Masters: especially, as it is opposed to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, approved, fit, either thing or person: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the contrary denotes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Not approved, not fit.

VERS. II.

THEY had been newly circumcised before their going out of Egypt. For when God accuseth them by the Prophet, that they complied with the customs of the Egyptians, and worshipped their Idols, XX. 7, 8. it is more than probable, that they neglected Circumcision, as also other of God's appoinments, and yielded themselves conformable to the Egyptians in all their irreligious rites. Whence by a peculiar precept God provided, when he instituted the Passover, that before the eating of it, everyone should be circumcised: Exod. XII. 48. Which that it was done also, is clear out of Jos. V. 5. All going out of Egypt were circumcised.

To Circumcision is added Baptism in the cloud and in the Sea; and the latter Seal took not away the first, but superinduced a new obligation. They were not circumcised into Moses, but they were baptized into Moses. The Jews themselves confess, that they were baptized at mount Sinai, from those words, Exod. XIX. 10. But the Apostle fetcheth the thing higher, that he may show, that the types of the Gospel Sacraments were both divine, and also miraculous.

VERS. III.

NOT that the very rock in Horeb followed them, but that streams of water flowing from that rock followed them, and were gathered together into pools, wheresoever they encamped. Hence that Rhetorical figure very usual in the Prophets, I will give in the Wilderness pools of water, when discourse is of the watering of the Gentiles by the Gospel and the Spirit. During all the forty years they had a Well. And the Targum of Jonathan concerning another Well: From the time that the well in Mattanab was given them, it was made again to them brooks, that were overflowing, and violent; and again it went up unto the tops of the mountains, and went down with them into the Valleys, &c.

VERS. VIII.

BUT in Numb. XXV. it is, Four and twenty thousand. And in the Talmuds; Those four and twenty thousand, that perished by reason of Baal-Peor, &c. And Balaam came to receive his reward for the four and twenty thousand, that had perished. Whence therefore is it in Paul, Three and twenty thousand only?

To omit that, which is not unusual in the holy Scriptures, when the same story is recited in two places, to bring in somewhat different in the reckoning, either of the things, or the men, or the years; and that not without the highest reason. As compare 2 Kings, VIII. 26. with 2 Chron. XXII. 2. And 2 King. XXIV. 8. with 2 Chron. XXXVI. 9. and very many of that nature: Let us see what the Talmudists say of this story.

They discourse of it in divers places of the Tract Sanhedrin, e to this sense: upon those words of God to Moses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Sun, they thus comment. Take all the Princes of the people, and make them Judges; that they may stay all those that transgressed with Baal Peor.—If the people sinned, what did the Heads of the people sin? Saith Rabh Judah, Rabh saith, God said to Moses, Divide to them Judgment seats. Wherefore? Because they judge not two in one day. Now Jew find fault with Paul, if you list, and he hath wherewithal to answer you even from your own writers.

I. He saith not, that three and twenty thousand were all, that fell in the case of Baal-Peor; but he saith, that three and thenty thousand fell in one day.

II. It is manifest enough, that God made use of a double vengeance against the sinners, namely, by Judges, and by a Pestilence.

III. But now their own Countrymen say, It is not lawful for one Bench to judge two in one day. Or be it granted (which is granted also by their Country-men) that it is lawful to judge and slay two, so it be by the same kind of death, How many Benches, I pray, were set up? Or how many days were spent in puting to death a thousand men under that provision, Let one Bench put to death only one man, or at most two in one day.

Our Apostle therefore speaks with the vulgar: and saith not definitely three and twenty thousand perished just to a man, but three and twenty thousand at least; when according to that vulgar Canon, it is scarce credible, that a thousand men were put to death by those Benches; when one Bench put to death only one or two at most, in the space of one day.

The Levites being numbered presently after the plague of Baal-Peor, were just so many as the Apostle here numbers, Numb. XXVI. 62. So a number equal to the whole tribe of Levi perished in one day.

VERS. X.

THE Jews call evil Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Destroyers: and good Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ministring. But I inquire, whether the Apostle speaks to this sense in this place. For where can we find the people destroyed and slain by an evil Angel? They perished indeed by the Pestilence, and by the plague for Baal-Peor, concerning which the Apostle spake before: but here he distinguisheth the destroying of them by the Destroyer, from that kind of death. Therefore the Apostle seems to me to allude to the notion, very usual among the Jews, concerning the Angel of death, the great destroyer, called by them Samael, concerning whom among very many things which are related, let us produce this only.

A Question is propounded of a Cow delivered to a Keeper hired with a price, carefully and faithfully to keep her. She strayes in a Fen, and there dies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the common manner; that is, by no violent death; it is demanded, how far the Keeper is guilty? And it is determined, that if she had perished being devoured by Wolves, or drove away by thieves, and slain, then the Keeper were guilty by reason of negligence. But this, they say, was the work 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Angel of death. For they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the Angel of death had suffered her, she had lived in a Thiefs house. And the Gloss 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Angel of death • ight kill her even in the house of him, who hired the Keeper.

You see how they ascribe it to the Angel of death, when any violent, known, and ordinary cause, and evident kind of death doth not appear. So the Apostle in this place, mentioneth the known and evident ways of death; serpents, pestilence, ver. 8, 9. and now he speaks of the common kind of death, (and not of some evident plague) whereby the whole multitude of those that murmured perished, Num. XIV. within forty years. He saith, they perished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by that great Destroyer, the Angel of Death.

VERS. XI.

HE saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The ends of the Ages, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The ends of the World. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Age, in the Scripture, very ordinarily is the Jewish age. In which sense, Circumcision, the Passover, and other Mosaic rites, are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For an age. So the Disciples Mat. XXIV. 3. inquire of Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the end of the age; and he answereth concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. In the same sense should I render the words of the Apostle, Tit. I. 2. To the hope of eternal life, which God hath promised 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before the times of the Jewish ages: that is, God promised eternal life before the Mosaic Economy: that life therefore is not to be expected by the works of the Law of Moses.

Thus therefore the Apostle speaks in this place; These things which were translated in the beginning of the Jewish ages, are written for an example to you, upon whom the ends of those ages are come. And the beginning is like to the end, and the end to the beginning. Both was forty years, both consisted of temptation and unbelief, and both ending in the destruction of unbelievers: that in the destruction of those that perished in the wilderness, this is the destruction of those that believed not, in the destruction of the City and Nation.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cup of Blessing. So was that Cup in the Passover called, over which thanks were given after meat: and in which our Savior instituted the Cup of the Eucharist; of which we have spoken largely at Mat. XXVI. 27. When therefore the Apostle marks out the Cup of the Lord's Supper with the same name, as the Jews did their Cup, he hath recourse to the first institution of it, and implies that giving of thanks was continued over it by Christians, although new under another notion.

Thus his reasoning proceeds: as we in the eating of bread, and drinking of the Eucharistical Cup, communicate of the body, and blood of Christ: so in eating things offered to Idols, men communicate of and with an Idol. You communicate of the blood of Christ; therefore fly from Idolatry. I speak to wise men; do you judge of the argument. For the very participation of the Eucharist seals you up against Idolatry, and things offered to Idols.

The manner of reasoning, We all are one body, because we partake of one bread, recalls that to mind which among the Jews was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mixing or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Communion. The manner and sense of which learn out of Maimonides. By the words of the Scribes, saith he, it is forbid neighbors to go (on the Sabbath day) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a place appropriated to one, where there is a division into divers habitations, unless all the neighbors one the Sabbath Eve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enter into communion. —Therefore ( Solomon; for they make him the author of this Tradition and Custom) appointed, that each place be appropriated to one man, there where there is a division into divers Habitations, and each of the Inhabitans receive there a place proper to himself, and some place also is left there common to all, so that all have an equal right in it, as a Court belonging to many houses, which is reckoned a place by right common to all. And every place which each hath proper to himself, is reckoned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a proper place. And it is forbid, that a man carry anything from a place proper to himself into the place common to all (that is, on the Sabbath) but let everyone use the place appropriate to himself alone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 until all enter into communion.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But how is that Communion made? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They associate together in one food which they prepare on the Eve of the Sabbath: as though they would say. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We all associate together, and we have all one food: nor does any of us separate a propriety from our neighbor, but as we all have an equal right in this place which is left common to us, so we have all an equal right in the place, which everyone takes to himself for his own.

And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The consorting together, which those, that dwell among themselves in the same Court, make, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Communions of Courts. And that consorting together which they make, that dwell among themselves in the same Walk or Entry, or which Citizens of the same City make among themselves, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Participating together.

They do not consort together in Courts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but with a whole loaf. Although the bread of the bach be a whole Seah, if it be not a whole loaf, they do not enter into consortship with it. But if it be whole, if it be no more than an Assarius only, they enter into consortship with it.

How do they enter into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Communion, in the Courts? They demand of every house which is in the Court, one whole cake or loaf which they lay up in one vessel, and in some house which is in the Court, although it be a barn, or a stabl • , &c. And one of the company blesseth, and so all eat together, &c.

Compare these things with the words of the Apostle, and they do not only illustrate his argumentation, but confirm it also. If it were customary among the Israelites to join together in one Political or Oeconomical body by the eating of many loaves collected together from this, and that, and the other man; we are much more associated together into one body by eating one and the same bread appointed us by one Savior.

VERS. XIX.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But what say I? A Phrase very usual in the Schools, that is, This I will, or this I conclude. Be an Idol something or not; or be a thing offered to an Idol something or not; yet certainly those things which the Gentiles offer to Idols, they offer to Devils.

VERS. XXI.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Table of the most High, a phrase not unusual in the Talmudists, for The Altar.

