Sect. 1.

JUDEA. Tertull. l. 3. contr. Marcion. c. 24. reports that in Iudea for forty days together, a City hung down from Heaven with all the habit of Walls. It appeared in the Morning, and in the progress of the day vanished out of sight. This was (as I con­ceive) but a little before the time of Tertullian's writing it.

Ierusalem. Iosephus gives a large account of the destruction of it by Titus. The Christians in obedience to their Lords command, St. Luc. 21.20,21, and perhaps alarmed with the many Prodigies, which prece­ded the City's Desolation; as also admonished by an Oracle delivered to some approved Persons among them, (as Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.) or by an Angel (as Epiphaen. de ponder. & mens.) had departed out of it, Cestius Gallus having given them an opportunity of doing it, when having be­sieged the City, he, without any visible reason, suddenly raised the [Page 2] Siege, at which time many of the Iews got out of it, as out of a Ship ready to sink; so Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 40. We are told by Epi­phanius (ubi supra) that the Christians returned after a time; so that when Adrian the Emperor came to view the City, he found a few houses there, together with a Church. Adrian rebuilt it in part, taking in the place of our Saviours passion within the Walls, which was without be­fore (v. S. Hieron. in loc. Act. Apost.) and calling it AElia. (see Dio. l. 69. and Euseb. in Chron.) And perhaps it is this which Dionysius in discript. orbis, calls Elais. In the front of the gate through which they went out to go to Bethlehem he caused a swine to be ingraved in marble (see Euseb. and Cassiodor. in Chron.) and forbad the Iews to come into the Country near it (though they came only as travellers and strangers;) yea they might not as much as behold it from an high place. (See Tertul contr. Iudaeos c. 13. Apologet. c. 21. Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. Euseb. l. 4. c. 6. Orosius l. 7. c. 13. Sulpit. Sever. l. 2. St. Hilary in Psal. 58. St. Hieron. in Zeph. 2. and Isa. 6. and Procop. Gaz. in Isa. 1. 7.) But he permitted the Christians (at the least those of the Gentiles) to inhabit there, who were renowned for the eminent Miracles of healing, &c. wrought by them, so that the Church begun to enjoy a flourishing condition; see Epiphan. ubi supra.

The Temple. If we will believe the Iews, St. Ioh. 2. 20. it was 46 years in building; but whether they spake this of Solomon's Temple, (as Origen in St. Ioh.) or of Zerobabel's (as Euseb. Demonstr. l. 8. Theophylact and Eu­thymius) or Herod's (as others) it is not easy to determine. When Jesus said to his Parents, St. Luc. 2 49. Wist ye not that I must be [...], we render it About my Fathers business, but the Syr. and Pers. In my Fathers house; and so Epiphan. Haer. 30. Theophylact and Leo Epist. 4. do expound it. (See also Origen Tit. Bostr. & Euthym.) So the sense of our Saviours words will be, Why did you seek me any where but in my Fathers house, the Temple, where I ought to be? Thus in Iosephus contr. Appion. l. 1. [...], signifies, In the House or Temple of Jupiter, and [...], in the LXX. Esth. 7. 9. In the House of Haman, and [...], in Theocritus, [...]. The House of Lycon. What the Disciples say of the stones and buildings of the Temple, St. Mar. 13. 1. may be compared with Iosephus his Description, Ant. l. 15. c. 14. It was built (says he) of white and strong stones, which were about 25 cubits in length, about 12 in breadth, and 8 in heighth. The whole structure was like a Princely Palace, &c. The same Iosephus gives us at large the History of its destruction by the Romans. Sulpit. Sever. af­firms, That both Titus and others were of opinion, that the Temple espe­cially should be destroyed, that the Religion of the Iews and Christians might be more effectually extirpated: But Iosephus de Bel. Iud. l. 6. c. 24, 26. assures us, That Titus was utterly against the burning of it. Forty years before it was destroyed the doors of it flew open of their own ac­cord (so the Gemara in Ioma fol. 39. 2.) which may countenance that which some say, That the doors of the Temple opened of themselves a­bout the time of our Saviours Passion. Also Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 6. c. 31. [Page 3] tells of the East-gate of the inner Temple, that, though it was so heavy that it could hardly be shut by 20 Men, it was seen to open of its own accord; and it may seem by him, that it was at the feast of the Passover that it did so. Dio. l. 6. relates that Adrian built a Temple to Iupiter, in the same place where the Temple of God was, (see also Sulpit. Sever. l. 2.) as others say that he set up his Statue where the Ark was, which Statue saith Nicephorus, l. 3. c. 24. if any Man call the abomination of desolation spoken of St. Mat. 24. he will not err much. See Suidas in voc. [...].

The space between the Temple and the Altar St. Mat. 23. 35. St. Luc. 11. 51. By the Temple we are here to understand that which was pro­perly so called, and by the Altar the Altar of Burnt-offerings. In Ioel 3. 17. and the Misna in Ioma c. 3. §. 8. it is between the Porch and the Al­tar, but the sense is the same. The space between them was 22 Cubits; so the Misna in Middoth, c. 31. 6.

A Pinnacle of the Temple. St. Mat. 4. 5. Luc. 4. 9. It is in vain to go about certainly to determine what part of the Temple this was, whe­ther some battlement or turret of it, or some of the flying fanes, or of those sharp broaches (Iosephus de bell. Iud. l. 5. c. 14. calls them golden spits) which were set up to keep off Birds, lest they should defile the Temple. Some understand by it the roof of the porch mentioned by Iosephus Ant. l. 15. c. 14. the height whereof was such, and it stood over a valley of such extraordinary depth, that, if a Man looked down from it, his head would be vertiginous; his sight not reaching to the bottom, be­cause of the vast and unmeasurable distance. St. Iames was also set [...], on a Pinnacle of the Temple, (Euseb. l. 2. c. 23.) but perhaps that part of the Temple on which he was set, was not so high as this on which the Devil set the holy Jesus. The Author de cardinal. oper. serm. de jejun. & tentat. held that it was not really or by a local motion, that Jesus was carried and set on a Pinnacle of the Temple, but in spirit only, as Ezekiel was carried in the Spirit to Ierusalem; but others affirm that it was by a local motion. The Author oper. imperfect. seems to have thought, that he was not seen when he was carried into the Holy City and set on the Temple.

A Uail of the Temple. St. Mat. 27. 51. St. Mar. 15. 38. St. Luc. 23. 45. We read Heb. 9.3. of the second Vail, so that there were at least two Vails of the Temple; accordingly Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 14. mentions two. The Talmudists dispute whether there were two Vails be ore the Holy of Holies or but one (Misna in Ioma c. 5. §. 1. and Gemar. fol. 51. 2.) and they seem to resolve, that there were two: But R. Iose said there was but one. Now whether it was this Vail before the Holy of Holies, called the se­cond Vail Heb. 9. which was rent at our Saviours Passion, or the outer Vail which was before the Holy place, I shall not determine. Origin and S. Hieron. ad Hedibin. qu. 8. thought that it was the outer Vail; but Lactan­tius l. 4. c. 19. S. Chrysost. S. Cyril. Alex. in S. Ioh. l. 10. c. 37. and Theophylact seem to have taken it to have been the inner; (see also Euthymius and Leo de [Page 4] passione Dom. ser. 2.) We read (says S. Hieron. in S. Mat. 27. and ad He­dib. qu. 8.) in the Gospel that is written in Hebrew Letters, not that the Vail was rent, but that the superliminare templi, of a wonderful Magni­tude, did fall, or was broken and divided. If we may believe Ephrem Sy­rus, a Dove was seen to fly out of the Temple, at the same time that the Vail was rent.

The Treasury. St. Mar. 12. 41, 43. St. Luc. 21. 1. St. Ioh. 8. 20. The Misna in Shekalim, c. 6. §. 1. mentions thirteen Treasure-chests, and c. 5. §. 6. two Treasure-chambers, one of which was called the Cham­ber of the Silent, where religious Men did silently or secretly put in their Offerings. When Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 14. and l. 6. c. 29. speaks of the Treasuries in the plural Number, perhaps these Treasure-chests or Treasure-chambers are to be understood; and it is probable that it was into one of those Chests or in the one of those Chambers, that the Widow cast in her two Mites. But when in St. Ioh. 8. we read of Christs Speaking and Teaching in the Treasury, we are perhaps by Treasury there to understand, the whole Court in which those Chests were, and that as some suppose was the Court of the Women.

Solomon's Porch. St. Ioh. 10. 23. Act. 3. 11. 5. 12. Some (upon what grounds I know not) will needs suppose, That the Court of the People is called so; as others will have it to have been that [...], or Royal Porch, which Iosephus Ant. l. 15. c. 14. placeth on the Southside of the Temple; but it is most probable, that it was that which he men­tions Ant. l. 20. c. 8. and de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 14. calling it the Eastern Porch, and affirming that it was built by Solomon. See 1 Kings 6. 3. 2 Chron. 3. 4.

The Beautifull Gate. Act. 3. 2, 10. 'Tis supposed that it was the Corinthian Gate, which was of Corinthian Brass, and in beauty and ele­gance, far surpassed those that were all over-laid with Gold and Silver, Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 14. We read 2 Kings 15. 35. and 2 Chron. 27. 3. that Iotham built the High-gate of the Temple. Whether Herod built this Gate in imitation of that, and in the same place, they that have lei­sure may enquire.

The Castle. Acts 21. 34, 37. 22. 24. 23. 10, 16, 32. Some say that it was a Castle on mount Sion, which was built out of the ruines of the Palace of David. But it is most probable, that it was the Tower called Antonia, which was close by the Temple, Ioseph. Ant. l. 15. c. 14. de bel. Iud. l. 1. c. 16. Comestor makes that Tower to have been called Agrippina as well as Antonia; but perhaps it is a mistake.

An Upper Room. St. Mar. 14. 15. St. Luc. 22. 12. Act. 1. 13. Our Mr. Gregory alledgeth a Syriack Scholiast, who affirms (as many others do) that it is the same Room which is mentioned in all the three places. He also alledgeth an Arabick Geographer, who finds this Upper room in the Temple of Sion, and the Table still remaining there on which our Lord did eat with his Disciples. Whether by the Temple of Sion, he meant that which S. Hieron. ad Paulinum calls Coenaculum Sion, and which [Page 5] (as some think) St. Cyril. Hieros. calls the upper Church of the Apostles, Catech. 16. and in which (as those Fathers tell us) the Holy Ghost lighted on the Apostles, I know not: But there are who have thought the Coenaculum Sion, to have been this upper Room mentioned by the Evan­gelists. Yet others say that it was an upper Room in the Iewish Temple, see De Dieu in Act 1.

Bethesda. St. Ioh. 5.2. &c. The Greek Copies generally, and St. Chry­sost. favour our reading Bethesda, so Theophylact and Euthym. In the Syr. it is writ [...] (and the Arab. and Pers. much agree with it) i. e. the house of mercy, as the Arab. interprets it. Yet S. Cyril. Alex. and S. Hieron. de loc. Hebr. read Bethsaida or Bethseida, and Tertul. de Bapt. c. 5. Bet­saida, But contr. Iud. c. 13. Bethsaida, where he tells us that the miraculous healing virtue of the Pool ceased, when the Iews arrived to that height of fury to blaspheme the name of God, as they did by adding this to their other heinous wickednesses, the crucifying his Son. The same Tertul. de bapt. and also S. Ambros. de his qui initiantur Mysteriis c. 4. and S. Chrysost. Edit. Savil. tom. 5. p. 585. l. 40. seem to have thought that there was only one cured at the Pool in one year. Some have thought it to be the same with that which is called the upper Pool, Isa. 7. 3, &c. and the old Pool, Isa. 22. 11. and by Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 13. Solomon's Pool. We need not wonder at Iosephus his silence concerning the healing Virtue of the Pool, since (as Tertullian informs us) it ceased many years before the time that he writ.

The Sheep-Market. St. Ioh. 5. 2. Because there is mention of the Sheep-gate, Neh. 3. 1, 32. 12. 39. some chuse to render it here not the Sheep-Market but the Sheep-gate. But what if it be the Pool it self, (viz. Bethesda) that is called [...], q. d. the Sheep-pool; so S. Hie­ron. de loc. Hebr. S. Chrysost. S. Cyril. Alex. Theophylact, also Mopsuest. and Ammon; and not only the Vulgar Arab. and AEthiop. but also some Greek Copies do favour this; see Luc. Brugens. And S. Hieron. gives this rea­son of the Pool's being called probatica or pecualis, because they used to wash the Sacrifices in one of the two Lakes, which (as he tells us) were in or near it: Theophylact also speaks of the washing the entrails of the Sacrifices in this Pool, and Benjamin in Itinerar. tells of a Pool that was to be seen in his time, in which they did anciently wash their Sacrifices. Hence perhaps it is, that the Syr. instead of A Sheep-pool, reads, A place of Washing, and the Pers. A fountain or well of Washing.

