as A. Gellius l. 17. c. 8. saith Guttum concussum vehementius iterum in ollam vertit Some say that the box was made of Stone or Marble and could not be easily broken S. Hieron saith that it was a kind of Marble and we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nonnus And it may be that these Vessels were more frequently made of stone particularly of that Lapis alabastrites in Pliny l. 36. c. 8. but it is manifest that they were also made of other matter as of Gold or Silver yea Epiphanius de mensuris describes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a Glass-Vessel as also the Etymologic magnum ap Causaubon says that it signifies among other things a certain Vessel of Glass Pliny saith that Ointments are kept best in these boxes l. 13. c. 2. and l. 36. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was among the Presents which Cambyses sent to the King of the AEthiopians see Herodotus in Thalia Epiphanius de mensuris makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hold a pound of Oyl and so Mary took a pound of Ointment for which Nonnus hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A MS. cited by Baronius An. 32. Num. 22. will have the Woman mentioned S. Luc. â— to have been a Gentile arguing from Deut. 23. 17. where it is said There shall be no Whore of the Daughters of Israel But the Iewish Writers understand this of a common Prostitute one that for hire prostituted her self to the Lust of all comers see Seldon de jur natur l. 5. c. 4. whereas it doth not appear that this Woman was such a publicae libidinis victima though she had lived a lewd and dishonest Life and is therefore called Meretrix by S. Hieron in S. Matth. 26. and S. August ser. 58. de tempore and by the Pers. an impure or unclean Woman Mary Magdalen S. Mat. 27. 56,61 28. 1. S. Mar. 15. 47. 16. 1. S. Luc. 8. 2. 24. 10. S. Ioh. 19. 25. 20. 1. I shall not ingage in the Disputes whether she was the same with the Woman mentioned S. Luc. 7. or with Mary the Sister of Martha Some say that she was Marryed to a great Person who was a Native of Magdala or Magdalum others that her Father was a Noble Man of great Estate and left her the Castle of Magdalum for her Inheritance but Origen Hom. 35. says that she was not noble on any Account save only her following Jesus and ministring to him Some in Nicephorus l. 1. c. 33. say that she was the Daughter of the Woman of Canaan S. Matth. 15. others that she was the Bride in the Marriage at Cana and one Anacletus the Bridegroom Sabellicus reports that she was thirty years in the Wilderness after Christs Ascension but more ancient Writers are silent as to these things When S. Matthew c. 28. tells how this Mary and another Mary laid hold of Christ's Feet he says nothing of Christ's forbidding them yet S. Ioh. 20. he forbad her to touch him the reason of which possibly was this that at that time he perceived her to be in such an Ecstasie of Admiration and Joy that she would not barely touch him but embrace and cleave to him whereas he was for her going quickly to tell his Brethren that he was not yet ascended but should shortly ascend to his Father Some of late have contended that there were three Mary Magdalen's and S. Hieron ad Hedibiam qu. 4. tells of those that affirmed that there were two and S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 23. saith that perhaps there were more than one Of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in Sanhedr fol. 67. 1. Shabbath fol. 104. 2. and Chagigah fol. 4. 2. but in all these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not any place from which she had the Denomination but plicatrix one that platted or broided viz. Womens Hair see Chagigah Mary Martha and Lazarus S. Luc. 10. 38. S. Ioh. c. 11. and c. 12. It being not agreed upon as certain that this Mary was the same with Mary Magdalen I set her here as distinct The name Martha occurs in Plutarch in Mario and in the Iewish Writings frequently as in Ievamoth fol. 120. 1. Succah fol. 52. 2. and in Misn. in Ievamoth c. 6. § 4. Because it is said S. Luc. 10. that Martha received Jesus into her House S. Bernard de assumptione Mariae ser. 3. conjectures that she was the elder Sister as others do that she was a Widow and kept the House and that her Brother and Sister lived with her Nonnus seems to have thought that Lazarus's distemper was a Fever for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used by the Physicians to signifie a Fever as in the Chald. and Syr. it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Supper mentioned S. Ioh. 12. was in Martha's House so S. Chysost who yet acknowledgeth that some were of another mind also Theophylact and to them we may add Theodor. Heracleotes inâ—gr caten who says that Lazarus and his Sisters received Christ. Likewise Origen Hom. 35. in S. Matth. and Euthym. thought that Mary and Martha made that Supper though some have supposed that Simon the Leper made it or perhaps the Town of Bethany at a common charge Theophylact says that on the sixth day before the Passover they begun to Feast more plentifully Epiphanius Haer. 66. mentions a Tradition that Lazarus lived thirty years after his being raised from Death and had lived thirty years before Some say that he never laughed after that he was raised The Hist. Lombardica ap Chemnit feigns that he and his Sisters were descended of Kings Mary the Mother of Iames and Ioses S. Matth. 