VERS. XXV.

THE h Gemarists treat of a question not much different from this, which the Apostle here treats of: namely, how far it is lawful to buy flesh in the shambles, and that from a Heathen, where there may be a suspicion concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 its being torn: and a story is brought in of one buying such torn flesh of a Heathen. Upon which case saith Rabbi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For this fool, who did that which was not decent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shall we forbid all shambles? See the place, if you list, and be at leisure to read it.

The Jews were vexed with innumerable scruples in their Feasts, as to the eating of the thing, as also to the company, with which they ate, and of the manner of eating. Of fruits and herbs set on the Table, they were to inquire, whether they were tithed according to custom, whether they were consecrated by the Truma, or some other way, or whether they were profane: whether they were clean, or touched with some pollution or uncleanness, &c. And concerning flesh, that was set on the Table, whether it was of that which had been offered to Idols, whether it were of that which was torn, or of that which was strangled, or not killed according to the Canonical rule, &c. All which doubts the liberty of the Gospel abolished, as to ones own conscience, with this Proviso, that no scandal or offense be cast before another man's weak and staggering Conscience.

VERS. II.

THEY had been newly circumcised before their going out of Egypt. For when God accuseth them by the Prophet, that they complied with the customs of the Egyptians, and worshipped their Idols, XX. 7, 8. it is more than probable, that they neglected Circumcision, as also other of God's appoinments, and yielded themselves conformable to the Egyptians in all their irreligious rites. Whence by a peculiar precept God provided, when he instituted the Passover, that before the eating of it, everyone should be circumcised: Exod. XII. 48. Which that it was done also, is clear out of Jos. V. 5. All going out of Egypt were circumcised.

To Circumcision is added Baptism in the cloud and in the Sea; and the latter Seal took not away the first, but superinduced a new obligation. They were not circumcised into Moses, but they were baptized into Moses. The Jews themselves confess, that they were baptized at mount Sinai, from those words, Exod. XIX. 10. But the Apostle fetcheth the thing higher, that he may show, that the types of the Gospel Sacraments were both divine, and also miraculous.

VERS. III.

NOT that the very rock in Horeb followed them, but that streams of water flowing from that rock followed them, and were gathered together into pools, wheresoever they encamped. Hence that Rhetorical figure very usual in the Prophets, I will give in the Wilderness pools of water, when discourse is of the watering of the Gentiles by the Gospel and the Spirit. During all the forty years they had a Well. And the Targum of Jonathan concerning another Well: From the time that the well in Mattanab was given them, it was made again to them brooks, that were overflowing, and violent; and again it went up unto the tops of the mountains, and went down with them into the Valleys, &c.

VERS. VIII.

BUT in Numb. XXV. it is, Four and twenty thousand. And in the Talmuds; Those four and twenty thousand, that perished by reason of Baal-Peor, &c. And Balaam came to receive his reward for the four and twenty thousand, that had perished. Whence therefore is it in Paul, Three and twenty thousand only?

To omit that, which is not unusual in the holy Scriptures, when the same story is recited in two places, to bring in somewhat different in the reckoning, either of the things, or the men, or the years; and that not without the highest reason. As compare 2 Kings, VIII. 26. with 2 Chron. XXII. 2. And 2 King. XXIV. 8. with 2 Chron. XXXVI. 9. and very many of that nature: Let us see what the Talmudists say of this story.

They discourse of it in divers places of the Tract Sanhedrin, e to this sense: upon those words of God to Moses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Sun, they thus comment. Take all the Princes of the people, and make them Judges; that they may stay all those that transgressed with Baal Peor.—If the people sinned, what did the Heads of the people sin? Saith Rabh Judah, Rabh saith, God said to Moses, Divide to them Judgment seats. Wherefore? Because they judge not two in one day. Now Jew find fault with Paul, if you list, and he hath wherewithal to answer you even from your own writers.

I. He saith not, that three and twenty thousand were all, that fell in the case of Baal-Peor; but he saith, that three and thenty thousand fell in one day.

II. It is manifest enough, that God made use of a double vengeance against the sinners, namely, by Judges, and by a Pestilence.

III. But now their own Countrymen say, It is not lawful for one Bench to judge two in one day. Or be it granted (which is granted also by their Country-men) that it is lawful to judge and slay two, so it be by the same kind of death, How many Benches, I pray, were set up? Or how many days were spent in puting to death a thousand men under that provision, Let one Bench put to death only one man, or at most two in one day.

Our Apostle therefore speaks with the vulgar: and saith not definitely three and twenty thousand perished just to a man, but three and twenty thousand at least; when according to that vulgar Canon, it is scarce credible, that a thousand men were put to death by those Benches; when one Bench put to death only one or two at most, in the space of one day.

The Levites being numbered presently after the plague of Baal-Peor, were just so many as the Apostle here numbers, Numb. XXVI. 62. So a number equal to the whole tribe of Levi perished in one day.

VERS. X.

THE Jews call evil Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Destroyers: and good Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ministring. But I inquire, whether the Apostle speaks to this sense in this place. For where can we find the people destroyed and slain by an evil Angel? They perished indeed by the Pestilence, and by the plague for Baal-Peor, concerning which the Apostle spake before: but here he distinguisheth the destroying of them by the Destroyer, from that kind of death. Therefore the Apostle seems to me to allude to the notion, very usual among the Jews, concerning the Angel of death, the great destroyer, called by them Samael, concerning whom among very many things which are related, let us produce this only.

A Question is propounded of a Cow delivered to a Keeper hired with a price, carefully and faithfully to keep her. She strayes in a Fen, and there dies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the common manner; that is, by no violent death; it is demanded, how far the Keeper is guilty? And it is determined, that if she had perished being devoured by Wolves, or drove away by thieves, and slain, then the Keeper were guilty by reason of negligence. But this, they say, was the work 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Angel of death. For they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the Angel of death had suffered her, she had lived in a Thiefs house. And the Gloss 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Angel of death • ight kill her even in the house of him, who hired the Keeper.

You see how they ascribe it to the Angel of death, when any violent, known, and ordinary cause, and evident kind of death doth not appear. So the Apostle in this place, mentioneth the known and evident ways of death; serpents, pestilence, ver. 8, 9. and now he speaks of the common kind of death, (and not of some evident plague) whereby the whole multitude of those that murmured perished, Num. XIV. within forty years. He saith, they perished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by that great Destroyer, the Angel of Death.

VERS. XI.

HE saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The ends of the Ages, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The ends of the World. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Age, in the Scripture, very ordinarily is the Jewish age. In which sense, Circumcision, the Passover, and other Mosaic rites, are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For an age. So the Disciples Mat. XXIV. 3. inquire of Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the end of the age; and he answereth concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. In the same sense should I render the words of the Apostle, Tit. I. 2. To the hope of eternal life, which God hath promised 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before the times of the Jewish ages: that is, God promised eternal life before the Mosaic Economy: that life therefore is not to be expected by the works of the Law of Moses.

Thus therefore the Apostle speaks in this place; These things which were translated in the beginning of the Jewish ages, are written for an example to you, upon whom the ends of those ages are come. And the beginning is like to the end, and the end to the beginning. Both was forty years, both consisted of temptation and unbelief, and both ending in the destruction of unbelievers: that in the destruction of those that perished in the wilderness, this is the destruction of those that believed not, in the destruction of the City and Nation.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cup of Blessing. So was that Cup in the Passover called, over which thanks were given after meat: and in which our Savior instituted the Cup of the Eucharist; of which we have spoken largely at Mat. XXVI. 27. When therefore the Apostle marks out the Cup of the Lord's Supper with the same name, as the Jews did their Cup, he hath recourse to the first institution of it, and implies that giving of thanks was continued over it by Christians, although new under another notion.

Thus his reasoning proceeds: as we in the eating of bread, and drinking of the Eucharistical Cup, communicate of the body, and blood of Christ: so in eating things offered to Idols, men communicate of and with an Idol. You communicate of the blood of Christ; therefore fly from Idolatry. I speak to wise men; do you judge of the argument. For the very participation of the Eucharist seals you up against Idolatry, and things offered to Idols.

The manner of reasoning, We all are one body, because we partake of one bread, recalls that to mind which among the Jews was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mixing or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Communion. The manner and sense of which learn out of Maimonides. By the words of the Scribes, saith he, it is forbid neighbors to go (on the Sabbath day) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a place appropriated to one, where there is a division into divers habitations, unless all the neighbors one the Sabbath Eve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enter into communion. —Therefore ( Solomon; for they make him the author of this Tradition and Custom) appointed, that each place be appropriated to one man, there where there is a division into divers Habitations, and each of the Inhabitans receive there a place proper to himself, and some place also is left there common to all, so that all have an equal right in it, as a Court belonging to many houses, which is reckoned a place by right common to all. And every place which each hath proper to himself, is reckoned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a proper place. And it is forbid, that a man carry anything from a place proper to himself into the place common to all (that is, on the Sabbath) but let everyone use the place appropriate to himself alone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 until all enter into communion.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But how is that Communion made? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They associate together in one food which they prepare on the Eve of the Sabbath: as though they would say. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We all associate together, and we have all one food: nor does any of us separate a propriety from our neighbor, but as we all have an equal right in this place which is left common to us, so we have all an equal right in the place, which everyone takes to himself for his own.

And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The consorting together, which those, that dwell among themselves in the same Court, make, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Communions of Courts. And that consorting together which they make, that dwell among themselves in the same Walk or Entry, or which Citizens of the same City make among themselves, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Participating together.