Siloam. St. Luc. 13. 4. St. Ioh. 9. 7, 11. It is the same with Gihon; and therefore 1 Kings 1. 33, 38. the Chald. Syr. and Arab. do all read Si­lohn instead of Gihon; see Kimchi in rad. [...]. On the last and great Day of the feast of Tabernacles the Iews had a custom to draw water out of the Pool of Siloam, and they themselves interpret it to refer to the draw­ing of the Holy Ghost, according to Isa. 12. 3. Misna in Succah c. 4. §. 9. and Buxtorf. in voc. [...]. Compare with this S. Ioh. 7. 37,38.39. The Tower mentioned, St. Luc. 13. was perhaps built over the gate of Siloam, or near the River or Pool so called. Some have fansied, that [Page 6] the fall of it was caused by that great Earth-quake, which happened in the 7th. year of Herod the Great, and overthrew many buildings, the fall of which slew thousands of Men, Ioseph. Ant. l. 15. c. 7. But this fall of the Tower in St. Luke is mentioned as a particular accident, fatal to 18 Per­sons only; not as a general calamity in which thousands perished, also as a thing that fell out later, and was fresh in Mens memories. Siloa is men­tioned in Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 13.

The Sepulchre of David. Act. 2. 29. There is mention of it in Io­seph. Ant. l. 7. c. 12. and l. 13. c. 16. and l. 16. c. 11.

The Pavement [...] St. Ioh. 19. 13. Why might it not be the Xystus which is frequently mentioned in Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 28. l. 4. c. 34. l. 6. c. 19, 34. [...] saith Phavorinus. Some will needs fansy that this Pavement was the paved Chamber ( [...]) of which we read so often in the Talmudists. De Litho­strotis; see Plin. l. 36. c. 25.

The Common Prison. Act. 5. 18, 19, 22, 23, 25. Because v. 24. we have mention of the Captain of the Temple, some have thought that this Prison was somewhere near the Temple, and probably within the Tower Antonia. Others have guessed, that it was the place which in Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 13. is called Bethso.

The Prison in which St. Peter was kept. Act. c. 12. Some have thought that it was the same with the Common Prison before mentioned; others that it was appendant unto Herod's Palace; others that it was with­out the City in the Suburbs of it. Others there are that cannot resolve whether it was in one of the Towers which were built on the Walls, or that it was betwixt the first and second Wall, or that it was within the Walls of the City, and yet without that part, which was more properly called the City. I allow every Man his Liberty to subscribe to which of these Conjectures he pleaseth, and only add that St. Chry­sost. in Ephes. 4. says that St. Peter was cast [...].

The Iron-Gate. Act. 12. 10. The City into which it lead was (say some) that part of Ierusalem which was between mount Sion, and the Temple, for (say they) Iosephus often gives the name of City to that part of it. Others who think that the Prison was appendant to Herod's Palace, say, that it lead from thence into the City. Some affirm that it was usual in the East to have Gates at the end of their streets, so that wheresoever the Prison was, this Gate (say they) was at the end of the Street which lead from it.

Calvary or Golgotha. St. Mat. 27. 33. St. Mar. 15. 22. St. Luc. 23. 33. St. Ioh. 19. 17. St. Hieron. in St. Mat. says, that he heard one affirm that it was called so from Adam's being buried there (quia ibi antiqui ho­minis sit conditum capur;) but (says he) we read in Ioshua that Adam was buried near Hebron. He therefore gives another reason of the name Cal­vary, viz. because condemned Persons were beheaded there. Yet the tradition that Adam was buried there is mentioned by Origen in St. Mat. Tertul. l. 2 contr. Marcion. in verse, the Author de Cardinal. Chr. oper. serm. de [Page 7] resur. S. Basil in caten. Graec. patrum in S. Mat. 10. 2. S. Chrysost. in S. Ioh. Epiphan. Haer. 46. Paula & Eustoch. ad Marcellam. S. August serm. 71. de Tempore. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. also Anastas. Sinait. Germanus and Euthym. This Tradition Theophylact in St. Ioh. after St. Athanes. in passionem & crucem Domini, fathers on the Iews; though St. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae imputes the other opinion to the Iews, that Adam was buried in Hebron. But they may be easily reconciled, if that be true which some affirm that he was buried first at Hebron, and thence translated to Calvary by Noah. St. Cyril. Hieros. Cateches. 13. says that this name Calvary was given to it prophetically, to signifie that Christ our head should suffer Death there. Some will have it called thus only from the fashion of it, it was (say they) rounded after the form of a Mans head. Another reason seems to be given by St. Hilary, viz. because it was in the midst of the Earth, & tanquam in vertice hujus universitatis. Adrian consecrated the Idol of Iupiter in the place of Christs Passion; so Paulinus epist. 11. yet S. Hie­ron. in an Epistle to him, says, that a Marble Statue of Venus was set up in crucis rupe, and with S. Hierom both Ruffin. Eccl. hist. l. 10. c. 7. and St. Ambros. in Psal. 43. & 47. seem to agree. The rock of Golgotha was rent at the passion of Christ; so Lucian. the Presbyter ap. Ruffin. Hist. l. 9. c. 6. and S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 13. seems to say the same. There are that can tell you the breadth and depth of the rent, and describe the 3 holes of the rock, in which the ends of the three-Crosses were put.

Our Saviours Sepulchre. S. Mat. c. 27. and c. 28. S Mar. c. 15. and c. 16. S Luc. c. 23, and c. 24. S. Ioh. c. 19, and c. 20. Euseb. in vit. Con­stant. l. 3. c. 26. And Socrates l. 1. c. 13. relate, that the Heathens covered the place with heaps of earth and rubbish that it might not be found; also that they built there a Chapel to Venus, as St. Hieron. epist. ad Paulin. says, that they placed the Idol of Iupiter there. S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 14. tells us, that the stone which was rolled away from the Door of the Sepulchre remained till his time. We have in Nicephorus, l. 1. c. 32. a large description, as from an Ancient tradition, how the stone besides its being sealed, was made fast to the door of the Sepulchre with Iron. If we may believe Ludolphus de Saxon. the Sepulchre was fifty paces distant from Calvary.

The Garden in which the Sepulchre was S. Ioh. 19. 41.

The Potters Field or Aceldama. S. Mat. 27. 7. Act. 1. 18, 19. It may be that he of whom it was purchased was a Potter, or that a noted Potter had been anciently the Proprietor of it, or finally that the Earth was fit for the use of a Potter, and so it had the name of the Potters Field. Some say that it was near to Tophet, and that Iudas both ended his unhappy Life and was buried in it, and so possessed it. For so the Vulg. Act. 1. 18. reads, He possessed a Field, though we read, He pur­chased a Field, i. e. by refunding the Money which he had received, he was the occasion of the Chief Priests purchasing it; (see S. Chrysost. and Theophylact) or he purchased it as a lasting Monument of his Infamy, whilst they who passed by said, This is the Field which was bought with [Page 8] the Money for which Iudas betrayed his Master. Of Aceldama see St. Hieron de loc. Act. Apost.

Cedron. S. Ioh. 18. 1. Ammonius Nonnus and others seem to have thought, that it had its name from Cedars. Perhaps they were induced thereto by the Article [...] ( [...]) But the LXX. use [...] and [...] without an Article promiscuously (see the LXX. in 2 Sam. 15.23.) and in the Hebrew it is constantly [...], and here S. Ioh. 18. MS. Alex. and March. Vales. have [...], and not [...]: Yet I confess that the Arab. seems to favour those that derive the name from Cedars. It is mentioned by Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 8. and more frequently by Gorionides. Some say, that the rude Souldiers plunged our Saviour in this brook, it being in the way as they lead him from the Garden to the City.

Gethsemane. S. Mat. 26. 36. S. Mar. 14. 32. S. Hieron. de loc. Heb. placeth it at the foot of the Mount of Olives.

The Garden of Olivet. S. Ioh. 18. 1, &c. It was in or near to Geth­semane. In the Gemar. in Bava Kama fol. 82. 2. and in Avoth R. Nathan fol. 9. 1. it is said, that they do not make Gardens in Ierusalem, and so we see that both this Garden, and also that in which was our Saviours Sepulchre was out of the City.

The Mount of Olives. S. Mat. 21. 1. 24. 3. 26. 30. S. Mar. 11. 1. 13. 3. 14. 26. S. Luc. 19. 29, 37. 21. 37. 22. 39. S. Ioh. 8. 1. Some say that it had three eminent tops, and that Jesus ascended to Heaven from the middlemost of them. From some part of the Mount he did certainly a­scend, and that not far from Bethany, or it was from that part of it which was called Bethany. An Inscription upon a stone which was digged up in China acquaints us, that it was about Mid-day that he ascended, Kircher. Prodrom. Copt. c. 3. It is affirmed by Paulinus, epist. 11. Sulpitius Sever. l. 2. and S. Hieron. de loc. Act. Apost. that his footsteps were imprinted on the place from whence he ascended, and that it did retain the print of them a long time after. Also Euseb. de vita Constantin. l. 3. c. 42. and Optatus l. 6. may seem to allude to this. The Mount was from Ierusalem a Sabbath-days journey, Act. 1. 12, i.e. 2000 Cubits, as Suidas, in verb. [...], with whom agree Targ. Ionath. in Exod. 16. 29. and Ruth. 1. 16. Moses Mikotsi praec. neg. 66. Gemar. in Erubin. fol. 42. 1. with others. This Tradition of 2000 Cubits, is mentioned by Origen [...] l. 4. c. 2, and 5. [...] ap. Oecumen. S. Hieron. ad Algaes. qu. 10. hath 2000 pedes instead of 2000 Cubits. Now 2000 Cubits, according to Tremellius's computation, make about a Mile. De Dieu says that they make 5 furlongs, but withal, that 5 Greek furlongs, make an Hebrew Mile. And so Gul. Tyrius ap. Selden. de jure nat. & gent. l. 3. c. 9. affirms the Mount to be as it were a Mile distant from Ierusalem; with whom the Syr. agrees, making the distance to be about 7 furlongs; see also Ara­tor. in Act. 1. It is true Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 6. makes the distance to be 5 furlongs, but besides that Theophylact alledgeth the same, Iosephus saying it was 7 furlongs, it is possible that he spake of the very skirt or [Page 9] extremity of the Mount, which was nearest the City, and which might be only five furlongs distant from it; but other parts of the Mount were further distant; for the same Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 8. speaking of some of the Romans, that were ordered to encamp along the Mount of Olives, saith, that they were to encamp six furlongs from the City. Or possibly Iosephus spake of Greek furlongs, five of which (says De Dieu) make an Hebrew Mile. From this Mount the Apostles admired the stones and buildings of the Temple, there being the best prospect of it from hence; for the Eastern Wall of the Temple, which was to­wards this Mount, was made lower than the rest, on purpose that there might be a better view of it. Misna in Middoth, c. 2. §. 4.

Bethphage. S. Matth. 21. 1. S. Mar. 11. 1. S. Luc. 19. 29. It was a Village in that part of the Mount of Olives which was nearest to Ierusa­lem, yea it may seem that it reached to the very Walls of the City, see the Gemar, in Pesachin fol. 63. 2. and 91. 1. Bava Metzia fol. 90. 1. Sanhedr. fol. 14. 2. Sotab fol. 45. 1. Some Copies have [...]; see also the Goth. Gospels.

Bethany. S. Mat. 21. 17. 26.6. S. Mar. 11. 1, 11, 12. 14. 3. S. [...]c. 19. 29. 24. 50. S. Ioh. 11. 1, 18. 12. 1. It was fifteen furlongs from Ierusalem, i. e. two Miles, as S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. For seven Furlongs and an half make a Mile, Suidas in voc. [...], with whom the Iews com­putation agrees, see Bava Metzia, fol. 33. 1. whether it be the same with [...] in Pesachin, fol. 53. 1 or [...] as it is writ in Erubin fol. 28. 2. I shall not stand to dispute. The Syr. S. Ioh. 11. 1. reads thus, A certain Man was Sick, Lazarus of the Town Bethany, the Brother of Mary and Martha. See the Pers. 'tis said S. Mar. 11. and S. Luc. 19. that Christ came nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, i. e. say some to the place where that part of Mount Olivet which was called Bethphage, and that tract of it which was called Bethany, joyned one upon the other.