27. 56 61. 28. 1. S. Mar. 15. 40 41 47. 16. 1. S. Luc. 24. 10. Munster's Hebr. and the AEthiop in S. Matth. 27. 56. read Mary of Iames and the Mother of Iose or Ioseph but the rest of the Versions read as we do or to the same sense S. Hieron in S. Matth. and contr Helvid also Euthymius and Euseb. Emiss or Eucherius in die râ—surrect say that she was our Lords Aunt or his Mothers Sister and to these I should rather assent than to those who would have our Lords Mother to be called the Mother of Iames and Ioses because as they say she was Step-mother to them Mary of Cleopas S. Ioh. 19. 25. Our Translation hath The Wife of Cleopas the Arab. The Daughter of Cleopas in the Greek there is not either Wife or Daughter or Mother so that it is uncertain whether Cleopas was her Son or her Father or her Husband Nicephorus l. 1. c. 33. says that she was begat by Ioseph the Blessed â—irgins Husband of the Wife of Cleopas who was his Brother and had dyed without Issue but if she was Ioseph's Daughter how was she our Lords Mothers Sister She was her Daughter not Sister if Ioseph was her Father Euthymius thought that she was the Wife of Cleopas Ioseph's
was one of the LXX and whereas many fansy that the Thaddaeus that was sent to Agabrus was of the LXX S. Hieron in S. Matth. 10. says expresly that Thaddaeus the Apostle as Ecclesiastical History delivered was sent to him As to Cephas there is only the Authority of Clemens Alex. unless you add Dorotheus and the Cephas that he speaks of is he whom S. Paul resisted at Antioch for whereas most Greek Copies and the Arab. read Peter Gal. 2. 11. he with some Greek Copies and the Syr. and AEthiop reads Cephas But the Person whom S. Paul resisted whether you call him Peter or Cephas is understood to be S. Peter the Apostle by Tertull. praescript adv Haer. c. 23. and l. 4. contr Marcion c. 3. S. Cyprian epist. ad Quintum vel Quintinum S. Ambros. S. Chrysost. Primas Oecumen and Theophylact. There were sharp debates between S. Hieron and S. August about the Exposition of Gal. 2. 11. but they in this agreed that S. Peter was the Person there spoken off Yea S. Hieron was ignorant of any Cephas beside S. Peter and in Gal. 2. sets himself to refute those that held that S. Paul speaks there of another Cephas Epiphanius names S. Mark and S. Luke as being of the LXX and with him agree Origen in Dialog de recta fide Kirstenius's Arab. MS. Nicephor l. 2. c. 43. and Euthym but the last of these bears Testimony only as to S. Luke our Church also may seem by the Gospel appointed for S. Luke's Day to have been of the Opinion that he was of the number of the LXX but S. August de consens Evang. l. 1. c. 1,2 seems to be of Opinion that they were not of that number and Papias ap Euseb. l. 3. c. ult saith of S. Mark that he was not an hearer and follower of Christ as S. Hieron in proem in S. Matth. asserts that he did not see him and in Isa. 65. he saith that S. Paul begat S. Luke and S. Peter S. Mark. So that it may seem doubtful whether these two were of the number of the LXX or â—0 Our Lord's Brethren S. Matth. 12. 46,47 S. Mar. 3. 31 32. 6. 3. S. Luc. 8. 19,20 S. Ioh. 2. 12. 7. 3 c. Act. 1. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 1.19 They were his Brethren either as being the Sons of Ioseph his reputed Father viz. by a former Wife which he had before our Lords Mother was espoused to him or as being the Sons of our Lords Aunt i.e. his Mothers Sister and so his Cousins for in the Scripture Cousins are frequently styled Brethren see S. August quaest Evang. l 3. c. 16. There are four so called S. Matth. 13. 55. of two of which viz. Simon and Ioseph we know nothing says Origen but the other Iames and Iude we believe to have been of the twelve Apostles It is true the Brethren of the Lord are mentioned as distinct from the Apostles Act. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. but we cannot conclude thence that none of them were Apostles but only that some of them were not The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Mar. 3.21 were perhaps his Brethren see Theophylact or his Friends or Kinsmen as we render it see the Oriental Versions and Euthym. The Comment on S. Mar. ap S. Hieron understands by them his Disciples and saith that they thought their Master to be beside himself But it is not very probable that his Brethren or Friends or Kinsmen had that Opinion of him and S. Mark 's words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to the Multitude of the Iews then present They i. e. the Multitude said He is beside himself some make the sense to be that those that were with Christ in the House went out to restrain the Multitude who thronged so that they said of them viz. of the Multitude that they were Mad. According to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer not to Christ but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. They that please may consult the MS. Cant. Our Lords Sisters S. Matth. 13. 55. S. Mar. 6. 3. Epiphan Haer. 78. and Theophylact in S. Matth. 13. say that they were two and that their Names were Mary and Salome not Esther and Thamar as in Nicephor l. 2. c. 3. Nathanael S. Ioh. 1. 45 c. 21. 2. Some suppose that he was the same with S. Matthias because the two Names Nathanael and Matthias agree in signification others supposing that Simon the Cananite was of Cana in Galilee as Nathanael was have conjectured that Nathanael was the same with that Simon see the Menalog 6. Id. Maii. some fansy that he was the same with the Apostle S. Bartholomew and say that many both anciently and of later times were of this Opinion yet after all they produce none more ancient than Rupertus Tuitiensis who indeed mentions this Opinion saying fortasis Perhaps he was the same with S. Bartholomew but he mentions also another Opinion viz. S. Augustine's who both in Psal. 65. and in S. Ioh. is positive that Nathanael was none of the twelve Apostles There want not some who have supposed that he was the same with S. Stephen for S. Stephen saw Heaven opened which Jesus told Nathanael that he should do besides S. Stephen was skilful in the Law and S. August ibid. saith the same of Nathanael that he was learned and skilled in the Law and the like Encomium is bestowed on him by S. Cyril Alex. S. Chrysost. and Theophylact that he was very studious in the Scriptureâ— and a diligent searcher after the Truth Epiphanius Haer. 23. saith that he was the other Disciple that was with Cleopas when Jesus appeared to them S. Luc. 24. some have thought that he was Brother to S. Philip. Origen and S. August observe that Nathanael's words S. Ioh. 1. 46. may be read either by way of Interrogation Can any good come out of Nazareth or by way of Affirmation Some good may come out of Nazareth S. Chrysost and S. Cyril Alex. incline to the former S. August to the latter The Governour of the Feast S. Ioh. 2. 8,9 10. Some will have the Architriclinus to have been no more than the chief guest at the Feast but S. Chrysost. Theophylact and Severus Antioch in caten gr in S. Ioh. say that he was the Moderator of it presided in managed and ordered itâ— Ecclesiasticus c. 32. v. 1,2 gives a lively description of him and how he was to demean himself for our Translators and other judicious Persons do by Governour there understand the Ruler of the Feast and the Greek Vulg. Syr. and Arab. do all favour this Interpretation though some have been chastised severely for it S. Chrysost. and Theophylact say that this Office was committed to those that were themselves sober and temperate Gaudentius Brixian tract 9. affirms that among the Iews one of the Priests used to be chosen in
those that suffered as Malefactors was prohibited both by the Iewish Law Misn. in Sanhedr c 6. § 6. and by the Roman Digest l. 3. tit 2. c. 11. § Non solent Some say that Christ after his Resurrection appeared first to his Mother and alledge some passages out of the Ancients to countenance this others say that he did not appear suddenly to her for this reason because he knew that She was firmly established in the belief of his Resurrection and alledge against the former that both the Scripture and those Fathers that treat purposely of Christs several appearings after his rising are silent of his manifesting himself particularly to her and not only so but also that it is said expresly S. Mar. 16. 9. that he appeared first to another Mary Aretas in Rev. 7. 4. affirms that S. Iohn did not leave Iudea and go to Ephesus till after her Death and Nicephorus is clear that She dwelt in Ierusalem to the last as he speaks also of her Sepulchre in the Vale of Iosaphat see him l. 2. c. 3 22 23. l. 8. c. 30. l. 15. c. 14. as also the Autor de assumpt Virg. Glor. S. Iohn the Baptist. Origen hom 10. in S. Luc. S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. 3. 4. and S. Hieron contr Lucifer speak of his being in the Wilderness in his very tender years or infancy and Origen adds that majori nutrimento dignus apparuit Nicephorus l. 1. c. 14. and Cedrenus speak of his having an Angel for his Guide and Guardian there An Arabick Writer alledged by our Mr. Gregory saith that when he was a Child other Children asking him to play with them he answered That he was not created for pastime S. Hieron contr Lucifer tells of another play of his parvulus cum serpentibus lusit but as I take it he saith it only by way of Rhetorical Allusion to Isa. 11. 