They do not consort together in Courts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but with a whole loaf. Although the bread of the bach be a whole Seah, if it be not a whole loaf, they do not enter into consortship with it. But if it be whole, if it be no more than an Assarius only, they enter into consortship with it.

How do they enter into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Communion, in the Courts? They demand of every house which is in the Court, one whole cake or loaf which they lay up in one vessel, and in some house which is in the Court, although it be a barn, or a stabl • , &c. And one of the company blesseth, and so all eat together, &c.

Compare these things with the words of the Apostle, and they do not only illustrate his argumentation, but confirm it also. If it were customary among the Israelites to join together in one Political or Oeconomical body by the eating of many loaves collected together from this, and that, and the other man; we are much more associated together into one body by eating one and the same bread appointed us by one Savior.

VERS. XIX.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But what say I? A Phrase very usual in the Schools, that is, This I will, or this I conclude. Be an Idol something or not; or be a thing offered to an Idol something or not; yet certainly those things which the Gentiles offer to Idols, they offer to Devils.

VERS. XXI.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Table of the most High, a phrase not unusual in the Talmudists, for The Altar.

VERS. XXV.

THE h Gemarists treat of a question not much different from this, which the Apostle here treats of: namely, how far it is lawful to buy flesh in the shambles, and that from a Heathen, where there may be a suspicion concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 its being torn: and a story is brought in of one buying such torn flesh of a Heathen. Upon which case saith Rabbi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For this fool, who did that which was not decent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shall we forbid all shambles? See the place, if you list, and be at leisure to read it.

The Jews were vexed with innumerable scruples in their Feasts, as to the eating of the thing, as also to the company, with which they ate, and of the manner of eating. Of fruits and herbs set on the Table, they were to inquire, whether they were tithed according to custom, whether they were consecrated by the Truma, or some other way, or whether they were profane: whether they were clean, or touched with some pollution or uncleanness, &c. And concerning flesh, that was set on the Table, whether it was of that which had been offered to Idols, whether it were of that which was torn, or of that which was strangled, or not killed according to the Canonical rule, &c. All which doubts the liberty of the Gospel abolished, as to ones own conscience, with this Proviso, that no scandal or offense be cast before another man's weak and staggering Conscience.

VERS. IV.

IT was the custom of the Jews, that they prayed not, unless first their head were veiled; and that for this reason, that by this rite they might show themselves reverent, and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold him.

Let not the wise Men, nor the Scholars of the wise Men pray, unless they be covered. And the Gloss upon Schabbath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let him veil himself out of reverence towards God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priests veil themselves, when they go up into the pulpit. Nicodemus went into the School, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And veiled himself, and prayed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A child, when he knows how to veil himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is bound to fringes upon the borders of his garment. Moses, in Mount Sinai, saw God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As an Angel of the Church veiled.

You may fetch a double reason of this vailing out of these words of the Rabbins. When one goes in to visit a sick person, let him not sit upon the bed, nor in a chair 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but let him veil himself, and sit before him; for God is upon the pillow of the sick person. Where the Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vails himself by reason of the terror of God (or, reverence towards God) like a man that sits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in fear, and looks not on this or that side of him. And, The Scholars of the wise Men (in solemn fasts) veil themselves, and • it, as mourners and persons excommunicate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As those that are reproved by God: Namely, as being ashamed by reason of that reproof. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that was reproved by some great Rabbin, kept himself at home, as one that was ashamed, nor did he stand before him, who made him ashamed, with his head uncovered.

We may observe Onkelos renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an high hand by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an uncovered head. As in Exod. XIV. 8. The Israelites went out of Egypt with an uncovered head; that is, confidently, not fearfully, or as men ashamed. And Numb. XV. 30. The soul which committeth any sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an uncovered head; that is, boldly, and impudently. So Jonathan also in Judge. V. 1. The wise Men returned to sit in the Synagogues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an uncovered head; that is, not fearing their enemies, nor shamed by them.

Men therefore veiled themselves, when they prayed, partly for a sign of reverence towards God, partly to show themselves ashamed before God, and unworthy to look upon him. In which thing that these Corinthians did yet Judaize, although now converted to Christianity, appears sufficiently from the correction of the Apostle.

Of the manner of vailing. See the Treatise Moed Katon : and the Aruch l.

VERS. V.

I. IT was the custom of the women, and that prescribed them under severe Canons, that they should not go abroad but with their face veiled.

If a woman do these things, she transgresseth the Jewish Law: if she go out into the street, or into an open Porch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there be not a veil upon her, as upon all women, although her hair be rolled up under a hood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is the Jewish Law? Let not a woman go with her head uncovered. This is founded in the Law; for it is said (of the suspected wife) The Priest shall uncover her head ( Numb. V. 18.) And the tradition of the School of Ishmael is, that the Daughters of Israel are admonished hence, not to go forth with their heads not veiled. And, Modest women color one Eye with paint. The Gloss there is. Modest woman went veiled, and uncovered but one Eye, that they might see, and that Eye they coloured. One made bare a womons head in the street: she came to complain before R. Akiba, and he fined the man four hundred Zuzees.

II. But however women were veiled in the streets, yet when they resorted unto holy Service, they took off their vails, and exposed their naked faces; and that not out of lightness, but out of religion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The three feasts are the Scabs of the year. The Gloss is, The three feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) are the breakings out of the year by the reason of the association of men and women, and because of transgressions. Because in the days of those feasts men and women assembled together, to hear Sermons, and cast their Eyes upon one another. And some say, that for this cause they were wont to fast after Passover and Pentecost.

From whence it may readily be gathered, that men and women should not so promiscuously and confusedly meet and sit together, nor that they should so look upon one another, as in the Courts of the Temple, and at Jerusalem, when such innumerable multitudes flocked to the Feasts: but that women should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they might hear and see what is done in the Synagogue, yet they themselves remain out of sight. Which custom, Baronius proves at large, and not amiss, that those first Churches of the Christians retained.

When the women therefore did thus meet apart, it is no wonder, if they took off the vails from their faces, when they were now out of the sight of men, and the cause of their vailing being removed, which indeed was, that they might not be seen by men. The Apostle therefore does not at all chide this making bare the face absolutely considered, but there lies something else within. For,

III. This warning of the Apostle respects not only public religious meetings, but belongs to those things, which were done by men and women in their houses, and inner chambers: for there also, they used these rites, when they prayed and handled holy things privately, as well as in the public assemblies. Rabban Gamaliel journeying, and being asked by one that met him concerning a certain vow, he light off his horse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and veiled himself, and sat down, and loosed the vow. So R. Judah Bar Allai, on the Sabbath Eve, when he composed himself in his house, to meet and receive the Sabbath, they brought him warm water, and he washed his face and hands, and feet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And vailing himself with his linnin cloth of divers colors, he sat down, and was like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. So in the example of Nicodemus, lately produced, He went into his School alone privately, and veiled himself, and prayed. So did men privately, and women also on the contrary baring their faces privately. A reason is given of the former, namely, that the men were veiled for reverence towards God, and as being ashamed before God: but why the women were not veiled also, the reason is more obscure.

A more general may easily be rendered, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That a woman was loosed, or free from the precept, that is, from very many rites, to which men were subject; as from the carrying of Fringes, and Phylacteries, from these or the other forms and occasions of prayers, and from very many Ceremonies and Laws, to which men were bound. R. Meir saith, Every man is bound to these three benedictions every day: Blessed be God, that he hath not made me a Heathen: that he hath not made me a woman; that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stupid, or unlearned. But Rabb Acha bar Jacob, when he heard his Son saying, Blessed be God, that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unlearned, stuck at it; and upon this reason, as the Gloss interprets, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because a Heathen and a woman are not capable of the precept: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a rude or unlearned man is capable. Deservedly therefore God is blessed, that God made him not a Heathen, or a woman.

By this Canon that a woman was loosed from the precept, they were exempted from covering the face during Religious Worship, when that precept respected men, and not women. But if you require a more particular reason of this exemption, what reason will you find for it? It is almost an even lay, whether the Canonists exempted women from vailing, because they valued them much, or because they valued them little. In some things, they place women below the dignity, and without the necessity of observing those or the other rites; and whether in this thing they were of the same opinion; or that on the contrary, they attributed more to the beauty of the faces of women, than of men, is a just question. But whether the thing bend this way or the other, the correction and warning of the Apostle doth excellently suit to this, or to that, as it will appear in what follows.

Dishonoureth her head? What head? That which she carries upon her shoulders? Or that, to which she is subjected? As the man to Christ, the woman to the man. That the Apostle is to be understood especially of the later, appears from the verse before, and indeed from the whole context. For to what end are those words produced, verse. 3. I would have you know, that the head of the woman is the man, &c. unless that they be applied, and make to the Apostles business im the verses following.

Nor yet is the subjection of the woman, and the superiority of the man, all that by, and because of which the Apostle concludes, that a woman must not pray, but veiled, and a man the contrary. For if it were so argued by him, Let not a woman pray but with her head covered, because she is subject to her husband: it might be argued in like manner; Let not a man pray, but with his head covered, because he is subject to Christ.

I fear, lest that interpretation, which supposeth the vailing of women in this place, as a sign of the woman's subjection to her husband, should more obscure the sense of this place, obscure enough indeed of itself. So one writes, A woman ought to have a covering, that she may show herself humble, and to be subject to her husband. And another, Now the reason of the vailing of women is, because they are subject to men, &c. Take a covering, by which is signified, that the wise is in the power of the husband. And lastly, A veil, whereby is signified, that she is subject to the power of another. And very many to the same sense. But let me ask,

I. Where, I beseech you, is a veil propounded as a sign of such subjection? It is put indeed as a sign of true modesty, Gen. XXIV. 65. and of dissembled modesty, Gen. XXXVIII. 14. but where is it used as a sign of subjection?

II. Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a Covering (as the Apostle clearly asserts in this place) from the first moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a husband, and heard that, He shall rule over thee; yea, before she was married to Adam.

III. The Apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in general, whether they were Wives, Virgins or Widows.

IV. The obligation of subjection towards the husband follows the woman ever and everywhere; ought she ever and everywhere to carry a veil with her, as a sign of that subjection? Must she necessarily be veiled, while she is about the affairs of her family? Must she be veiled in the garden, in the fields, walking alone, or with her family? It is clear enough, the Apostle speaks of vailing only, when they were employed in Religious Worship; and that regard is had to something that belongs to the woman in respect of God, rather than in respect of her husband. And although we should not deny the vailing of the woman was some sign of her subjection towards her husband; yet we do deny, that the vailing, concerning which the Apostle here speaks, hath any regard to it.

V. The Jews assign shame as the reason of the woman's vailing. Why does a man go abroad with his head not covered, but women with their heads covered? R. Joshua saith, It is as when one transgresseth, and is made ashamed: she therefore goes with her head veiled. Behold a veil, a sign indeed of shame, but not of subjection. And they fetch the shame of the woman thence, that she first brought sin into the world.

Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of the woman in Religious Worship, by the same notion and reason, as men veiled themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be inquired, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth that contrary custom, and foolishness of men: as though he had said, Do ye not consider, that the man is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Glory of God, but the woman is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Glory of the Man; that woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and then how ridiculous is it, that men should use a veil, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The woman is the glory of the man: So R. Solomon , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Like the glory of the man, that is, saith he, Like the woman, who is the glory of the husband. See also the Targum.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dishonoureth her head. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The lightness of the head, among the Talmudists is Levity or irreverence: and if you should render the Greek expression in the same sense, as though it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vili • ies his head, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She vili • ies her head, one should not much stray either from Grammar, or from truth. But the sense ariseth higher: a man praying covered, as ashamed of his face before God, disgraceth his head, Christ, who himself carried the like face of a man: especially, he disgraceth the office of Christ, by whom we have access to God with confidence. And a woman praying not veiled, as if she were not ashamed of her face, disgraceth man, her head, while she would seem so beautiful beyond him, when she is only the glory of the man: but the man is the glory of God.

VERS. VI.

IF she be not veiled, let her be shorn. Yea rather, you will say, let her go with her hair loose, for it was given her for a Covering by nature. Will the Apostle suffer this, or any civilized Nation? By no means. He saith, the hair of women was given them for a Covering, and yet requires another Covering; calling to mind the primitive reason, why the Covering of hair is given by nature to a woman, viz. to be a sign of her reverence, humiliation, and shame before God. The Apostle permits women to gather and bind up their hair into knots by hairlaces; a thing done in all Nations, that were not fierce and wild; yea he would scarce suffer the contrary. But if any woman was so unmindful or forgetful, why the veil of her hair was granted her by nature, and so much assured of her beauty, and her face, as when she prays, to take off her veil, the sign of her reverence towards God; let her take off also, saith he, that natural sign of reverence, the veil of her hair.

VERS. X.

THAT which commonly here obtains is, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Power, is understood A veil. a sign of power above her, or of her subjection. But it is to be inquired, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to have power, does not properly, yea, always denote to have power in ones own hand, not a power above one: as Matth. VII. 29. Joh. XIX. 10. 1 Cor. VII. 37. and IX. 4. and elsewhere a thousand times.

Because of the Angels? Whom? Whether because of good Angels? or because of bad? Or, because of the Ministers? The Reader knows what is said for this sense, and for that, and for the other, which we will not repeat.

I. Truly, if I would understand A veil by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Power, by Angels I would understand Devils, which are called Angels in this very Epistle, Chap. V • . 3 A •• i • I were of opinion, that the Apostle treated here of public Assemblies only, I would render his words to this sense: A woman in the public Assembly of the Church ought to hav • her face veiled because of the Devils: namely, that they ensnare not men by the appearance of the beauty of women's faces, and provoke them to gaze upon their faces, and to behold them with lascivious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to Heaven, and to be intent upon divine things.

II. Or if by Angels are to be understood Ministers, our Interpretation, doth suit very well, which makes a veil a sign of shame and reverence before God, not of subjection towards the husband. For certainly this sounds more Logically, women are to be veiled in Religious Worship, as being ashamed before God; therefore let them be veiled before those, who are the Ministers of God; than that, women are to be veiled in Religious Worship, because they are subject to their husbands, therefore they are to be veiled before Ministers.

III. If we take Angels in the most proper sense, that is, for good Angels, and attribute its most proper sense to the expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To have power, that is, to have power in ones own hand, then we might interpret the place after this manner; A woman hath not the power of her own head in her own hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in respect of God, but is to be veiled in reverence towards God: but she hath the power of her head in her own hand, of not vailing herself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in respect of the Angels; for she oweth not such a Religious reverence to them.

IV. But I suppose the Apostle looks another way: And,

I. That he does not here speak in his own sense, but cites something usual among the Jews: not so much to dictate some rule for Christian women, as to produce a Jewish custom, in confirmation of those things, which he had said immediately before.

II. He had said, That the woman is the glory of the man, that she was of the man, that she was made for the man, &c. And this may testify that which is said among the Jews, The woman ought to have in her own hand power of her head because of the Angels.

III. But now there was among them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, or messengers of Espousals: who were deputed by this or that man, to espouse a wife for him that deputed him. Concerning which Angels the Masters here and there discourse largely: but especially see Kiddushin . Where it begins thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A man espouseth a wife to himself either by himself, or by his Angel, or Deputy.

IV. But now although the Canons of the Masters required, and the custom of the Nation approved the vailing of women's faces in the streets: yet it was permitted women to bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautify them in order to honest marriage: which reason itself, and the custom of the Nation confirms, and the Rabbins teach.

V. Hither the reasoning of the Apostle in this place seems to refer, Woman was created for man, verse. 9. Which is proved, O ye Jews, by your own consent; when ye decree, that a woman hath power, and ought to have it, in her own hand, over her own head because of the Angels of Espousals. Let her bare her face, if she will, that she may appear beautiful; let her veil it, if she will, that she may appear modest. She hath free power in her own hands, to promote her own Espousal, and Marriage, that she may be for a man, since she was created for man.

VI. It is true indeed, that especially obtained, which immediately almost followeth after the words newly alleged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is commanded, that a man espouse a woman by himself, rather than by his Deputy: and that which presently follows, Let no man espouse a woman, before he see her . But it was very frequently done, that after one had seen a woman, he betrothed her to himself by his Angels or Deputies, either out of his own modesty, or some necessity compelling him.

VII. Hence the Apostle seems to make mention of those Angels, rather than of the men, that deputed them to that business, and that the more strongly to confirm and prove the thing, which he treats of. As if he should say, The woman hath not only power of her head, to bare her face before him, who is to be her husband, but before them, who are sent, and deputed by him, to betroth her: and from this very thing, saith he, it is clear, that the woman was created for the man, seeing she, that she might be for the man, hath such a power of uncovering her face before those Angels, who come to espouse her, when otherwise by the custom of the Nation it were not lawful. The Apostle conceals the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Espousals, and saith only Because of the Angels, not, Because of the Angels of Espousals: for by the very scope of his discourse that is easily understood; when in the words immediately going before, he saith, The woman is created for the man. So also the Talmudists very frequently use the single word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, when once it is known, that they are speaking of Espousals.

VERS. XIV.

WHether the Apostle reproves men's long hair, by occasion offered from his discourse of women's long hair; or (which is not improbable) that these Judaizing Corinthians as yet retained Nazarite-ship, and for that cause let their hair grow; that which he saith, That nature itself teacheth, that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair, is sufficiently confirmed from hence, that it is womanish. There were indeed divers Nations which wore long hair, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The long haired Acheans, in Homer; Gaul Comata, Gaul whose Inhabitants wore long hair, in the Historians, &c. But whether in this they followed the light of nature, or rather did it out of their barbarous breeding, or that they might appear more terrible to their enemies, is upon good reason inquired.

You will say then, whence comes it to pass that the Nazarites let their hair grow, and that by divine command? I answer, it was a sign of humiliation, and self-denial, as abstaining from Wine and Grapes also was. It made a show of a certain religious slovenliness, and contempt of a man's self.

They are therefore very much deceived, who think that Absalom let his hair grow out of pride, when he did so indeed by reason of a vow (at least a feigned vow) of Nazarite-ship. The Jerusalem Talmudists say very truly; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Absalom, say they, was a perpetual Nazarite. Very truly, I say, in this, that they assert he was a Nazarite: but of the perpetuity of his vow we will not here dispute. See 2 Sam. XV. 7, 8.

There is, in Tacitus, a wicked Votary not unlike him, Civilis by name; of whom thus he speaks, Civilis, barbaro Voto, post coepta adversus Romanos arma, propexum rutilatum{que} crinem, &c. Civilis by a barbarous vow, after arms taken up against the Romans, laid down his long red hair, the slaughter of the Legions being at last executed.

The Jews, if they were not bound by the vow of a Nazarite, cut their hair very often: and however they did it at other times, certainly always before a Feast, and that in honor of the Feast, that was approaching. Whence a greater suspicion may here arise, that these Corinthians by their long hair professed themselves Nazarites.