The Uillage where two Disciples found an Ass and a colt tied. S. Matth 21. 2. S. Mar. 11. 2. S. Luc. 19. 30. It was Bethany (say some,) Bethphage (as others,) but whether it was either of them, or it was some other Village, (for it is probable that there were several on Mount Olivet) it cannot be determined: Nor yet who the two Disciples were, whether S. Peter and S. Iohn (as some,) or S. Peter and S. Philip, (as they whom the Autor oper. imperfect. alledgeth,) or some other. A question is also moved whether our Saviour rode both on the Ass and the Colt, (viz. successively) or on the Colt only; on the Colt only, the Ass following, say Euthym. and an Anonymous writer in caten. patrum Graec. in S. Matth. 10. 2. and the Syr. seems to favour them. But Theophylact will have him to have rid first on the one then on the other, and S. August. de con­sens. Evang. l. 2. c. 66. inclines to this, as the Arab. also favours it; and finally it seems more agreable to the Words of the Prophet Zechary, to say with Origen, 10. 11. in S. Ioh. that he sat upon both. S. Hieron. and the Autor oper. imperf. seem to resolve, that according to the mysti­cal or spiritual sense he did sit on both, but not corporally or in the lite­ral sense.

[Page 10] Bethlehem. S. Matth. c. 2. S. Luc. c. 2. S. Ioh. 7. 42. There was a Bethlehem in the Tribe of Zabulon, and so for distinction's sake, this is styled Bethlehem of Iudea, or (as S. Hieron. would read it, and several Translations, and Munster's Hebr. do read it) Iuda. Iustin Martyr in Dial. cum Tryph. makes the Cave in which Christ was born, to have been not in, but near the Town or City: And Euseb. Demonstr. l. 7. calls the place where he was brought forth, a Field. Neither is this repugnant to the Texts of Scripture, which say, that he was born in Bethlehem; for it is usual to call the suburbs or edifices adjoyning to any City, by the name of the City. It was foretold that Christ should suffer in Ierusalem, S. Luc. 9.31.13.33. yet it was out of the gates of the City that he suffered. So Romae appellatio continentibus aedificiis finitur. Paul. Digest. l. 50. tit. 16. And Iustin Mart. in that very sentence in which he saith, that the Cave was near the Town, saith also that Christ was born in Bethlehem. Origen. contr. Celsum l. 1. Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 3. c. 41, 43. S. Hieron. in Epi­taph. Paulae, and frequently otherwhere. S. Basil. in sanct. Christi nativ. Epi­phan. Haer. 51. Chrysol. serm. 156. Socrat. l. 1. c. 13. Sozom. l. 2. Nicetas in G [...]. caten. patrum, and Theophylact in S. Mat. do call the place of Christs birth a Den or Cave. Epiphan. Haer. 20. adds that he was circumcised in the same Cave. An Arab. Geographer ap. Casaubon Exercit. 2. c. 1. tells us, that they had in that Country, Houses and Cells hewen out of Rocks; why might not this Stable and Manger be so? The Heathens pro­phaned the place of Christs birth, by building there a Temple to Ado­nis. Paulinus Epist. 11. see also S. Hieron. Epist. ad Paulinum.

Emmaus. S. Luc. 24. 13, &c. Iosephus l. 7. de bel. Iud. c. 27. according to the Greek, agrees with S. Luke, that it was distant from Ierusalem a­bout sixty furlongs, whereas the Latin and English Versions of Iosephus have only thirty. Sozomen, l. 5. c. 20. tells of a Fountain near Emmaus, which was endued with a Medicinal virtue; but that it had that virtue from Christs washing his feet in it, he delivers only as a thing that was reported. In the Talmud it is writ sometimes [...] as Succah fol. 51. 1. sometimes [...] as Erachin, fol. 10. 1.

Iericho. S. Matth. 20. 29. S. Mar. 10. 46. S. Luc. 18. 35.19.1.

The Wilderness of Iudea. S. Matth. 3. 1. see also S. Mar. 1. 4. S. Luc. 3.2. Where it was Expositors are not very hasty to tell us. The Country from Ierusalem to Iericho, and from thence to Iordan, is de­scribed by Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 4. c. 27. to be all along Desart. We read of the Wilderness of Iudah, Iud. 1. 16. and in the title of Psal. 63. See also Iosh. 15.61. But whether this be the same Wilderness of which the Evangelists speak, I shall not determine.

The Way from Ierusalem to Gaza. Act. 8. 26. where S. Luke adds, Which is Desart. The question is whether it is Gaza that he calls Desart, or the Way to it. Strabo l. 16. useth St. Luke's very word [...] con­cerning Gaza, of the Desolation of which we may read as in him, so in Diodor. Sicul. l. 17. Ioseph Ant. l. 13. c. 21. and S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. Yet S. Chrysost. Oecumen. and Theophylact with the Syr. apply it to the Way.

[Page 11] Azotus. Act. 8. 40. It was two hundred and seventy Furlongs from Gaza. Diodor. Sicul. l. 19.

The Cities between Azotus and Cesarea. Act. 8. 40.

Ioppa. Act. 9. 36, &c. 10.5, &c. 11. 5. &c.

Sect. 2.

SAMARIA. Luc. 17. 11. S. Ioh. 4. 4,5,7. Act. 1. 8. also c. 8. and 9. 31. 15. 3. When S. Luc. 17. we read that Jesus passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, as he went to Ierusalem, the Arab. saith that he passed between Samaria and Galilee: see also the Syr. This reading we may the rather embrace, because if he had passed through the midst of those Countries to go to Ierusalem, in all reason Galilee (not Samaria) would have been set first; for Samaria is between Galilee and Iudea. He then went between or along the Confines of Samaria and Galilee, and so per­haps to the other side of Iordan, which he crossed again to come to Ieri­cho, and from thence to Ierusalem. See S. Luc. 18. 31,35.

The City of Samaria. Act. 8.5, &c. Some suppose that by it is there meant the City Samaria (or Sebaste) it self; as Vrbem Patavi in Virgil, and the Land of Egypt, Act. 7. 36,40. i.e. the Land called AEgypt. Yet others interpret it to have been Sichem, the Metropolis (as they say) of Samaria; and it is true it was the Metropolis in Alexander the Great's time, (Ioseph. Ant. l. 11. c. 8.) whatsoever it was now. The MS. Alex. adding the Article, reads [...].

Many Uillages of Samaria. Act. 8. 25.

Cesarea. Act. 8. 40. 9. 30. 10. 1,24. 11. 11, 12. 19. 18, 22. 21. 8. 23. 23, 33. 25. 1, 4. It is said, Act. 18. When he (i.e. S. Paul) had landed at Cesarea, and gone up and saluted the Church, but the AEthiop. reads, Gone up to the House of the Christians, and saluted it; and by the House of the Christians there are who understand, some upper room in Cesarea, where the Christians used to assemble, to which (say they) the Apostle went up and saluted the Christians that were assembled in it. But the Syr. according to Tremellius, reads, Gone up to Ierusalem, and though in the Bibl. Polygl. and perhaps other Copies of the Syr. there is not To Ie­rusalem, yet it is very probable that this was S. Luke's meaning, that S. Paul went up to Ierusalem, and saluted the Church there; for it appears Act. 18. 21. that he designed to go up to Ierusalem, when he failed from Ephesus, to come to Cesarea.

Herod's Iudgement-Hall. Act. 23.35.

Lydds. Act. 9. 32, &c. Some contend that it belonged (not to Sa­maria, but) to Iudea, alledging the Talmud. Hieros. I shall not stand to dispute the matter with them.

Saron. Act. 9. 35. As the Greek Copies vary as to the name of this place, so also doth S. Hieron. who calls it sometimes Saronas, and some­times Saron, making it to be the Country betwixt Cesarea and Ioppa. See [Page 12] him in Isa. 33. 8. and 65. 10, in Abdiam, in loc. Hebr. and in loc. Act. A­post. Some have thought it to be the same with the plain of Ono men­tioned. Neh. 6. 2. see also 1 Chron. 8. 12. and Neh. 11. 35. Sharon is often mentioned in the Old Testament, also in the Misna in Bava Kama, c. 10. §. 9. and the Gemar. in Shabbath fol. 77. 1. and in Nidda, fol. 19. 1. In these two last places the Wine of Sharon is commended; but the Inhabitants then tasted of the fruit of the true Vine indeed, when the Gospel came to them.

Antipatris. Act. 23. 31.

Ephraim. S. Ioh. 11. 54. In one Greek Copy we have [...], and in S. Chrysost. [...], but this later is certainly the mistake of the Transcriber. It may be it is the same with that which 2 Chron. 13. 19. is called Ephrain, and by Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l 4. c. 33. Ephraim. Per­haps also the Talmuds [...] or [...] is the same, see the Misna in Menachoth, c. 8. §. 1. and the Gemar. fol. 85. 1. where is the story how [...] and [...]. (the chief of the Sorcerers of AEgypt, as the gloss there informs us) said to Moses, Dost thou bring straw to Ephraim?

Sychar. S. Ioh. 4. 5. Some think that when the right name of it was Sichem, the Iews out of hatred to the Samaritans, nick-named it Sychar; alluding to Isa. 28. 1. where it is said, Wo to the ( [...]) Drunkards of Ephraim. Others observing that [...] may signifie a Sepulchre (see Cethuboth, fol. 17. 1. and the gloss there) fansie that it was called Sychar in Memory of the Patriarchs being buried there.

Iacobs Well. S. Ioh. 4. 6, &c. A place called [...] is mentioned in Bava Kama fol. 82. 2. and Menachoth fol. 64. 2. and said by the Gloss in Menach. to be at a great distance from Ierusalem. Why may it not be rendred, The Well of Sychar, and supposed to be the same with this Well? Jesus being weary, sate ( [...]) so on or by the Well, i.e. in the posture of a wearied Person, or so, i. e. (as S. Chrysost. and Theophylact) as it happened, after any manner, not on a seat but on the ground.

Enon and Salim. S. Ioh. 3. 23. S. Hieron. placeth Salim eight Miles from Scythopolis (so in loc. Hebr.) and other where near it, as in epist. ad Evagrium, see also Primas. in Hebr. 7. 1. and the Iewish Map. Yet there are others that send us to Iudea or Galilee or beyond Iordan to seek these places.

Sect. 3.

GALILEE. Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 3. c. 4. and Misna in Sheviith c. 9. § 2. speak of the higher and lower Galilee.

Cana. S. Ioh 2. 1 &c. 4. 46.21.2. Euseb. ap Casaubon. Exercit. 13. c. 21. speaks of three Cana's, one in the Tribe of Ephraim, another in the Tribe of Manasseh, a third in the Tribe of Aser, and the last of these he will have to be this Cana. And S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. seems to agree with him. But in epist. Paulae & Eustach. ad Marcellam, it it said to be not [Page 13] far from Nazareth, as it may seem from S. Ioh. 4. that it was not far from Capernaum; and accordingly S. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae joyns these three, Nazareth, Cana, and Capernaum together; so that we may believe that they were not far distant from each other. I might add that the Iewish Map placeth a Catna near Nazareth, calling it Catna of Galilee, even as the Syr. Version of the New Testament, calls this place, (not [...] but) [...]. Finally the very name Cana of Galilee favours this, for Galilee without any addition is both in S. Hieron. de loc. Hebr. and the Life of Iosephus, the lower Galilee, in which was Nazareth; the other that was near the Coasts of Tyre, they call Galilee of the Gentiles, or the higher Galilee. Cana of Galilee is mentioned twice by Iosephus in his Life.

Nazareth. S. Matth. 2. 23. 4. 13. 21. 11. S Mar. 1. 9. S. Luc. 1. 26, &c. 2. 4, 39, 51. 4. 16, &c. S Ioh. 1. 45, 46. Act. 2. 22. 10. 38. When S. Matth. 9. 1. we read of Christs own City, S. Hieron. understands thereby Nazareth; but S. Chrysost. and Theophylact more probably judged the City which is spoken of there to be Capernaum; compare S. Mar. 2. 1. However Sedul. Paschal. carm. l. 3. is much out, who makes it to be Bethlehem; though as S. Chrysost. and Theophylact observe, every one of the three Cities may be fitly called Christs own City. There is also men­tion of his own Country, S. Matth. 13. 54, 57. and S. Ioh. 4. 44. In S. Matth. 13. S. Hieron. S Chrysost. and Theophylact, do all interpret it to be Nazareth. But in S. Ioh. 4. whether it refer to Nazareth as S. Cyril, or to Capernaum as S. Chrysost., or to Galilee it self as S. August. and Theo­phylact, it is not easy to determine. See Origen in S. Ioh.