8. As to his Meat Origen hom 11. in S. Luc. S. Hilary S. Ambros. in S. Luc. S. Hieron adv Iovinian l. 2. Autor oper imperfecti S. August Confess l. 10. c. 31. Suidas in voc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Theophylact in S. Mar. 1. understand living Creatures to be meant by Locusts The Locust is mentioned among the flying creeping things that might be eaten Levit. 11. 21 22. and we read of Acridophagi i.e. Locust-eaters or of the eating this Creature in Strabo l. 16. Diodor. Sicul. l. 3. c. 11. vell 4. c. 3. Aristophan Acharnens Act. 4. Scen. 7. Agatharchid ap Photium Num. 250. c. 27. Dioscorid l. 2. c. 57. Plin. l. 6. c. 30. and l. 11. c. 29. S. Hieron adv Iovinian Scaliger contr Cardan Exercit. 192 c. The Talmudists also speak of eating them Cholin fol. 65. 1. and of hunting them Schabb. fol. 106. 2. They that please to consult Kirstenius in his Notes on S. Matth. 3. 4. may see what his Master for the Arabick Tongue told him of the Locusts about Iordan their way of preparing them c. We need not then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here understand herbs or fruits or the tops of Herbs and Plants as Isiodor Pelus l. 1. Ep. 5. and 132. Nicephor l. 1. c. 14. and some ap Theophylact. in S. Matth. 3. nor cancros fluviatiles as others nor yet turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some or into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Gospel of S. Matth. which the Ebionites had did see Epiphan Haer. 30. There is mention of Wild-honey in Diodor. Sicul. l. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pliny also l. 11. c. 16. speaks of Mel sylvestre ericaeum See likewise Suidas in voc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we have the fullest account of it in the History of Saul and Ionathan 1 Sam. 14. 25,26,27 Rabanus tells us out of Arnulphus of the leaves of certain Trees in the Wilderness of Iudea having the taste of Honey which they did rub and eat but that these should be the wild Honey spoken of here seems to be only a fancy As to his raiment of Camels Hair there is none more fit to describe this sort of Garment than Paulinus who wore it and so had experience of the asperity of it see him epist. 10. S. Hieron Autor oper imperfecti and another Paulinus in collect Poemat Christian. assent that it was a rough garment soft cloathing is for those that dwell in Kings Houses not for the Wilderness See the description of Elias his habit 2 Kings 1.8 R. D. Ganz An. 770. Millen 4. and Iosippus do call Iohn a great or chief Priest and it needs not seem strange since the Chald. Paraphr gives the same Title to Ieremiah Lament 1.1 and to Mattathiah Cant. 6.6 According to Ioseph Ant. l. 18. c. 7. that which moved Herod to behead him was the great concourse of People to hear him and the great Authority that he had with them so that he feared lest he should cause their defection from him and probably this did incline Herod the more to deprive Iohn first of his Liberty then of his Life but the chief reason was that which the Evangelists assign as also R. D. Ganz and Iosippus viz. his being reproved by him for having his Brothers Wife The Disciples of the Baptist. S. Matth. 9. 14. 14. 12. S. Mar. 2. 18. S. Luc. 5. 33. 7. 18. 11. 1. S. Ioh. 1. 35,37 3. 25. The Baptist sending his Disciples with that Message S. Matth. 11. 2,3 Art thou he that should come or look we for another Some may ask whether he doubted then whether Jesus was the Messias or no. S. Hilary S. Chrysost. S. Cyril Alex. in Thesaur l. 2. c. 4. Autor oper imperfecti Theophylact in S. Matth. 11. 2. and S. Luc. 7. 19. and Euthymius piously resolve that he did not move the question out of any doubt or distrust of his own but for the satisfaction of his Disciples who envyed that Christ should have more followers than their Master and so he could hardly bring them to a right estimate of him For their better information and instruction concerning Christ it was say they that S. Iohn sent them upon that Embassy To the same purpose see S. Hieron in S. Matth. 11. and epist. ad Algas qu. 1. and Origen in praefat ad S. Ioan. There are others who likewise acquit the Baptist from doubt or distrust yet think that it is no impeachment of his Dignity to say that he sought the confirmation of his own belief by new Documents Herod Antipas S. Matth. 14.1 c. S. Mar. 6.14 c. 8.15 S. Luc. 3. 1,19,20 9. 7,9 13. 31. 23. 7 c. Act. 4. 27. He was the Son of Herod the Great Being entertained by his Brother in his way to Rome he requited his kindness by enticing from him his Wife Herodias for whose sake he put away his own Wife the daughter of Aretas King of Arabia A War ensues upon this between Aretas and him in which he received a great overthrow