These cut their hair in the feast itself: He that comes from a Heathen place, and he that comes out of prison, and the excommunicate person, who is loosed from his excommunication. The sense of the Tradition is this, Those, who were detained by some necessity before the Feast, that they could not cut their hair, might cut it in the Feast itself. But if no such necessity hindered, they cut their hair before the Feast, and commonly on the very Eves of the Feast: When any man cuts not his hair on the Eves of the Festival day, but three days before, it appears, that he cut not his hair in honor of the Feast.

We cannot here omit this story. A certain Travailer, who was a Barbar, and an Astrologer, saw by his Astrology, that the Jews would shed his blood (which was to be understood of his Proselytism, namely, when they circumcised him) when a certain Jew therefore came to him, to have his hair cut, he cut his throat. And how many throats did he cut? R. Lazar ben Jose saith, Eighty. R. Jose ben R. Bon saith. Three hundred.

VERS. XV.

THE daughter of Nicodemus being reduced to miserable poverty, going to Rabban Jochanan to speak to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veiled herself with her hair, and stood before him. The poor woman had no other veil, therefore she used that which was given her by nature: and she used it (shall I say, as a sign? Or) as an Instrument, and mark of modesty, and shamefacedness.

VERS. XXI.

I. I Wonder the Agapae, The love Feasts, of which S. Jude speaks, verse. 12. should among Interpreters receive their exposition hence. In those Feasts, saith Beza, which they call Agapae, that they used to take the holy Supper of the Lord, appears from, 1 Cor. XI. Of which thing discourse is had in Tertullian's Apologetic, Chap. XXXIX. and in other writings of the Ancients. So he also speaks at Act. II. 42. And upon this place, The Apostle, saith he, passeth to another Head of this Discourse, namely, the administration of the Lord's Supper, to which the Love-feasts were joined, &c. And upon the following verse, The Love-feasts, although they had been used a long while in the Church, and commendably too, the Apostles themselves being the Authors of them, yet the Apostle judgeth them to be taken away because of their abuse.

So also, Baronius: The use of a most commendable thing persevered as yet in the Church; that what Christ had done at his last Supper, and had admonished his Disciples to do in remembrance of him, that Christians meeting in the Church should sup together, and withal should receive the most holy Eucharist: Which nevertheless when the Corinthians fulfilled not as they ought, Paul doth deservedly reprove.

He that should deny such charitable Feasts to have been used in the Church together with the Eucharist, certainly would contradict all antiquity: but whether those Feasts were these Agapae, of which the Apostle Jude speaks, whether those Feasts had Christ or his Apostles for their Authors; and whether these Corinthian Feasts were such; if any doubt, he doth it not without cause, nor doth he without probability believe the contrary. Of these Corinthian Feasts, here what Sedulius saith: Among the Corinthians, saith he, heretofore as some assert, prevailed an ill custom, to dishonor the Churches everywhere by Feasts, which they eat before the Lord's Oblation. Which Supper they began a nights; and when the rich came drunk to the E • charist, the poor were vexed with hunger. But that custom, as they report, came from the Gentile Superstition, as yet among them. Mark that; I should say, From the Jewish Superstition. The very same is in Primasius.

II. If I may, with the good leave of Antiquity, speak freely that which I think concerning the Agap • , of which the Apostle Jude speaks, take it in a few words.

Those Agapae, we suppose, were, when strangers were hospitably entertained in each Church, and that at the cost of the Church. And we are of opinion, that this laudable custom was derived from the Synagogues of the Jews. In the Synagogues they neither eat nor drink, &c. But there was a place near the Synagogue, in which Travelers were wont to sleep and eat. Hence that in Pesachin, where it is asked, why they consecrate the day (which was usual over a cup of wine) in the Synagogue? And it is answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That Travelers also may do their duty, who eat, and drink and feast in the Synagogue. Here the Glosser enquires, whether it were lawful to eat and drink in the Synagogues, when it is forbid by an open Canon. And at length among other things he answereth thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Chambers which joined to the Synagogue, are called Synagogues also, and from thence travellers heard the Consecration. There was therefore a certain Hospital, either near or joining to the Synagogue, wherein travellers and pilgrims were received and entertained at the common cost of the Synagogue. Compare Act. XVIII. 7.

But now, that a custom of so great charity was translated into the Christian Church, there are many things which persuade: as also, that these entertainments of strangers were those Agapae, concerning which St. Jude speaks in terms, and Peter in the same sense, though not in terms, 2 Pet. II.

I. Since the Apostolic Churches imitated the laudable customs of the Synagogues in all things almost, which might more largely be demonstrated, if this were a place for it; it is by no means to be thought, that this so piouss, so Christian, so necessary a custom should be passed over by them, I say it again, so necessary. For

II. When the Apostles and Disciples travailed up and down preaching the Gospel, poor enough both by the iniquity of the times, and by the very command of our Savior: and when at that time not a few were banished from their own dwellings for the profession of the Gospel; the honor of the Gospel, the necessity of the thing, and Christian piety and charity required, that they should be sustained by some such relief.

III. When Gaius is said to be the host of the whole Church, Rom. XVI. 23. You can scarce take this in another sense, than that he was deputed by the Church over the public Hospital; where he discharged his office so laudably, that he carried away a testimony of praise, (if he be the same Gaius, which it is probable he was) from St. John in his third Epistle, verse. 5.

IV. When mention is made of Widows washing strangers feet, 1 Tim. V. 10. And when Phebe is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Servant of the Church at Kenchrea, Rom. XVI. 1. to omit other women, who are said to labor much in the Lord; you will scarcely fix a better sense upon these Charecters, than that they ministered in that public Hospital, of which we are speaking.

V. And this sense agrees excellently well, above all others, with the place of Jude alleged, as also with that of Peter, who treats of the same thing. For Jude speaks of Apostate Heretics, Seducers, the most wicked of all mortal men; whom, he saith, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Spots in their Agapae. And do you think these were of the same Church, where they so fasted? Were these admitted without any scruple to the Agapae, if they were appendages to the Lord's Supper? For Jude saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 feeding themselves without fear, &c. How much more probable is it to think, that these strangers were unknown persons, under the form of believers, wandering up and down, and received in the common Hospital of the Church, and there scattering their errors; and that so much the more boldly, as they were themselves the more unknown. We are far from denying, that some Agapae, Love-feasts, were used as appendages of the Lord's Supper, in more ancient ages of the Church: but whether in the times of the Apostles, we ask, and whether Jude means such, we very much doubt, and that such are here pointed out by the Apostle, we do not at all believe. Those banquetings of the Corinthians before the Eucharist, unless we are very much mistaken, look far another way: and I fear, lest while some pursue this place concerning the Lord's Supper with such Commentaries of dread and terror, that some being moved and terrified thereby, do altogether avoid this Sacrament, as some deadly thing, and not to be meddled with: I fear, I say, that they do hit upon the fault and error of the Corinthians in this business, and that they do not reduce that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unworthily, to their proper crime.

We believe the Jewish part of this Church, although converted to the Gospel, yet retained somewhat of their old Leaven: and as they Judaized in other things, so in this about the Eucharist: so grievously erring concerning the proper end of it, that they thought it only an appendage of the Passover; or some new or superadded form of the commemoration of the going out of Egypt. Into which error they might be the more apt to fall, they especially who were so inclinable to Judaism, both because it was instituted in bread and wine, which were in the Passove •• and because they had drunk in this from their very cradles, That the Messiah when he should come, would banish or change nothing of the rites of Moses, but would promote and raise all unto a more splendid form and pomp. That this was the error of the Corinthians about the Eucharist, these observations make evident, which the Apostle hints, both in this verse, and those that follow: of which in their order, as we meet with them. And first let us weigh this, that is under our hands.

I. It is clearer than the Sun, that the Apostle sharply reproves the Corinthians for these very Suppers: I say, for the very Suppers, and not only for an abuse happening in the Suppers. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his own Supper, he calls that, which was to be eaten at home, if any were so hungry before the Eucharist, that he could not abstain. He dishonoreth the Church with the Supper which was brought into it. Weigh these things and think, whether these Agapae were those that are supposed.

II. The Corinthians placed somewhat of Religion in these Suppers, when they brought them into the Church. But what was that? Thus doing they retained the shadow, and memory of keeping the Passover, and very willingly they imitated the example of Christ in the Ante-supper, that they might the more freely serve their Judaism in so doing: yea, they dreamt that the Eucharist was instituted for the same commemoration with the Passover. It was Epidemical among the Jews converted to the Gospel, that they embraced Christianity, but did not forgo Judaism; yea, that they brought over the things of the Gospel, as much as could be, to the doctrines and practices of the Jews.

There is none, that we know, that applies not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , One is hungry, to the poor, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Another is drunken, to the rich: which we also once believed: but they seem rather to be applied to the different Nations. Drunken to the Jews, celebrating the Passover in their Ante suppers before the Eucharist; and Hungry to the Gentiles, not being hungry so much out of poverty, or necessity, as that they would not embrace such an Ante-supper, as savouring of Judaism.

We may interpret the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , another is drunk, more favourably, than to extend it to extreme drunkenness. For all know what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 means, in Gen. XLIII. ult. They drunk largely with him; and Cantic. V. 1. Drink abundantly, O Beloved. Where the LXX read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They were drunk with him: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be ye drunk, Brethren. But if you will attribute an ignominious sense to it, it does not much differ from that liberal pouring in of wine, which was allowed, and used by some in their celebrating the Passovers. But the Apostle seems to inveigh against the very use of the thing, namely, against the Suppers themselves, rather than against the abuse of them. For if the excess of those Suppers had been that, which is especially accused, he had bent the force of his reproof more directly against it; but of that there is not one Syllable, besides this word.