Capernaum. S. Matth. 4. 13. 8. 5. 11. 23. 17. 24. S. Mar. 1. 21. 2. 1. 9. 33. S. Luc. 4. 23, 31. 7. 1. 10. 15. S. Ioh. 2. 12. 4. 46. 6. 17, 24. &c. & supra in Nazareth. Buxtorf. in voc. [...] observing how the Iewish Writers brand the Men of Capernaum with Heresie, saith, that it is be­cause they entertained Christ.

S. Peter's House. S. Matth. 8. 14. S. Luc. 4. 38. or the House of Simon and Andrew, S. Mar. 1. 29. All the three Evangelists seem to make it to have been in Capernaum, where the Brothers might have taken an house for the convenience of fishing, or upon some other account; (whether our Saviour dwelt in this House when he was at Capernaum, or in some other which he hired, I do not know:) Yet some will have S. Peter's House to have been in Bethsaida, saying that it was so near to Capernaum, that our Saviour might go from the Synagogue there, to dine or sup at Beth­saida.

The Receipt of Custom. S. Matth. 9.9. S. Mar. 2. 14. S. Luc. 5. 27. Some contend that [...] signifies the act or imployment of receiving Custom, not the place or House where they received it, [...] (say they) is the proper word for the place, alledging Suidas. But Suidas seems to me, to make [...] and [...] the same, (see the words of Pisides alledged by him) and the word for the imployment is [...] or [...]. The Syr. hath [...] for [...], as Munster's Hebr. [Page 14] hath [...], see Succah fol. 30. 1. Some place it near Capernaum, others near Tiberias.

Bethsaida. S. Matth. 11.21. S. Mar. 6.45. 8.22. S. Luc. 10. 13. S. Ioh. 12.21. If Kirstemius's Arab. Writer say truly that S. Iohn was of Beth­saida, we may believe that S. Iames was of it also, and then there were five Apostles all of one Town. See S. Ioh. 1.44.

The Desart of Bethsaida. S. Luc. 9. 10, &c. See also S. Matth. 14. 13, &c. S. Mar. 6. 32, &c. S. Ioh. 6. 33.

Cor [...]zin. S. Matth. 11. 21. S. Hieron. in loc. Heb. expresly calls it a City of Galilee. Whether it be the same with [...] in Targ. Ionathan in Deut. 3. 14 may be enquired.

The Coasts of Magdala or Dalmanutha. S. Matth. 15. 39. and 16.1. ad 5. S. Mar. 8. 10. ad 13. Whether these are two names, of one and the same place, or they were two distinct Cities or Villages, and the place to which Jesus came, was in the neighbourhood of both; or whether the one is the general name of the Region or Tract, the other the name of a Town or City within it, I shall not anxiously enquire. For Magdala in S. Matth. S Hieron. in loc. Hebr. and others read Magedan, some Maga­dan, Mageddarum in oras, Iuvencus l. 3. see the Vulgar Syr. and Pers. with the Sax. For Dalmanutha in S. Mar. S. Hieron. de loc. Hebr. also reads Magedan, and S. August. de consens. l. 2. c. 51. says, that most Copies (I suppose he means Latin Copies) read so, others have [...] or [...], one Greek Copy (says Erasmus) hath Magdala, and so the Arab. hath Magdal, and the Goth. Magdalan. There are some who seem to make Dalmanutha, Cesarea Philippi, and Magedan to be all one. De Dieu informs us, that the Iewish Map placeth Magedan between Dalma­nutha and Gerges, like as (saith he) S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. makes it to be circa Gerasam; and [...] Magdan, he supposeth to be the same name with [...] Magdal, Lamed being only changed into Nun, which is usual.

Tiberias. S. Ioh. 6. 23.

The Sea of Tiberias, called also the Lake of Gennesaret, or the Sea of Galilee, and sometimes the Sea without any addition; yet Solinus c. 38. seems to distinguish the Lake of Genesara, from the Lake of Tiberias, but I believe he is alone in it. Both the City Tiberias and this Lake, are mentioned very frequently by Iosephus, also by Pliny l. 5. c. 15. where he tells us that the Lake was called by some the Lake of Tarichea; see also Strabo l. 16. Kimchi and Ialkut in Psal. 24. 2. and the Gemar. in [...] Bava bathra fol. 74.2 reckoning seven Seas in the Land of Israel, name this as one. The fire of Coals, the Fishes, and the Bread which the Disciples saw on the shore, S. Ioh. 21. 9. are supposed to have been produced then by Christ, and of no pre-existent matter: See S. Chrysost. Theophylact, Theodor. Mop­suest. Euthymius, and Leontius. Yet Nicephor. l. 1. c. 35. says, I think that this breakfast was provided by the Ministery of Holy Angels.

The Land of Gennesaret. S. Matth. 14. 34, &c. S. Mar. 6. 53, &c. It is described by Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 3. c. 35.

[Page 15] Nain. S. Luc. 7. 11, &c. S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. says, that it was in Galilee, two Miles from Mount Tabor, therefore if S. Greg. Nyssen say that it was in Iudea, we may suppose that he took Iudea in a larger sense, as it signifies all Palestine. Some question whether Nais, in Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 5. be the same with S. Luke's Nain, partly because Nais in Ioseph. is called only [...], not [...], as Nain in Luke; partly because Iosephus seems to place Nais in Samaria, not in Galilee. But as to the former, it is no news that the same place is called [...] and [...] too, as Bethsaida which is most commonly called [...], is yet, S. Mar. 8. 22,23. called [...]; as to the latter, Iosephus saith not that Nais was in Sama­ria, but only that the Galilaeans way was through it, when a certain quar­rel happened between them, and the Samaritans; so that our ordinary Maps agree very well with Iosephus, which place Nain in Galilee, but near to Samaria, and to that campus magnus which Iosephus mentions. It was situate in the Hill Hermon: so Euthym. in Psal. 88.

The Coasts or Towns of Cesarea Philippi. S. Matth 16. 13. S. Mar. 8. 27. Of this Cesarea, see Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 3. l. 20. c. 8. Plin. l. 5. c. 18. Some say that it was the Metropolis of Iturea and Trachonitis, both which are mentioned, S. Luc. 3. 1. (see S. Hieron. de loc. Act. Apost.) Iturea is mentioned also by Dio. l. 49. the Itureans by Strabo l. 16. Plin. l. 5. c. 23. Ioseph. Ant. l. 13. c. 19. Eupolemus ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 9. Trachonitis is mentioned by Plin. l. 5. c. 18. Ioseph. Ant. l. 17. c. 13. and otherwhere, Trachones by Strabo l. 16.

The Country about Iordan. S. Matth. 3. 5. S. Luc. 3. 3.

Iordan. S. Matth. 3. 5, &c. S. Mar. 1. 5, &c. The Evangelists speaking of the Holy Ghost's descending upon Christ at his Baptism in Iordan, say only that he descended in a bodily shape, as it were a Dove; yet the Ancients unanimously say, That he descended in the form or shape of a Dove, Iustin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. Origen in S. Luc. Tertul. de bapt. c. 8. Lactant. l. 4. c. 15. S. Hilar. S. Ambros. l. 1. de Sacram. c. 5. S. Cyril. Alex. in S. Ioh. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. Optatus l. 4. S. August. epist. 102. and S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. That there was truly a Dove, was the opinion of Tertullian, de carne Christi c. 3. with whom S. August. de agone Christ. c. 22. seems to agree.

Sect. 4.

THE Country beyond Iordan. S. Matth. 4. 15, 25. S. Mar. 3. 8.

There are earnest disputes about the signification of the word [...], which we translate Beyond, but others say it signifies also By, nigh to, or about; and so they would have it rendred here, By or About Iordan. And so when according to our Translation it is said, S. Matth. 19. 1. that Christ came from Galilee into the Coasts of Iudea beyond Iordan, these Men would read it thus, Into the Coasts of Iudea by or near Iordan; and so we need not suppose that any part of Iudea was beyond Iordan, [Page 16] as some have said that it comprehended part of the Tribe of Reuben. But after all, I do more approve our reading, Beyond, in all these places, and yet think that it cannot be concluded from S. Matth. 19. that some part of Iudea was beyond Iordan; for S. Mar. 10. 1. expounds S. Matthew's meaning to be no more than this, That Christ went from Galilee into the Coasts of Iudea, by the farther side of Iordan.

Bethabara. S Ioh. 1. 28. Many Greek Copies, also S. Cyril. Alex. Nonnus, all the Oriental Versions in Bibl. Polygl. the Vulg. and Saxon read Bethany not Bethabara. But S. Chrysost. says that the truer Copies have Bethabara, and with him agree Origen in S. Ioh. Suidas in voc. [...], Theo­phylact and Euthymius. Epiphanius also Haer. 51. reads Bethabara, but tells us that some Copies had Bethany. S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. hath Bethaida, or (as other Editions) Bethbaara. This Bethabara is most probably the place mentioned S. Ioh. 3. 26. 10. 40. whether or no it was the same with either. Bethbarah, Iud. 7. 24. or Betharaba Iosh. 18. 22. I determine not, nor yet what is to be thought of that which is hinted by some, that Be­thany crept into some Copies instead of Batanea.

The Country of the Gergesens or Gaderens. S. Matth. 8.28. S. Mar. 5.1. S. Luc 8.26. Copies vary much here also, some reading Gergesens, where the usual Copies have Gadarens, and contrariwise. According to the Syr. and Pers. all the three Evangelists have Gadarens, according to the Arab. and AEthiop. they have all Gergesens, and so perfectly agree. And if some Copies have Gerasens, that needs not trouble us, for S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. seems to make Gergesa, or Gargasi, and Gerasa only two Names of the same City, as also do others. But suppose S. Matthew to have writ Gergesens, S. Mark and S. Luke Gadarens, they will be easily reconciled by saying, either that the Country of the one was included in that of the other, or that Gadara and Gergesa, were neighbouring Cities, and that their fields lay in com­mon pour cause de vicinage, as the Lawyers phrase it. Epiphanius Haer. 30. tells of Tombs near Gadara, in which some Juglers made their Inchant­ments. And both S. Hieron. de loc. Hebr. and he do speak of hot Waters at the foot of the Hill on which the City stood, and some conjecture that the Swine run down the Hill into those Waters. Also the Iewish Map makes a Lake or Collection of Waters as they call it, to have been near [...]. Some think that the Swine run into that [...], of which Strabo l. 16: speaks, but it is much questioned, whether his Gadaris be the same with Gadara, or any place near it. The common opinion is and hath been, that they were drowned in the Sea of Tiberias: see S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. Origen. tom. 8. in Ioh. also Anselm. in. S. Matth. and Zacharias Chrysopol.

Decapolis. S. Matth. 4.25. S. Mar. 5. 20. 7. 31. It is named so from Ten Cities, but Pliny l. 5. c. 18. saith that in his time all did not agree which the Cities were, that made up that number. He reckons among them several Cities beyond Iordan, but withal Scythopolis on this side; so that he doth not altogether agree with those that seem to place all the Ten beyond Iordan. See S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr.

[Page 17] Synagogues. They are frequently mentioned in the Historical part of the New Testament. In some of the places the Word [...] may denote their Assemblies, for civil Judicature; or perhaps more ge­nerally any places of publick concourse; but it signifies most frequently the places where they assembled for Religious exercises. The Signs and Wonders which our Saviour wrought, procured him the reputation of a Prophet, and that might procure more easy admittance for him to teach and preach in their Synagogues.

The Proseuchoe. One of them is mentioned, S. Luk. 6. 12. as some have believed; Jesus continued all Night [...], i. e. (say they) in a Proseucha or Oratory, a place set apart for Prayer to God. Iosephus (in his Life) makes mention oftner than once of a Proseucha at Tiberias. In Philo there is frequent mention of them (in vita Mosis c. 3. and in legatione ad Caium, c. 9. see also c. 16.) only he seems some­times to comprehend the Synagogues under Proseuchae. We have a description of these Proseuchae, in Epiphan. Haer. 80. See Iuvenal Sat. 3. and Cleomedes, l. 2. c. 1.

Sect. 5.

MOunt Garizim. Supposed to be the Mountain of which the Wo­man of Sichem speaks, S. Ioh. 4. 20. for Iosephus Ant. l. 11. c. 8. plainly affirms, that this Mount Garizim was near Sichem, and with him agree the Talmudists, in Sotah fol. 33. 2. also Benjamin in his Itenerarium; yea, and S. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae; see Iud. 9. 6, 7. I know that S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. reproves the Samaritans for placing it near Sichem, as Epiphan. Haer. 9. also doth; but we have good warrant to acquit the Samaritans from error in this. Origen in S. Ioh. 4. 20. expresly saith, that the Woman spake of the Mountain which is called Garizim.

Mount Tabor. Generally believed to be the Mountain on which our Lord was transfigured; see S. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae; and epist. Paulae. and Eustoch. ad Marcellam, S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 12. Euthym. in Psal. 88. and Theophylact in S. Matth. 26. 37. and S. Mar. 14. 32. It was upon this Mount also that he appeared after he was risen to above 500 Bre­thren at once, as some suppose. Tertul. de resur. carnis c. 55. says, that Moses and Elias appeared at Christs Transfiguration, alter in imagine car­nis nondum receptae, alter in veritate nondum defunctae. But the Autor de mirabil. sac. Scr. l. 3. c. 10. says, that in his time it was unanimously con­cluded, that Moses also was present in his own Body. Antiochus Ptolemai­dis in Gr. caten. patr. in S. Matth. tom. 1. favours this, but Severus in the same Caten. thinks it safest not to determine any thing peremptorily in [Page 18] it. The Au [...]or de mirab. sacr. Scr. speaks also of Moses's Body being resumed from the Grave, as S. Hieron. in Matth. speaks of his rising from the dead. But S. Ambros. de Cain & Abel, l. 1. c. 2. seems to have thought that Mo­ses did not die; and so the Iews, ap. Cappellum in S. Matth. 17. say that he died not, but ascended on high where he now Ministers.

Mons Christi. The Mountain in which (as is supposed) our Lord Preached that Divine Sermon recorded by S. Matthew, c. 5, &c. and therefore called by some Mons beatitudinum; also in which he chose twelve out of the number of the Disciples, whom he named Apostles, in which he continued all Night, S. Luc. 6. 12. and in which finally he fed the 4000, S. Matth. 15.

Mons Diaboli. So some called the Mountain where he shewed Christ all the Kingdoms of the World, and the Glory of them.

Quarentana desertum. In this Desart (say some) Christ fasted forty days, and forty Nights, being led into it by the Spirit, i. e. the Holy Spirit, as Origen in S. Luc. S. Hilary, S. Chrysost. S. Hieron. Autor oper. imperfect. Theophylact and Victor Antioch. do unanimously interpret it.

Macherus. In this Castle S. Iohn the Baptist was kept Prisoner by Herod, and in it slain, Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 7. In this very Castle also per­haps it was, or in some place of Peraea near to it, that Herod celebrated his Birth-day, and feasted his Captains and the Nobility of Galilee, for he was Tetrarch of Peraea as well as of Galilee, Ioseph. l. 17. c. 13. Some say, that S. Iohn the Baptist was buried in this Castle, whereas S. Hieron. in loc. Hebr. and in Epitaph. Paulae, and Ruffin. hist. l. 11. c. 28. speak of his Sepulchre at Sebaste or Samaria. Both may say true; his Body might be translated from Macherus to Sebaste. This Macherus is perhaps that which the Targum Ionath. and Ierus. in Num. 32. 35. call [...] or [...].

Sect. 1.

ZACHARIAS and ELIZABETH. See the account and Cha­racter given of them, S. Luc. 1. 5,6. Their House was in a City of Iudah, in the Hill-Country, S. Luc. 1. 39,65. which City some have thought to be Bethlehem, (for the Bibl. Wechel. instead of A City of Judah, read, The City of David) others Ierusalem; but if Theophylact in S. Luc. 1. 23. was not mistaken, the Hill-Country was distant from Ieru­salem. The most think that it was Hebron, for we read Iosh. 21. 11. that Hebron was in the Hill-Country of Iudah, (see Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 4. c. 33.) and withal Hebron was one of the Cities that were given to the Priests, Iosh. 21. 13. How it comes that some place the House of Za­charias, but a Mile from Emmaus, I know not: A place called Beth-Za­charias is mentioned, 1 Macc. 6. 33. and by Ioseph. Ant. l. 12. c. 14. and de bel. Iud. l. 1. c. 1. and in our Maps placed not far from Hebron; it may be it was named so from some Ancestor of our Zacharias, who had the same name. S. Chrysost. S. Hieron. and Theophylact speak of some, who affirmed that our Saviour speaks of this Zacharias, S. Matth. 23. 35. Gregor. Nyssen in Gr. caten. Patr. in S. Luc. and Euthym. held the same, as Origen also seems to do. It is a very ancient Tradition, that this Zacha­rias was slain. The Iews slew him (say some) because he suffered the Mother of our Lord, after the Birth of her Holy Son, to abide in a cer­tain place of the Temple, which was set apart for Virgins, affirming that she was a Virgin still; see Origen, S. Basil. ad sanctam Christi nativit. S. Greg. Nyssen. S. Cyril adv. Anthropomorph. and Theophylact. Others say that when Herod murthered the Innocents, he sought after Iohn also, called afterwards the Baptist, and when he could not find him (his Mo­ther having fled away with him) he slew Zacharias the Father; see Petrus Alex. in Canon. and Cedrenus. Some say that he was slain, for that he had Preached, that the Child which was born of Mary, was the King of the World; see S. Greg. Nyssen. ap. Tit. Bostr. If Hippolytus ap. Nicephor. l. 2. c. 3. inform us aright, this Zacharias was the Son of Barachias. Eliza­beth and the Virgin-Mother were Cousins, S. Luc. 1. 36. though they were of distinct Tribes, the one of Iudah, the other of Levi; by reason of some inter-Marriage, either Elizabeth a Daughter of Aaron was related to the Tribe of Iudah, or the blessed Virgin, though of Iudah, had some relation to that of Levi; see S. August. Quaest. 47. in lib. Iud. and 61 inter [Page 20] Quaest. 83. A Priest might marry any one that was of the Tribe of Levi, or an Israelitess, Misna in Kiddushin, c. 4. §. 1. and Gemar. in Iebamoth, fol. 85. 1. Cedrenus saith, that Elizabeth having retired into a Cave for her Sons preservation, dyed there after forty days.

Herod the Great. S. Matth. c. 2. Macrobius Satunal. l. 2. c. 4. reports that Augustus being told, that Herod having commanded that the Chil­dren under two years old, should be put to Death, a Son of his own was slain among them, replyed, that he had rather be Herod's Hog than his Son. Arnobius in Psal. 47. says, that Herod commanded the Ships to be vexed, (i. e. as it is interpreted burnt) lest the Magi who did not return to him from Bethlehem, should get away in them. Ioseph. Ant. l. 17. c. 8. and de. bel. Iud. l. 1. c. 21. describes his miserable end thus. No or­dinary, but a most fearful Disease seized upon him. He was tor­mented with a slow fire, which was inwardly raging, and yet the heat could not be perceived outwardly; his appetite was dog-like and insa­tiable, his Feet swoln, his Bowels Ulcerous; Belchings, and those fre­quent and unsavoury, did much afflict him, together with intolerable Cholicks, difficulty of breathing, Contractions of the Nerves, and Con­vulsions over the whole Body; his natural parts were putrified and bred Worms; a very troublesome Itch all over, with a noisome stench, did grievously molest him; the torment and loathsomeness of his Disease made him once attempt to destroy himself. Add his extreme grief, for that he saw how all despised and hated him, and for the distractions of his Family, Antipater his eldest Son practising against his Life, and being put to Death by him, but five Days before that he himself ended his Life in most fearful rage and torment. Gregor. Abulpharaius says, that he suffered these Torments for two years together. It is observed by Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 7. that though Herod had a very numerous issue, yet within one hundred years it was all extinct but a few; so little (saith he) doth either a multiplyed Issue or any Humane power or prevalence avail without Religion, and the fear of God.

Archelaus. S. Matth. 2. 22. He was Heir of his Father Herod's Cruelty and Tyranny, for which the Iews and Samaritans complained of him to Augustus, and he banished him to Vienna, Ioseph. Ant. l. 17. c. 15. and de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 11. Of his Cruelty see also R. Dav. Ganz. in Millenar. 4. An. 761.

Ioseph. S. Matth. c. 1. and c. 2. and S. Luc. c. 1. and c. 2. He is called [...], S. Matth. 13. 55. i.e as some have thought, a Smith; see S. Hilar. Chrysolog. serm. 48. Munster's Hebr. Gosp. as also the Saxon. Yet the more received Opinion is that he was a Carpenter or Wright; see the Autor oper. imperf. in S. Matth. 1. S. August. ap. Aquin. and long before them, Iustin Martyr dial. cum Tryph. who is very clear for it. Also Celsus ap. Origen. still speaks of him as a Carpenter, as likewise that Holy Man took him for such, who said that [...], was making a Bier or Coffin for Iulian, Sozomen. l. 6. c. 2. Finally the Oriental Versions in S. Matth. 13. 55. seem to favour this opinion. Boulduc. de Eccles. ante legem l. 1. c. 5. [Page 21] says, that Ioseph was of the Order of the Nethinim. How long he lived after the twelfth year of Christ, there is no Constat either from Scri­pture or Antiquity. Autor de cardinal. Christi oper. De passione Christi, as also the serm. 81. de Tempore, and S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 23. make him to have survived our Lords Passion; but S. Chrysost. Theophylact and Oecu­men. in Act. 1. and Epiphanius Haer. 78. conceive it to be more probable that he did not. They think it strange, that he should not be mentioned in all the time of Christs publick Ministery, and that on the Cross, Christ should recommend his Mother to another, (not to him) if he had been then alive. Also upon the account of his Age, if he was above Eighty years old when our Lords Mother was betrothed to him, (as Epiphan. Haer. 78.) it is no way likely that he did survive our Saviours Crucifixion. Nicephorus l. 1. c. 7. also makes him to have attained to old age, when the Blessed Virgin was espoused to him. It is not agreed whether Io­seph was a Batchelor or a Widower, when she was betrothed to him. Epi­phanius and others say, that he was a Widower, but S. Hieron. adv. Hel­vid. and others, inclined to think that he was a Batchelor. Bede de loc. sanctis, c. 6. says, that his Sepulchre was in the Valley of Iosaphat, near the Tomb of old Simeon.

Mary our Lords Mother. S. Matth. c. 2. and c. 12. 46,47. S. Mar. 3. 31,32. S. Luc. 2. S. Ioh. 2. 1, 3, 5, 12. 19.25, 26,27. Act. 1. 14. She was (say some) twenty four years of Age, when she brought forth the Holy Jesus, others say that she was no more than fifteen, or sixteen, or eighteen; according to Greg. Abulpharaius, she was only thirteen. There is not much better agreement as to the time that she lived after her Sons Ascension, which was, according to Euseb. in Chron. fifteen years; accord­ing to Aretas in Rev. 7. 4. but fourteen, and if the Epistle called Lumen ap. Nicephor. l. 2. c. 3. say true, only eleven. What some ap. Plutarch. relate of Cicero, that he was brought forth without pain, the Ancients unanimously affirm to be true of Christ, S. Athanas. de salutari adventis Christi. S. Greg. Nyssen orat. 1. de resur. Christi. Autor de Cardinal. oper. De nativ. Christi. Fulgent. de laudibus Mariae ex partu Salvat. Zeno Veron. de nativ. ser. 3. The same Autor de Cardinal. oper. S. Hieron. ad. Helv. and others, affirm, that he was brought forth also without Midwife, so that the story which some tell of the incredulous Midwifes Punishment and Miraculous Cure is justly exploded. Some that were very near the Apostles have Writ of the Blessed Virgin, that she was Baptized by Christ, so we are told by Euthym. in S. Ioh. 3. Some alledge S. Ambros. saying, that there was so much of Piety and Devotion in her very Aspect and Deportment, that it incited Religious thoughts in the beholders. From the mention of a pair of Turtle Doves, or two young Pidgeons, S. Luc. 2. 24. some conclude, that She and Ioseph were Poor; see Origen Hom. 8. in Levit. and S. August. quaest. 40. in Levit. Others also speak of their Poverty, as S. Basil. Constitut. Monast. c. 4. S. Chrysost. Hom. 6. and 66. in S. Matth. Autor de Cardin. oper. De nativ. Christi. Nicetas in S. Matth. 2. 11. Fulgent. de Epiphania, &c. Yet I do not believe that they thought them to be ex­tremely [Page 22] poor, it being manifest enough from sacred Writ, that they were not so; yea some almost absolutely hold, that the Virgin was an Inheritrix, and Nicephorus, l. 1. c. 13. speaks of the Substance and Pos­session which they had at Nazareth. When it is said, S. Ioh. 19. 25. that She and other Women stood by the Cross, the word stood is to be taken notice of; for perhaps they were not to sit in that case, for sitting was a posture of Mourning and Lamentation, (see Iob 2. 13. Isa. 3. 26. 47. 5. Lam. 2. 10) and the making solemn Lamention for 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 [Page 23] 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.