We therefore believe these two contrary expressions, One is hungry, and another is drunken, are thus to be understood. The Jewish part of the Church would by no means come to the Eucharist without a Paschal Ante-supper, and banquet, where they were treated, ate and drank deliciously, and plentifully, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and drank freely, and were filled, and raised to a pitch of cheerfulness; when the Gentile party on the contrary abhorring this Judaizing, and avoiding such Ante-suppers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as yet were hungry, and approached to the Sacrament fasting, that is, not having supped. And this we suppose to be the true cause of that enormity, which the Apostle corrects, ver. 33. namely, that they would not tarry one for another: the Gentile party would not tarry, till the Jewish party had dispatched their own time, how much so ever it were, in eating their Suppers.

VERS. XXIII.

WHAT need had the Apostle to recur to this? Did the Corinthians doubt of the institution of the Eucharist? Or, of the authority of the Apostle, who delivered unto them that institution? It was neither one, nor the other; for they came to the Eucharist, and that because it was delivered them by the Apostle. But he calls them back hither for this reason, that from the words of Christ, who had instituted his own Supper, and from his words wherein he had delivered to them that institution, they might observe, that the scope and end of that institution was the commemoration of the death of Christ, not any Paschal commemoration.

I. Namely, that Christ had said, This is my body; This is my blood; to teach that the bread and wine now looked another way, than they had looked, when they were used in the Passover. In that the unleavened bread shown their hasty deliverance out of Egypt, and the wine their joy for that deliverance. But in the Eucharist, the bread points out the body of our Lord broken, and the wine his blood poured out.

II. That he said also of the wine, that it is the New Testament in his blood: and what had it therefore to do with the Passover of the Old Testament?

III. That he said lastly upon both, Do this in commemoration of me. In commemoration of me, not in commemoration of the Passover, or anything else.

VERS. XXV.

THAT our Savior speaks here figuratively hath been sufficiently proved formerly by very many. But let us observe this moreover. That cup, which Christ used was mixed with water, if so be he retained the ordinary custom of the Nation in this matter, which is not in the least to be doubted. Of the custom of the Nation we have spoke at Mat. XXVI. 27. Now repeating this only thence: The Wise men gave their votes for R. Eleazar, that none must bless over the cup of blessing, until water be mingled with it. This we note, that the harmony between the Sacramental Blood, as we may so call it, of the Old Testament, and this Sacramental Blood of the New may be demonstrated: and in like manner between this Sacramental Blood of the New Testament, and the very Blood of Christ.

I. In the striking of the old Covenant, Exod. XXIV. there was blood mixed with water, Heb. IX. 19. and in this Sanction of the new, there was wine also mixed with water.

II. Out of Christ's side with blood flowed water, Joh. XIX. 34. Unusual, beside the course of Nature, and that it might answer the Type.

Matthew and Mark exhibit the words of Christ thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is my blood of the New Testament: Paul and Paul's companion, Luke thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This cup is the New Covenant in my blood: to the same sense with the former; but more explained. And here again, let us compare the Sanction of the old Covenant, Exod. XXIV.

I. A figurative expression is used in that History: when it is said that Moses sprinkled the blood upon all the people; that is, upon the twelve pillars erected by him, to represent the twelve tribes, verse. 4. So also in this place, This is my blood, that is, The representation of my blood.

II. Of the blood then sprinkled it might be said, This is the blood of Christ, of the old, or first Testament. The very blood then, and from thence represented the blood of Christ: because under the Old Testament there was from time to time to be shedding of blood. But now wine is a representation of the blood of Christ: because thence forward the shedding of such kind of blood was to cease.

III. The old Covenant was not established in the blood of that Paschal Lamb in Egypt, but in the blood of Bulls and Goats in the wilderness. And the reason was, because when the Passover was instituted, the Laws and Articles, concerning which the Covenant was entered into, had not been promulgated: but when they were published and written, then the Covenant was established. In like manner Christ in the institution of Baptism established not the New Covenant: Baptism was the beginning of the Gospel, Mark I. 1. But when he had delivered the doctrine and articles of the Gospel, then he established the New Testament.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is giving? Behold all my goods are given to N. from this time. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ a Covenant? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let mine be my own, and remain so, but when I dy, let N. have them. So the Apostle, Heb. IX. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Where a Testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the Testator, &c.

I. This Cup is not only a sign of the blood of Christ, nor only a Seal as a Sacrament; but the very Sanction of the New Testament, that is, of the whole Evangelic administration, not only the Sanction of a Covenant, but the Sanction of the Covenant under the Evangelic administration. From thenceforth was the cessation of Judaism. So that blood, Exod. XXIV. was not only the Sanction of the Covenant of grace, and the Sanction of the Covenant of the peculiarity of the people of Israel, but the Sanction of these things under such an Economy.

II. While therefore we receive this Sacrament, we profess and protest against all other dispensations and religions, besides that of the Gospel. Hence in the times immediately following the ascension of Christ, the communication of the Eucharist was so frequent; viz. that they, who had been now newly converted from Judaism, by the use of this Sacrament, might show, that they renounced their Judaism, and professed the Faith and Economy of the Gospel.

III. Our Communion therefore in this Sacrament is not so much Spiritual, as External, and declarative of our common and joint profession of the Christian Faith. We are far from denying, that the Saints have a Spiritual Communion with God, and among themselves in the use of the Eucharist; yea we assert there is a most close Communion between true believers and God. But what is that Spiritual Communion of Saints among themselves? Mutual love, one heart, prayers for one another, &c. But they may exercise the same Communion, and do exercise it, when they meet together to any other part of Divine Worship. They may and do act the same thing, when they are distant from one another. Therefore their Communion in this Sacrament, which is distinctly called the Communion of the Eucharist, is, that they meet together, and by this outward sign, openly and with joint minds profess, that they are united in one sacred knot and bond of Christian Religion, renouncing all other Religions.

IV. When therefore we approach to the Eucharist in any Church, we do not only communicate with that congregation, with which we associate at that time, but with the whole Catholic Church in the profession of the true Evangelic Religion.

VERS. XXVI.

IT is known, what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Passover Supper was, namely, a Declaration of the great works of God in the deliverance of the people out of Egypt. The same, as it seems, would these Judaizing Corinthians retain in the Lord's Supper; as if the Eucharist were instituted and superadded only for that commemoration. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does very well answer to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Declaration: and while the Apostle admonisheth them, that the death of Christ is that which is to be declared, it may be gathered, that they erred in this very thing, and looked some other way.

VERS. XXVII.

THE Apostle explains himself verse. 29. Where we also will speak of this verse.

VERS. XXVIII.

HE had said before verse 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That they which are approved may be made manifest. And in the same sense he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let a man approve himself, in this place; not so much, Let him try, or examine himself, as Let him approve himself; that is, Let him show himself approved by the Christian Faith and Doctrine. So Chap. XVI. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whomsoever ye shall approve. We meet with the word in the same sense very often.

VERS. XXIX.

THIS is to be meant of the proper act of the understanding: viz. Of the true judgment concerning the nature and signification of the Sacrament. If it were said indeed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Not discerning the Lord, it might be rendered in the same sense, as He knew not the Lord, that is, he loves him not, he fears him not, he worships him not. But when it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Not discerning the body, it plainly speaks of the act of the understanding: He does not rightly distinguish of the body of the Lord. And this was a grievous error of these Judaizing Corinthians, who would see nothing of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, or of his death; their eyes being too intent upon the commemoration of the Passover. They retained the old Leaven of Judaism in this new Passover of the Eucharist. And this was their partaking of the Sacrament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unworthily, as assigning it a scope and end much too unworthy, much too mean.

Ther are, alas! among Christians, some who come to this Sacrament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unworthily; but whether this unworthily of the Corinthians, be fitly applied to them, I much doubt. How mean soever I am, let me speak this freely, with the leave of good and pious men, that I fear, that this discourse of the Apostle, which especially chastized Judaizers, be too severely applied to Christians, that Judaize not at all: at least that it be not by very many Interpreters applied to the proper and intended scope of it.

Of these Corinthians receiving the Eucharist unworthily in the sense of which we spake, the Apostle speaks two dreadful things.

I. That they became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, verse. 27. With this I compare that of the Apostle, Heb. X. 29. He hath trampled underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, by which he, the Son of God, was sanctified, a common thing. And Heb. VI. 6. They crucify again to themselves the Son of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and put him to an open shame. Of whom is the discourse? Not of all Christians, that walked not exactly according to the Gospel rule (although they indeed esteem and treat Christ too ignominously) but of those that relapse and Apostatize from the Gospel to Judaism, whether these Corinthians too much inclined, and are admonished seasonably to take care of the same guilt: for when any professing the Gospel, so declined to Judaism, that he put the blood of Christ in subordination to the Passover, and acknowledged nothing more in it, than was acknowledged in the blood of a Lamb, and other Sacrifices, namely, that they were a mere commemoration and nothing else, oh! how did he vilify that blood of the eternal Covenant: He is guilty of the blood of the Lord, who assents to the shedding of his blood, and, gives his vote to his death, as inflicted for a mere shadow, and nothing else; which they did.

II. That they ate and drank 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Judgment to themselves. But what that judgment is, is declared verse. 30. Many are sick, &c. It is too sharp, when some turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Damnation, when the Apostle saith most evidently verse. 32. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ When we are judged we are chastened, that we should not be condemned.