[Page 24] 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, which the Iews looked upon as a just Judgment of God upon him, for the Murther of the Baptist. This was the first-fruits of his incestuous match with Herodias. Afterwards she was the occasion of his banishment. See all this in Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 7. and 9. There are two circumstances that aggravate Herod's Cruelty in Murthering Iohn. The first is that he did not abstain from slaughter on his Birth-day, for which very thing, Dio, l. 77. brands Caracalla; it being very improper to deprive any of the Light on the Day that we received it, (see S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. 14. Fragment. Varron. & Philo contr. Flaccum) yea Martial l. 10. Ep. 87. thought all brawls and contentions to be unseasona­ble and unbecoming then, Natalem colimus, tacete lites. I know some que­stion whether by Herod [...]s Birth-day be signified the Day in which he first saw the Light, or the Day on which he entred on his Dignity or Te­trarchy, even as Hos. 7. 5. the Day of the King is by the Chald. Para­phr. R. Solom. Aben Ezra and Kimchi expounded to be the Day in which he was made King; but the Ancients seem to take the Word Birth-day in the usual sense, viz. for the Day in which he was born into the World. The other circumstance is, that they were at meat when the Baptists head was cut off and brought to him. The Romans much condemned Marius for that when he was banqueting, he handled with much pleasure and insolence the head of Antonius a Consular Person, being brought to him, Valer. Maxim. l. 9. c. 2. Florus. l. 3. c. 21. As also they did L. Quintius Flaminius or Flamininus, who to satisfie an Harlots wanton Cruelty, caused a condemned Person to be beheaded at Supper, (Livy l. 39. and Cicero de senectute) as at another time when they were Banqueting, he, ad nutum scorti, with his own hands slew a noble Boian, (Livy ibid.) S. Hie­ron. in S. Matth. 14. compares Herod's Cruelty with Flaminius's in the former instance, but makes it to exceed his. When we read S. Mar. 6. 20. that Herod observed the Baptist, the Word is [...], which may signifie that he took care to keep him safe, that neither Herodias nor any other should do any violence to him, see v. 19. When it is said S. Matth. 14. 9. that the King was sorry, S. Hieron. makes it to be a counterfeit sadness, but S. Hilary, S. Chrysost. Theophylact and Euthym. supposed it to be real. We need not wonder that Herod, though but a Tetrarch, is called King, for Pliny l. 5. c. 18. makes Tetrarchies to differ little from Kingdoms, and Cicero de Divinat. l. 1. saith of Deiotarus, that à Caesare Tetrarchiae regno multatus est, and a little before he calls him Deiotarum regem. Some ask how it came that Herod heard not of the fame of Jesus until after the Baptists Death, whereas he had Preached and wrought Miracles both before S. Iohn's imprisonment, and also all the time of it. [Page 25] To which it may be answered, that before S. Iohn's imprisonment, Herod was absent upon the account of his journey to Rome; during the time of it he was preparing for the War against Aretas, and perhaps also after S. Iohn's Death; however the event of the War, and overthrow that he received, might then distract him. It might also be some reason of this, that Jesus was much in Galilee, and other parts more remote from the place of Herod's residence, which at that time more especially was (as I suppose) Beraea. Add that which S. Chrysost. and Theophylact say, that Men in great places are usually taken up with other things, and less inquisitive after things of this nature. As also they that are about them neglect many times to acquaint them with those things which it concerns them most to know; see Lamprid. in Alexand. Sever. and Vopisc. in Aure­lian. It is generally presumed that our Lord called this Herod a Fox. S. Luc. 13. 32. and so Irenaeus l. 4. c. 80. S. Ambros. ser. 2. and 11. in Psal. 118. expound the Text of Herod, as also Chrysologus ser. 19. Yet Theo­phylact, Titus Bostr. and Euthymius make it to refer to the Pharisees: It is not (say they) [...], but [...] this Fox, as pointing to the Pharisees that were there present. In Nicephorus Gregor. l. 9. in fin. the Image of a Fox (which was found in a Book of Oracles) is interpre­ted to denote [...], the subtlety of the Emperor there spoken of: accordingly here our Saviour may be thought to intimate the subtlety of Herod, or of the Pharisees, if with Theophylact, &c. we apply it to them. The Iews have a Proverb, Worship a Fox in his time, Megillah, fol. 16. 2. i. e. the time of his Prosperity, as the Gloss there; but our Saviour would not Worship this Fox. Some think that when Herod was at Ieru­salem, he dwelt in that stately Palace built by his Father, which Iosephus describes, de bel. Iud l. 5. c. 13. and that thither it was that Jesus was sent to him by Pilate.

Herod's Lords, High Captains, Chief Estates, and Men of War. S. Mar. 6. 21, 26. S. Luc. 23. 11. It is not easie to determine of what colour the Gorgeous robe was, with which Herod's Guard or Men of War arrayed Christ, whether white (as the Vulg. and Saxon, and as S. Ambros. took it to be) or red, purple or scarlet. See the Syr. Arab. and Pers. every one of which hath the same Word, S. Luc. 23.11. which they have S. Matth. 27. 28. where the Greek hath [...].

Philip. S. Matth. 14. 3. S. Mar. 6. 17. S. Luc. 3. 19. Iosephus Ant. l [...] 18. c. 7. says, that Herodias was enticed not from Philip but Herod. But R.D Ganz, and Iosippus call him Philip as the Evangelists do. Suidas in voc. [...] calls him Herodes Philippus, saying that he had two Names, as Herod Antipas, and Herod Agrippa also had. Tertul. contr. Marcion. l. 4. c. 34. S. Chrysost. Isidor. in gr. ca [...]en. in S. Matth. tom. 2. and Euthym. say that Philip was dead when Herodias was marryed to Herod, and so also some thought ap. Origen. in S. Matth. 14. but Origen himself, as also S. Hieron. Victor Antioch. R. D. Ganz, and he that goeth under the name of Hegesippus l. 2. c. 4. thought that he was alive, and so Iosephus saith ex­presly that her former Husband was living when Herodias left him to [Page 26] [...]arry to Herod. Yet S. August. de fid. & oper. c. 19. leaves it doubtful. [...]ut suppose him dead, since he dyed not childless leaving a Daughter, Herod could not lawfully marry his Relict.

Herodias. S. Matth. c. 14. S. Mar. c. 6. S. Luc. 3. 19. She was Herod the Great's Grandchild by Aristobulus. Her Ambition and Envy at her own Brother Agrippa's Prosperity, made her put Herod upon a Journey to Rome, to obtain that he might be King: But Agrippa followed him with such accusations, that the Emperor Caligula banished him to Lyons in France. He would have spared Herodias for her Brother's sake, but she would accompany her Husband into Exile; see Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 9. who adds, de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 16. that both Herod and Herodias fled into Spain, and that Herod dyed there. S. Hieron. adv. Ruffin. l. 2. writes that Herodias did thrust the Baptist's Tongue through with a bodkin, as Fulvia did Cicero's. Nicephorus. l. 1. c. 19. relates, that she buried the Baptists head in a secret place of the Palace; but Theophylact says, that primùm in Emesan repositum fuit. Comestor speaks of its being buried in Ierusalem.

Salome was the Daughter of Herodias, and (as far as we can per­ceive by Iosephus) her only Daughter; and so we may suppose that she was the Damosel that danced before Herod, and asked the Baptist's head. Her Father was that Philip who is by Iosephus called Herod, and she was first marryed to another Philip, who is mentioned S. Luc. 3. 1. after his Death, to one Ar [...]stobulus, by whom she had three Sons; see Iosephus Ant. l. 18. c. 7. We are told by Nicephorus l. 1. c. 20. that her Mother Herodias saw this Salome's miserable end, for attempting to pass over a frozen River, the Ice breaking, she fell in to the Neck in water, and the frag­ments of the Ice closing, separated her head from the Body. But of this, Baronius well saith, Esto fides apud autorem; for by Iosephus's account it is more probable that she lived to see her Mother banished, than that her Mother saw her Death.

The [...]ecutioner that beheaded the Baptist. S. Mar. 6. 27. The Word is [...] i. e. [...] as Suidas. It is originally a Latin Word, Speculator, and we have an account of its signification in Seneca de ira l. 1. c. 16. and de benef. l. 3. c. 25. Some instead of Speculatores read Spiculatores, both in Digest. l. 48. tit. 20. l. 6. and in Tacitus, but my Books have Speculatores in both; and Lipsius in not. in Tacit. Histor. l. 1. says, that it is to be read so constantly, producing three ancient Inscri­ptions, in which it is writ so. Some derive it à Speculando, as the He­brews call a publick Minister [...] from [...] speculari. They Syr. hath turned it into [...], which word or one near to it occurs in Schab. fol. 108.1. and in Targum Ionath. and Ierus. in Gen. 37.36. and 39. 1.

Iesus Christ. He was inrolled in Augustus's Censual Tables; see Ori­gen Hom. 11. in S. Luc. Tertull. contr. Marcion. l. 4. c. 7. 19. Oros. l. 6. c. ult. and l. 7. c. 3. (al. 1.) In Suidas in voe. [...]; we read of ano­ther inrolling of him, viz. by the heads of the Priests, who having elected him in the place of a certain Priest that was dead (for one said [Page 27] that though he was of Iudah, yet his stock was so mixed with the Tribe of Levi, that he might be elected) upon his Mothers Testimony (his reputed Father being then dead) recorded his name thus, Iesus the Son of the Living God, and of the Virgin Mary; but what cedit the Iew Theodosius deserved, who imparted this as a great secret to one Philip a Christian, and he to those from whom Suidas had it, I know not. The same Suidas alledgeth Iosephus, saying, that [...], but though Iosephus doth make very honorable mention of Iesus, yet I no­where find any such passage in him. As S. Basil. in Constitut. Monast. c. 4. says, that Iesus to shew his obedience to his Parents, meekly underwent any bodily labour; so S. Iustin Martyr. contr. Tryph. tells, that he wrought at the Carpenters Trade, made Ploughs, Yokes, &c. So S. Mar. 6. 3. Is not this the Carpenter? Every one was bound to teach his Son a Trade, Misn. in Kiddushin, c. 4. §. 14. [...] in Kiddushin, c. 1. §. 43. Gemar. in Berachoth, fol. 63. 1. so Ioseph taught Jesus the Carpenters Trade. The Martyrologies say, that he returned out of AEgypt on the seventh of Ianuary. Iuvencus l. 1. thought that his Parents, carried him with them every year to Ierusalem, especially after that he was of the age of twelve years, and S. August. de Consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 10. seems to say that they carried him up before that age also, as soon and as often as they durst for fear of Archelaus. When the Iews say to Christ, Thou art not yet fifty years old, S. Joh. 8. 57. it may seem strange that they should speak of fifty years, when as, if Theophylact say truly, he was then only of the age of thirty three years; yea Epiphanius, Haer. 51. says, that he was but thirty three years old at his Passion; see also Euseb. l. 1. c. 10. and in Chron. S. August. de Doct. Ch [...]ist. l. 2. c. 20. To this (not to take notice that S. Chrysost. and some Copies ap. Euthym. read, not fifty years old, but only forty) it may be said, that his maturity of Judgment, experience and gravity might incline them to think, that he was towards fifty; or perhaps his sorrows did make him look elder than he was; or they had respect to the Jubilee, and it is as if they had said, Thou hast not lived the time of one Jubilee; see Theophylact and Severus in caten. gr. Perhaps their meaning was no more than this, That he was not within the verge of old age; or finally they would pitch upon an age of which there could be no doubt; they were not certain that he was not forty, but they were sure that he was short of fifty. It may also seem strange, that the Baptist should say of Christ, I knew him not, S. Joh. 1. 31,33. to which S. Chry­sost. and Theophylact say, that those words refer to the time before Christ's coming to S. Iohn as he was baptizing, and it was by Revelation then that he knew him; S. Iohn before that had not seen his Face, or known him by sight, [...]. Nonnus. The Iews might suspect that the Baptist gave so high a Testimony of him, for kindred or affection or former familiarity that had been between them; he therefore repeats it that he knew him not in any such way, but by revelation only; see Origen, and S. Cyril. in caten. gr. in S. Ioh. Some sentences are attributed to Christ, which we find not in Sacred Writ, at least not in so many [Page 28] words, as by S. Hieron. ad Minerium (vel Minervium) and Alexandrum, this, Estote probati trapezitae vel nummularii; by Cassian this, Vbi te inve­nero ibi judicabo. The rest that concerns the Holy Jesus see in the New Testament, and Bishop Taylor's Gr. Exemplar.

Shepherds. S. Luc. 2. 8, &c. S. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae, and lib. quaest. in Genes. says, that they kept their Flocks near the Tower of Ader i. e. Gregis, see Gen. 35. 21. Arnobius in Psal. 129. says, that the Angels appeared to them in the fourth Watch of the Night. Some can tell you the Number and Names of the Shepherds, but till they agree better a­mong themselves, you are not bound to believe them.

Simeon. S. Luc. 2. 25 &c. S. Athanas. de communi essentia Patris & Fil. & Spir. Sancti. Autor hom. de occursu Domini ap. S. Cyril. Hieros. and Au­tor de vit. & interit. prophet. ap. Epiphan. say, that he was a Priest, and how far his taking Christ into his Arms, and blessing Ioseph and Mary may favour this, I shall not determine; but Theophylact and Euthymius thought that he was not. Some make him the same with Rabban Schimeon the Son of Hillel, adding that both he and his Father Hillel, were removed from the Presidentship, because they differed somewhat from the rest of the Iews in their opinion touching the Messiah. The Talmudists do not make so frequent and honorable mention of Rabban Schimeon, as they do of other Presidents; and if he gave such an honourable Testimony of our Lord, we need not seek further for the reason why they do not. The forecited Autor de vit. & interit. Prophet. says, that he dyed full of years, and that the Priests would not vouchsafe him burial; but Bede de loc. sanctis c. 6. makes him to have been buried in the Valley of Iosaphat. The story of his blindness and receiving sight upon his taking Jesus in his Arms, is re­jected by Baronius as a Figment. And that deserves as little credit which Eutychius and Almakinus relate, ap. Hottinger. Thesaur. p. 309. that he was one of the seventy Interpreters, and lived three hundred and fifty years. Some (as S. Chrysost. and Oecumen. do inform us) took the Simeon mentioned, Act. 15. 14. to be this Simeon, but by a great mistake.

Anna. S. Luc. 2. 36, 37, 38. It is doubted whether she was a Wi­dow about eighty four years, or only lived so many years in all, S. Am­brose inclined to the former, Euthymius to the latter. Titus Bostr. fansies that she said, This is the Worlds Redeemer, this Mankinds Saviour, &c.

The Eastern Wisemen or Magi. S. Matth. 2.1, &c. There is no cer­tainty either as to the time when, or the Country from whence they came. Some fetch them from Arabia, others from Persia, from Chaldaea others; whom some would reconcile by saying, that Chaldaea and Persia are sometimes comprehended under the name of Arabia; but whether this will satisfie, I know not. As to the time, some say that they came soon after our Saviours birth, others say that it was a year or two after. The ancients do affirm more unanimously that they were Kings, yet it is likely that they were not mighty Monarchs or potent Kings, but Reguli [Page 29] or Toparchae, Rulers of lesser Cities or Territories, subordinate to the chief Ruler of the Country; lecti proceres, as they are styled by Iuvencus, l. 1. It is no less unanimously affirmed, that Balaam's Prophecy of a Star that should arise out of Iacob, lead them to the understanding of the Star, that lead them to Christ, Origen l. 1. contr. Celsum, and Hom. 13. in Num. S. Basil. in sanctam Christi nativit. S. Chrysost. tom. 7. p. 402. S. Hieron. and Theophylact; see the Author oper. imperf. and Greg. Abulpharaius. Yea some ap. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 2. and ap. Theophylact report, that they were of the Posterity of Balaam, (see also Origen hom. 13. in Num.) and S. Hie­ron. says, that they were his Disciples and Successors; others have thought that they were the remains of the School of Daniel. It was gene­rally held by the Ancients, that they practised unlawful Arts, S. Iustin Martyr contr. Tryph. Origen l. 1. contr. Celsum. Tertul. de Idololat. c. 9. S. Ba­sil ubi supra, S. Hilary, S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 2. S. August. ser. 2. de Epiphan. Nicetas in caten. gr. in S. Matth. tom. 2. Chrysol. ser. 156. and to them we may add Theophylact, whereas I have as yet found none of the contrary opinion, but the Author oper. imperf. Some later writers are of opinion that the Star went before them only from Ierusalem to Bethlehem, but S. Basil ubi supra, S. Chrysost. S. Greg. Nazianzen. orat. 4. Chrysologus ser. 156. Nicetas ubi supra, and Euthymius thought that the Star was also their guide from the East to Palestine. S. Chrysost. and Theophylact conceived, that the Star descended into the lower part of the Air, that it might point out the House where the Child was; yet S. Cyril. in caten. gr. denies this, but gives us not the reason of his denial. Autor oper. im­perf. gives us a relation of a Writing under the name of Seth, that fore­told of a Stars appearing, &c. but he confesses that it is uncertain.

The Infants of Bethlehem. S. Matth. 2. 16. They suffered for Christ before he suffered for them (testimonium Christi sanguine litaverunt. Tertul. contr. Valentin. c. 2.) and therefore are by the Ancients reputed and styled Martyrs; see S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 18. Origen hom. 3. in diversos, S. Cyprian. plebi Thibari consistent. S. Hilary, S. August. epist. 28. Fulgent. de Epiphan. Some say that the Souldiers gave order that all the Children of such an age, should be brought into one place, and this being done (the poor Pa­rents suspecting nothing) they executed Herod's inhumane pleasure upon them. Comestor says, that the greatest part of them was buried three Miles from Bethlehem, towards the South. Greg. Abulpharaius relates, that Autognius a Philosopher, gave notice to Augustus of the Magi's coming so far to worship a Child newly born, and that Augustus sent to Herod to be informed more fully, who writ back what discourse he had with the Magi, and the Massacre of the Infants. The number of which was certainly very great, but the AEthiop. Liturgy and Greek Calendar, speaking of fourteen thousand swell it too much, yet are very modest in Comparison of others.

The Apostles. There was an ancient Tradition that our Lord com­manded them not to depart from Ierusalem till the end of twelve years, Euseb. l. 5. c. 18. Accordingly S. Chrysost. hom. 69. in S. Matth. saith, that [Page 30] they remained a long time in Iudea before they went to other Nations. Before their departure they agreed on a summary of the Christian Faith, which should be the Rule and Ground-work of their future Preaching, Ruffin. in Symbol. Apost. We are told by Socrates l. 1. c. 19. that they divided the Provinces by Lot, but this seems not to be very consistent with that which S. Chrysost. and Oecumen. in Act. say, that they did not use Lots after the Holy Ghosts descent upon them. Theodoret, S. August. and Euthymius in Psal [...] 67. say, that all the Apostles sprung from the Tribes of Iudah, Zabulon, and Naphthali. Tertul. de baptist. c. 12. and Euthymius in Act. 1. 5. thought that they did receive Iohn's Baptism, but S. August. Epist. 108. leaves it doubtful, whether they received his or Christ's; though he thinks it more probable that they received Christ's; yet methinks we should not doubt but that the two Disciples of the Baptist, mentioned S. Ioh. 1. 35. were baptized with his Baptism. We read in a certain Book, this saying ascribed to the Apostles, Blessed is he that fasts that he may feast the Poor. See the rest in Dr. Cave's Introduction.

S. Peter. Theophylact is positive that he was the Baptist's Disciple, as well as his Brother S. Andrew; whereas he is called Simon Barjona, some Copies instead of [...] have [...] or [...] or [...], the Vulg. in S. Ioh. 21. Ioannis. Nonnus [...], and so some (says S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 16.) thought Iona to be writ corruptly for Iohanna; but the Oriental Versions accord with the usual reading. There is some question when the name of Cephas or Peter was given him, whether when Jesus said, Thou shalt be called Cephas, S. Ioh. 1. (as S. August. de consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 17. and 53. l. 4. c. 3.) or when he ordained him an Apostle S. Mar. 3. (as S. Cyril. Alex.) or finally, when he said, Thou art Peter, S. Matth. 16. Lyra in S. Matth. 27. reports out of Itinerarium Clementis, that his Custom was to continue in Prayer from the first Cock-crowing, weeping for his Lord and Master.

S. Andrew. Who that other Disciple of the Baptist was, that left him together with S. Andrew [...] follow Jesus, we can only conjecture; some think that he was some obscure Disciple, others that he was the Evangelist himself, viz. S. Iohn, who after this manner conceals his Name; others that he was S. Philip; Epiphan. Haer. 51. that he was ei­ther S. Bhilip, or S. Iohn, or his Brother S. Iames. S. Chrysost. Theophylact, Theodor. Mopsuest. in caten. gr. in Ioan. and Euthym. make mention of the two first Opinions. See S. Cyril. Alex.

S. Iames the Great. Whether he was surnamed the Great for his stature, or for his age, being elder than the other S. Iames, or for that he was a Disciple before the other, or because he was the first Martyr of the Apostles, or for the peculiar honour vouchsafed him, in being ad­mitted to more intimate familiarity with Christ, I do not take upon me to determine. In the Iewish writings there is frequent mention of R. Ia­cob the Son of [...], but I cannot easily be perswaded that he was the same with our Apostle: Some say, that Saffa and Saffra a City three Miles distant from Nazareth was the Birth-place of S. Iames and S. Iohn, but Theophy­lact [Page 31] in S. Matth. 11. 21. says, that they were of Bethsaida. So Kirstenius's Arab. MS. says of S. Iohn, that he was of the City Be [...]hsaida, and the Tribe of Zabulon. And therefore it seems to be a mistake in the Compen­dium of S. Matthew's Life in Caten. gr. tom. 2. when it says, that they were of the Tribe of Benjamin, they had both of them an Inheritance left by their Father; so Nicephor. l. 2. c. 3. he is said to have converted Philetus and Hermogenes who had been fam'd Magicians, and afterwards erred again from the Truth; but Baronius An. 44. Num. 2. reckons this, inter eaquae incerto autore scripta feruntur. S. August. in Gal. 2. Euseb. Emissenus, and the interlin. Gloss. are alledged, as saying that this S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem, and S. Ambros. in S. [...]uc. 9. says of him, Primus solium sacerdotale conscendit. Our Saviour surnamed him and his Brother, Boanerges, Sons of Thunder, as it is interpreted. S. Hieron. in Isa. 62. and and Dan. 1. and Philemon v. 1. also de nomin. Hebr. will have Boanerges to be corrupted for Benereem ( [...]) which hath exactly that signifi­cation; but Benereem not being found either in the Oriental Versions, or in any Copy Greek or Latin that I have seen, it is best to adhere to the usual reading Boanerges, i. e. [...] or [...] the Syr. and Pers. have [...], all which may have the same signification, viz. Sons of Commotion, or Concussion. The Targum, in Psal. 81. 8. ins [...]ead of Thunder, reads, The secret place of the House of my Majesty, and so perhaps Sons of Thunder, are no other than Embassadors of the Divine Majesty. Theophylact in S. Mar. 9. 2. calls S. Iames, Theologum vocalissimum, as he doth S. Iohn in praefat. ad S. Ioan. perhaps he herein alludes to the Name Boanerges. Some tell us that as he was lead to Execution he cured Paralytick, and call the place where he suffered, Forum rerum venalium.

S. Iohn. S. Hieron. contr. Iovin. l. 1. calls him an Apostle, and Evan­gelist, a Prophet, and a Virgin. Polycrates ap. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. adds that he was a Martyr and Doctor; yea a Priest (Pontifex ejus, as S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. translates it, a Priest of Christ) and wore the Petalum [...] S. Au­gust. in S. Ioh. 18. 15. would not have us to affirm rashly who the Dis­ciple was, that is said there to have followed Jesus with S. Peter into the High Priests Palace, but inclines to think, as divers of the Ancients do, that it was S. Iohn. Nicephorus l. 1. c. 28. and l. 2. c. 3. says, that in his House Christ eat his last Passover, and in it instituted the Sacrament of the Supper; but l. 1. c. 28. he delivers it only with an Vt aiunt, and S. Chrysost. and Theophylact are against it, for they were of opinion, that none of the Apostles had an House in Ierusalem, otherwise they would have invited their Master to eat the Passover with them, and that the Master of the House where it was eaten, was an unknown Person; see them in S. Matth, 26.17. see also S. Luc. 22. 8, &c. Aretas in Rev. 7. 4. affirms that S. Iohn [...] went not from Ierusalem to Ephesus, till after the Blessed Virgins Death. Some say that he was of the age of thirty one years when he stood by the Cross of Jesus.