Thus as in the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation, God vindicated the honor of the Sabbath, by the death of him that gathered sticks; and the honor of the worship in the Tabernacle, by the death of Nadab and Abihu; and the honor of his Name, by the stoning of the Blasphemer: so he set up like monuments of his vengeance in the beginning of the Gospel Dispensation, in the dreadful destruction of Ananias and Sapphira, for the wrong and reproach offered to the Holy Ghost; in the delivery of some into the hands of Satan, for contempt of, and enmity against the Gospel; in this judgment, for the abuse of the Eucharist; in the destruction of some by the Plague for Nicolaitism Revel. II. 23, &c.

VERS. XXXIII.

NOT that he allowed those Ante-suppers of the Judaizers, and commands the Gentile party of the Church to wait till the Jewish part eat those Suppers: but having before wholly condemned those Paschal Ante-suppers, he would take away all dividing into parties, and that all might resort to the Eucharist together with one accord, not separately, and in parts and contentions.

VERS. IV.

IT was the custom of the Jews, that they prayed not, unless first their head were veiled; and that for this reason, that by this rite they might show themselves reverent, and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold him.

Let not the wise Men, nor the Scholars of the wise Men pray, unless they be covered. And the Gloss upon Schabbath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let him veil himself out of reverence towards God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priests veil themselves, when they go up into the pulpit. Nicodemus went into the School, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And veiled himself, and prayed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A child, when he knows how to veil himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is bound to fringes upon the borders of his garment. Moses, in Mount Sinai, saw God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As an Angel of the Church veiled.

You may fetch a double reason of this vailing out of these words of the Rabbins. When one goes in to visit a sick person, let him not sit upon the bed, nor in a chair 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but let him veil himself, and sit before him; for God is upon the pillow of the sick person. Where the Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vails himself by reason of the terror of God (or, reverence towards God) like a man that sits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in fear, and looks not on this or that side of him. And, The Scholars of the wise Men (in solemn fasts) veil themselves, and • it, as mourners and persons excommunicate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As those that are reproved by God: Namely, as being ashamed by reason of that reproof. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that was reproved by some great Rabbin, kept himself at home, as one that was ashamed, nor did he stand before him, who made him ashamed, with his head uncovered.

We may observe Onkelos renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an high hand by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an uncovered head. As in Exod. XIV. 8. The Israelites went out of Egypt with an uncovered head; that is, confidently, not fearfully, or as men ashamed. And Numb. XV. 30. The soul which committeth any sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an uncovered head; that is, boldly, and impudently. So Jonathan also in Judge. V. 1. The wise Men returned to sit in the Synagogues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With an uncovered head; that is, not fearing their enemies, nor shamed by them.

Men therefore veiled themselves, when they prayed, partly for a sign of reverence towards God, partly to show themselves ashamed before God, and unworthy to look upon him. In which thing that these Corinthians did yet Judaize, although now converted to Christianity, appears sufficiently from the correction of the Apostle.

Of the manner of vailing. See the Treatise Moed Katon : and the Aruch l.

VERS. V.

I. IT was the custom of the women, and that prescribed them under severe Canons, that they should not go abroad but with their face veiled.

If a woman do these things, she transgresseth the Jewish Law: if she go out into the street, or into an open Porch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there be not a veil upon her, as upon all women, although her hair be rolled up under a hood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is the Jewish Law? Let not a woman go with her head uncovered. This is founded in the Law; for it is said (of the suspected wife) The Priest shall uncover her head ( Numb. V. 18.) And the tradition of the School of Ishmael is, that the Daughters of Israel are admonished hence, not to go forth with their heads not veiled. And, Modest women color one Eye with paint. The Gloss there is. Modest woman went veiled, and uncovered but one Eye, that they might see, and that Eye they coloured. One made bare a womons head in the street: she came to complain before R. Akiba, and he fined the man four hundred Zuzees.

II. But however women were veiled in the streets, yet when they resorted unto holy Service, they took off their vails, and exposed their naked faces; and that not out of lightness, but out of religion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The three feasts are the Scabs of the year. The Gloss is, The three feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) are the breakings out of the year by the reason of the association of men and women, and because of transgressions. Because in the days of those feasts men and women assembled together, to hear Sermons, and cast their Eyes upon one another. And some say, that for this cause they were wont to fast after Passover and Pentecost.

From whence it may readily be gathered, that men and women should not so promiscuously and confusedly meet and sit together, nor that they should so look upon one another, as in the Courts of the Temple, and at Jerusalem, when such innumerable multitudes flocked to the Feasts: but that women should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they might hear and see what is done in the Synagogue, yet they themselves remain out of sight. Which custom, Baronius proves at large, and not amiss, that those first Churches of the Christians retained.

When the women therefore did thus meet apart, it is no wonder, if they took off the vails from their faces, when they were now out of the sight of men, and the cause of their vailing being removed, which indeed was, that they might not be seen by men. The Apostle therefore does not at all chide this making bare the face absolutely considered, but there lies something else within. For,

III. This warning of the Apostle respects not only public religious meetings, but belongs to those things, which were done by men and women in their houses, and inner chambers: for there also, they used these rites, when they prayed and handled holy things privately, as well as in the public assemblies. Rabban Gamaliel journeying, and being asked by one that met him concerning a certain vow, he light off his horse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and veiled himself, and sat down, and loosed the vow. So R. Judah Bar Allai, on the Sabbath Eve, when he composed himself in his house, to meet and receive the Sabbath, they brought him warm water, and he washed his face and hands, and feet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And vailing himself with his linnin cloth of divers colors, he sat down, and was like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. So in the example of Nicodemus, lately produced, He went into his School alone privately, and veiled himself, and prayed. So did men privately, and women also on the contrary baring their faces privately. A reason is given of the former, namely, that the men were veiled for reverence towards God, and as being ashamed before God: but why the women were not veiled also, the reason is more obscure.

A more general may easily be rendered, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That a woman was loosed, or free from the precept, that is, from very many rites, to which men were subject; as from the carrying of Fringes, and Phylacteries, from these or the other forms and occasions of prayers, and from very many Ceremonies and Laws, to which men were bound. R. Meir saith, Every man is bound to these three benedictions every day: Blessed be God, that he hath not made me a Heathen: that he hath not made me a woman; that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stupid, or unlearned. But Rabb Acha bar Jacob, when he heard his Son saying, Blessed be God, that he hath not made me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unlearned, stuck at it; and upon this reason, as the Gloss interprets, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because a Heathen and a woman are not capable of the precept: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a rude or unlearned man is capable. Deservedly therefore God is blessed, that God made him not a Heathen, or a woman.

By this Canon that a woman was loosed from the precept, they were exempted from covering the face during Religious Worship, when that precept respected men, and not women. But if you require a more particular reason of this exemption, what reason will you find for it? It is almost an even lay, whether the Canonists exempted women from vailing, because they valued them much, or because they valued them little. In some things, they place women below the dignity, and without the necessity of observing those or the other rites; and whether in this thing they were of the same opinion; or that on the contrary, they attributed more to the beauty of the faces of women, than of men, is a just question. But whether the thing bend this way or the other, the correction and warning of the Apostle doth excellently suit to this, or to that, as it will appear in what follows.

Dishonoureth her head? What head? That which she carries upon her shoulders? Or that, to which she is subjected? As the man to Christ, the woman to the man. That the Apostle is to be understood especially of the later, appears from the verse before, and indeed from the whole context. For to what end are those words produced, verse. 3. I would have you know, that the head of the woman is the man, &c. unless that they be applied, and make to the Apostles business im the verses following.

Nor yet is the subjection of the woman, and the superiority of the man, all that by, and because of which the Apostle concludes, that a woman must not pray, but veiled, and a man the contrary. For if it were so argued by him, Let not a woman pray but with her head covered, because she is subject to her husband: it might be argued in like manner; Let not a man pray, but with his head covered, because he is subject to Christ.

I fear, lest that interpretation, which supposeth the vailing of women in this place, as a sign of the woman's subjection to her husband, should more obscure the sense of this place, obscure enough indeed of itself. So one writes, A woman ought to have a covering, that she may show herself humble, and to be subject to her husband. And another, Now the reason of the vailing of women is, because they are subject to men, &c. Take a covering, by which is signified, that the wise is in the power of the husband. And lastly, A veil, whereby is signified, that she is subject to the power of another. And very many to the same sense. But let me ask,

I. Where, I beseech you, is a veil propounded as a sign of such subjection? It is put indeed as a sign of true modesty, Gen. XXIV. 65. and of dissembled modesty, Gen. XXXVIII. 14. but where is it used as a sign of subjection?

II. Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a Covering (as the Apostle clearly asserts in this place) from the first moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a husband, and heard that, He shall rule over thee; yea, before she was married to Adam.

III. The Apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in general, whether they were Wives, Virgins or Widows.

IV. The obligation of subjection towards the husband follows the woman ever and everywhere; ought she ever and everywhere to carry a veil with her, as a sign of that subjection? Must she necessarily be veiled, while she is about the affairs of her family? Must she be veiled in the garden, in the fields, walking alone, or with her family? It is clear enough, the Apostle speaks of vailing only, when they were employed in Religious Worship; and that regard is had to something that belongs to the woman in respect of God, rather than in respect of her husband. And although we should not deny the vailing of the woman was some sign of her subjection towards her husband; yet we do deny, that the vailing, concerning which the Apostle here speaks, hath any regard to it.

V. The Jews assign shame as the reason of the woman's vailing. Why does a man go abroad with his head not covered, but women with their heads covered? R. Joshua saith, It is as when one transgresseth, and is made ashamed: she therefore goes with her head veiled. Behold a veil, a sign indeed of shame, but not of subjection. And they fetch the shame of the woman thence, that she first brought sin into the world.

Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of the woman in Religious Worship, by the same notion and reason, as men veiled themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be inquired, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth that contrary custom, and foolishness of men: as though he had said, Do ye not consider, that the man is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Glory of God, but the woman is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Glory of the Man; that woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and then how ridiculous is it, that men should use a veil, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The woman is the glory of the man: So R. Solomon , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Like the glory of the man, that is, saith he, Like the woman, who is the glory of the husband. See also the Targum.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dishonoureth her head. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The lightness of the head, among the Talmudists is Levity or irreverence: and if you should render the Greek expression in the same sense, as though it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He vili • ies his head, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She vili • ies her head, one should not much stray either from Grammar, or from truth. But the sense ariseth higher: a man praying covered, as ashamed of his face before God, disgraceth his head, Christ, who himself carried the like face of a man: especially, he disgraceth the office of Christ, by whom we have access to God with confidence. And a woman praying not veiled, as if she were not ashamed of her face, disgraceth man, her head, while she would seem so beautiful beyond him, when she is only the glory of the man: but the man is the glory of God.

VERS. VI.

IF she be not veiled, let her be shorn. Yea rather, you will say, let her go with her hair loose, for it was given her for a Covering by nature. Will the Apostle suffer this, or any civilized Nation? By no means. He saith, the hair of women was given them for a Covering, and yet requires another Covering; calling to mind the primitive reason, why the Covering of hair is given by nature to a woman, viz. to be a sign of her reverence, humiliation, and shame before God. The Apostle permits women to gather and bind up their hair into knots by hairlaces; a thing done in all Nations, that were not fierce and wild; yea he would scarce suffer the contrary. But if any woman was so unmindful or forgetful, why the veil of her hair was granted her by nature, and so much assured of her beauty, and her face, as when she prays, to take off her veil, the sign of her reverence towards God; let her take off also, saith he, that natural sign of reverence, the veil of her hair.

VERS. X.

THAT which commonly here obtains is, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Power, is understood A veil. a sign of power above her, or of her subjection. But it is to be inquired, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to have power, does not properly, yea, always denote to have power in ones own hand, not a power above one: as Matth. VII. 29. Joh. XIX. 10. 1 Cor. VII. 37. and IX. 4. and elsewhere a thousand times.

Because of the Angels? Whom? Whether because of good Angels? or because of bad? Or, because of the Ministers? The Reader knows what is said for this sense, and for that, and for the other, which we will not repeat.

I. Truly, if I would understand A veil by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Power, by Angels I would understand Devils, which are called Angels in this very Epistle, Chap. V • . 3 A •• i • I were of opinion, that the Apostle treated here of public Assemblies only, I would render his words to this sense: A woman in the public Assembly of the Church ought to hav • her face veiled because of the Devils: namely, that they ensnare not men by the appearance of the beauty of women's faces, and provoke them to gaze upon their faces, and to behold them with lascivious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to Heaven, and to be intent upon divine things.

II. Or if by Angels are to be understood Ministers, our Interpretation, doth suit very well, which makes a veil a sign of shame and reverence before God, not of subjection towards the husband. For certainly this sounds more Logically, women are to be veiled in Religious Worship, as being ashamed before God; therefore let them be veiled before those, who are the Ministers of God; than that, women are to be veiled in Religious Worship, because they are subject to their husbands, therefore they are to be veiled before Ministers.

III. If we take Angels in the most proper sense, that is, for good Angels, and attribute its most proper sense to the expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To have power, that is, to have power in ones own hand, then we might interpret the place after this manner; A woman hath not the power of her own head in her own hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in respect of God, but is to be veiled in reverence towards God: but she hath the power of her head in her own hand, of not vailing herself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in respect of the Angels; for she oweth not such a Religious reverence to them.

IV. But I suppose the Apostle looks another way: And,

I. That he does not here speak in his own sense, but cites something usual among the Jews: not so much to dictate some rule for Christian women, as to produce a Jewish custom, in confirmation of those things, which he had said immediately before.

II. He had said, That the woman is the glory of the man, that she was of the man, that she was made for the man, &c. And this may testify that which is said among the Jews, The woman ought to have in her own hand power of her head because of the Angels.

III. But now there was among them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, or messengers of Espousals: who were deputed by this or that man, to espouse a wife for him that deputed him. Concerning which Angels the Masters here and there discourse largely: but especially see Kiddushin . Where it begins thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A man espouseth a wife to himself either by himself, or by his Angel, or Deputy.

IV. But now although the Canons of the Masters required, and the custom of the Nation approved the vailing of women's faces in the streets: yet it was permitted women to bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautify them in order to honest marriage: which reason itself, and the custom of the Nation confirms, and the Rabbins teach.

V. Hither the reasoning of the Apostle in this place seems to refer, Woman was created for man, verse. 9. Which is proved, O ye Jews, by your own consent; when ye decree, that a woman hath power, and ought to have it, in her own hand, over her own head because of the Angels of Espousals. Let her bare her face, if she will, that she may appear beautiful; let her veil it, if she will, that she may appear modest. She hath free power in her own hands, to promote her own Espousal, and Marriage, that she may be for a man, since she was created for man.

VI. It is true indeed, that especially obtained, which immediately almost followeth after the words newly alleged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is commanded, that a man espouse a woman by himself, rather than by his Deputy: and that which presently follows, Let no man espouse a woman, before he see her . But it was very frequently done, that after one had seen a woman, he betrothed her to himself by his Angels or Deputies, either out of his own modesty, or some necessity compelling him.

VII. Hence the Apostle seems to make mention of those Angels, rather than of the men, that deputed them to that business, and that the more strongly to confirm and prove the thing, which he treats of. As if he should say, The woman hath not only power of her head, to bare her face before him, who is to be her husband, but before them, who are sent, and deputed by him, to betroth her: and from this very thing, saith he, it is clear, that the woman was created for the man, seeing she, that she might be for the man, hath such a power of uncovering her face before those Angels, who come to espouse her, when otherwise by the custom of the Nation it were not lawful. The Apostle conceals the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Espousals, and saith only Because of the Angels, not, Because of the Angels of Espousals: for by the very scope of his discourse that is easily understood; when in the words immediately going before, he saith, The woman is created for the man. So also the Talmudists very frequently use the single word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, when once it is known, that they are speaking of Espousals.

VERS. XIV.

WHether the Apostle reproves men's long hair, by occasion offered from his discourse of women's long hair; or (which is not improbable) that these Judaizing Corinthians as yet retained Nazarite-ship, and for that cause let their hair grow; that which he saith, That nature itself teacheth, that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair, is sufficiently confirmed from hence, that it is womanish. There were indeed divers Nations which wore long hair, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The long haired Acheans, in Homer; Gaul Comata, Gaul whose Inhabitants wore long hair, in the Historians, &c. But whether in this they followed the light of nature, or rather did it out of their barbarous breeding, or that they might appear more terrible to their enemies, is upon good reason inquired.

You will say then, whence comes it to pass that the Nazarites let their hair grow, and that by divine command? I answer, it was a sign of humiliation, and self-denial, as abstaining from Wine and Grapes also was. It made a show of a certain religious slovenliness, and contempt of a man's self.

They are therefore very much deceived, who think that Absalom let his hair grow out of pride, when he did so indeed by reason of a vow (at least a feigned vow) of Nazarite-ship. The Jerusalem Talmudists say very truly; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Absalom, say they, was a perpetual Nazarite. Very truly, I say, in this, that they assert he was a Nazarite: but of the perpetuity of his vow we will not here dispute. See 2 Sam. XV. 7, 8.

There is, in Tacitus, a wicked Votary not unlike him, Civilis by name; of whom thus he speaks, Civilis, barbaro Voto, post coepta adversus Romanos arma, propexum rutilatum{que} crinem, &c. Civilis by a barbarous vow, after arms taken up against the Romans, laid down his long red hair, the slaughter of the Legions being at last executed.

The Jews, if they were not bound by the vow of a Nazarite, cut their hair very often: and however they did it at other times, certainly always before a Feast, and that in honor of the Feast, that was approaching. Whence a greater suspicion may here arise, that these Corinthians by their long hair professed themselves Nazarites.

These cut their hair in the feast itself: He that comes from a Heathen place, and he that comes out of prison, and the excommunicate person, who is loosed from his excommunication. The sense of the Tradition is this, Those, who were detained by some necessity before the Feast, that they could not cut their hair, might cut it in the Feast itself. But if no such necessity hindered, they cut their hair before the Feast, and commonly on the very Eves of the Feast: When any man cuts not his hair on the Eves of the Festival day, but three days before, it appears, that he cut not his hair in honor of the Feast.

We cannot here omit this story. A certain Travailer, who was a Barbar, and an Astrologer, saw by his Astrology, that the Jews would shed his blood (which was to be understood of his Proselytism, namely, when they circumcised him) when a certain Jew therefore came to him, to have his hair cut, he cut his throat. And how many throats did he cut? R. Lazar ben Jose saith, Eighty. R. Jose ben R. Bon saith. Three hundred.

VERS. XV.

THE daughter of Nicodemus being reduced to miserable poverty, going to Rabban Jochanan to speak to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 veiled herself with her hair, and stood before him. The poor woman had no other veil, therefore she used that which was given her by nature: and she used it (shall I say, as a sign? Or) as an Instrument, and mark of modesty, and shamefacedness.

VERS. XXI.

I. I Wonder the Agapae, The love Feasts, of which S. Jude speaks, verse. 12. should among Interpreters receive their exposition hence. In those Feasts, saith Beza, which they call Agapae, that they used to take the holy Supper of the Lord, appears from, 1 Cor. XI. Of which thing discourse is had in Tertullian's Apologetic, Chap. XXXIX. and in other writings of the Ancients.