S. Philip. See above in S. Andrew. Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. says, that he was the Disciple mentioned, S. Matth. 8. 21, 22.

[Page 32] S. Bartholomew. Dionysius de mystica Theolog. c. 1. alledgeth this sentence of his, [...], see Maximus and Pachymares.

S. Matthew. There is some question whether Levi mentioned, S. Mar. 2. 14. S. Luc. 5. 27, 28. was the same with S. Matthew. Origen l. 1. contr. Celsum, and Heracleon ap. Clement. Alex. say, that he was not; yet the same Origen Praefat. in Epist. ad Roman. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 9. and de vir. illustr. S. August. de consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 26. S. Chrysost. ap. Aquin. in S. Mar. Theophylact in S. Mar. Constitut. l. 8. c. 22. say that he was. In Sanhedr. fol. 43. [...]. five Disciples of Jesus are named, and the first is cal­led [...]. The Compendium of his Life, in caten. gr. tom. 2. makes him to have been of the Tribe of Benjamin, but Kirstenius's Arab. MS. says, that he was of the Tribe of Issachar; perhaps he was of neither, for the same MS. affirms, that he was of the City Nazareth, which was in the Tribe of Zabulon. In Euthym. in Psal. 67. he is said to have lived at Capernaum, others suppose that he dwelt at Tiberias. The foresaid MS. adds, that he was buried in Arthagena Caesareae; whether this Arthagena be some place belonging to Caesarea, or within the Territories of it, to which later times have given that Name, I have not learnt.

S. Thomas. Theodoret. Quaest. 16. in Num. Nonnus calls him [...], as making Thomas and Didymus two distinct Names, which Sedulius l. 4. also doth; but some will not allow this, saying, that it is the same Name, only exprest in different Languages; but it may seem by Euseb. l. 1. c. ult. that he had also the name of Iude, and then he was certainly [...], had two names at least. S. Chrysost. in S. Ioh. 11. admires the change wrought in this Apostle, who was so timorous before Christs Ascension, and yet so constant and couragious in Preaching the Gospel afterward; he judged those words of his v. 16. to be an Argu­ment of his timidity, viz. Let us go and dye with him. He feared that, if they went so near Ierusalem as Bethany was, the Iews would put them to Death; so S. Chrysost. and to the same purpose Theophylact, Theo­dor. Mopsuest. and Euthymius. Yet the same S. Chrysost. acquaints us that there were some who said, that Thomas desired to Die. So Origen and Ammonius in caten. gr. in S. Ioh. and Iuvencus l. 4. say, that in those words he exhorted the other Apostles to despise the Iews lying in wait, and to lay down their Lives for Christ. See Nonnus.

S. Iames of Alpheus, i. e. the Son of Alpheus, as not only we but also all the Oriental Versions do Translate it, S. Mar. 3. 18. I shall not ingage in the endless disputes about this Apostle, but with Mr. Thorndike and o­thers, suppose him to be the same with him who is called Iames the less, S. Mar. 15. 40. and the Lords Brother, Gal. 1. 19. or the Bro­ther of Jesus, who was called Christ, Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 8. and who was Bishop of Ierusalem. It is the received opinion, that he was called less or little, with respect to S. Iames the Son of Zebedee; see S. Hie­ron. contr. Helvid, &c. though some say that he was called so in respect of [Page 33] another Iames who was his Uncle, i. e. his Father Alpheus's Brother, and S. Iude's Father. He was a Publican (saith S. Chrysost. hom. 32. in S. Mat.) and dwelt at Capernaum, as saith Euthym. in Psal. 67. S. Hieron. in Psal. 37. Elias Cretensis and Theophylact thought that he was the young Man mentioned, S. Mar. 14. 51. and Epiphan. Haer. 78. favours this. But if he lived to the age of ninety six years in all, and yet but about twenty four years after Christ's Passion, (both which Epiphanius affirms) he could not be a young Man then, being seventy years old or more; but perhaps the Transcribers mistook the Numeral Letters in Epiphanius, and so perhaps S. Iames did neither live so much as ninety six years in all, nor so little as but about twenty four years after Christs Death; for Euseb. in Chron. and S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. say, that he lived thirty years after it. Some say that he was so like Christ both in countenance and carriage, that Iudas thought it necessary to give those that came to ap­prehend Jesus, a Sign; least they should mistake the one for the other. Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. saith, that the Lord after his Resur­rection endued with Knowledge Iames the Just, and Iohn, and Peter [...] which they imparted to the rest of the Apostles, and they to the Seven­ty. By Knowledge I suppose is meant a greater measure of it, by rea­son of which those three were looked upon to be Pillars. We are told by S. Chrysost. hom. 5. in S. Matth. that he was so neglective of his Body, that all the parts of it were in a manner dead; and that his very fore­head had contracted a Callousness by his frequent throwing himself on the floor, when he prayed. He was called Oblias; and Hegesippus ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. and Epiphan. haer. 70. interpret it to signify a Wall or Munition, perhaps from [...] murus, vallum, munimentum, or from [...] which is the same with [...] munitio, says Kemchi. Some later Writers report, that seven Years after Christs Ascension, preaching to the people, he was thrown down from the Stairs on which he stood, and was so hurt thereby that he halted ever after. His Monument remained not far from the Temple till the time of Hegesippus, who relates this; yet S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. tells of some who said that he was buried in Mount Olivet, but adds that they erred therein.

S. Simon. I shall not determine either why he is called the Cananite (whether from Cana as it signifies Zeal, or as it was the name of a Town, S. Hieron. seems not to reject either Opinion) or why he is named the Zelot, whether from his flagrant Zeal to propagate the Gospel, as Nice­phor. l. 2.40. or for that he had been of the Sect of the Zelots, of which we have frequent mention in Iosephus. Origen. l. 2. contr. Celsum, calls the two Disciples to whom Jesus appeared in the Way to Emmaus, Simon and Cleopas; but that he intended this Simon, I cannot say. Perhaps he in­tended Simon Peter, who is supposed by some to have been Cleopas's Associate.

S. Iude. al. Thaddaeus and Lebbeus, [...] is named the last of the five Disciples of Jesus mentioned by the Talmud, Sanhedr. 43. 1. S. Hie [...]on. contr. Helvid. as also in Gal. 4. makes this Apostle to be surnamed Zelotes, [Page 34] and Sophronius says that Simon the Cananite was also called Iude; see also the short account of the Apostles before Oecumen. in Act. Apost. S. Iude was an Husbandman say the Constitut. l. 2. c. ult. in the Title of the Chap­ter. In S. Luc. 6. 16. and Act. 1. 13. he is called Iudas of Iames, and the Syr. and Arab. render it, the Son of Iames in both places, as also the AEthiop. doth, Act. 1. 13. but in the Epistle of S. Iude, v. 1. he is both in the Greek, and in the Oriental Versions, expresly styled the Brother of Iames. Since then S. Iames was the Son of Alpheus, it is very pro­bable that S. Iude was so also; and what if Levi the Son of Alpheus men­tioned S. Mar. 2. 14. was the same with this Thaddaeus? Theodoret. quaest. 16. in Num. says expresly, [...]. And Grotius con­jectures from Origen l. 1. contr. Celsum, that some Copies in his time, read, [...] or [...] instead of [...], S. Mar. 3. 14. as he doth also that Clemens Alex. calls him Levi, when he gives us the names of four Apostles from Heracleon, thus, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi. So that if it was not the received opinion that Levi was the same with S. Matthew, and that made probable by many concurrent circumstances, I should be apt to think that he was this Thaddaeus.

S. Matthias. He taught that the flesh is to be overcome and tamed, in no wise indulged and yielded to; and the Soul to be fed and nourished with Faith, and saving Knowledge; see Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 29. The same Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. alledgeth this sentence of his, If the Neighbour of a chosen Person sin, the chosen Person hath sinned; for if he had demeaned himself as he ought, his Neighbour would have reverenced his Life so, that he would not have sinned. And Strom. l. 2. he alledgeth this, That if we admire things, it will be a step to fur­ther Knowledge. Also Strom. l. 4. he seems to make Matthias the same with Zaccheus. Some think that he was very skilful and knowing in the Law. There are various Opinions of the place and manner of his Death. The Martyrol. in Febr. 24. says, that he suffered in Iudea.

S. Paul. al. Saul. Some have thought that he was one of them of Cilicia, that disputed with S. Stephen. Perhaps he calls himself an Abor­tive, because he was taken in over and above the number of twelve Apostles; just as the Vulgar sort at Rome, called the supernumerary Se­nators Abortives, see Sueton. in Octavio c. 35. In what year of Christ, or of his own Age, he was converted, and how many years he lived after his Conversion, there is no Constat; that which Fasciculus [...]emporum saith, that he was about twenty six years of age at his Conversion, seems very probable; and yet he is called a young Man, Act. 7. just as Poly­bius l. 2. calls Annibal a young Man; and yet he was of the age of twenty six years then or very near it. So Ptolomaeus is called immaturus juvenis in Iustin, l. 24. and [...] by Diodor. Sicul. in excerptis Constantin. Porphyrogen. when Philadelphus his younger Brother had reigned in AEgypt some years. Yea when Cicero in Cat. says, Qui citius Adolescen [...]iae se­nectus quam pueritiae Adolescentia obrepit, doth he not seem to comprehend all the time between Childhood and old Age, under Adolescentia? and [Page 35] Phavorinus in voc [...] [...] says, that from twenty three years to thirty four or forty one, a Man may be called so.

Iudas Iscariot. S. Matth. 10.4. 26. 14, 25,47. 27. 3. S. Mar 3.19. 14. 10,43. S. Luc. 6. 16. 22. 3,47. S. Ioh. 12. 4, 5, 6. 18. 3, 5. Act. 1. 16, 25. The Syr. Arab. and Pers. read, S. Ioh. 6.71. and 13. 2, 26. Iudas the Son of Simon, as we also do (though in the Greek there is no more than Iudas of Simon) so that it seems one Simon was the Father of this unhappy Son. Caninius de locis No. Testam. c. 13. tells of some that said, that Iudas was Natione Gallus, but it is probable that they said this only by way of abuse to that Nation. We do not oblige any Man to believe, that before his being called to be an Apostle, he was guilty of such pro­digious crimes as some impute to him; he wrought Miracles (S. Ambros. in Rom. 9. S. Hieron. l. 2. contr. Iovinian. Anastas. Nicen. qu. 23. Isidor. Pelus. epist. l. 3. ep. 44. Victor Antioch. in S. Mar. 9.38. and Theophylact in S. Mat. 26. and S. Mar. 3.) cast out Devils, (S. Cyril Hieros. Catech. 7. and Leo) healed the sick, (Leo ibid.) and yet S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 26.48. tells us, that he ascribed our Saviour's Miracles to the Pow [...]r of Magick. The Opinions of Modern Writers about his Death are various, but the Ancients (not one of them that I have yet met with dissenting) say that he hanged himself; and Munster's Heb. the Syr. Pers. as also the Goth. and Saxon do all favour this. Iuvencus l. 4. either using a poetical Licence, or fol­lowing some ancient Tradition, says, that he hanged himself on a fig-tree. Origen seems to have thought that he dyed before Christ's Death, and S. August. in Psal. 108. is of that Opinion; yet in quaest. No. and Vet. Testam. l. 2. qu. 47. he is doubtful of it, and unwilling to determine what day or what time he dyed. Also in Psal. 108. he seems to say that his Progeny was wholly extinct within one Generation. S. Chrysost. S. Cyril Alex. Leontius, Theodorus, Heracleot. Theophylact and Euthym. thought that Iudas did not know Jesus then, when he asked, Whom seek ye? S. Joh. 18. 4. and S. Chrysost. adds, that he fell to the Earth together with those that came to apprehend Jesus; who if he had pleased could have op­posed more than twelve Legions of Angels to them, every one of which could have done more than all Caesar's Legions, though he proudly boasted of them, that vel Coelum diruere possent; see A. Hirt. de bel. His­pan. in fin. Thirty Shekels or pieces of Silver was the price of a Ser­vant, Exod. 21.32 and for this Iudas sold his Master. Some say that he was buried in the Field, which was purchased with that Money.

The LXX. or LXXII. Disciples. S. Luc. 10. 1, &c. Some Copies and ancient Writers say, that they were LXX. others that they were LXXII. accordingly the Versions differ, the Syr. Arab. and Ethiop. have LXX. the Pers. LXXII. the Saxon hath LXXII. and the Goth. but LXX. Whatsoever their precise number was, Euseb. l. 1. c. 12. tells us, that he could no where find a Catalogue of them. Yet both he and Epiphan. name Matthias abovementioned, Barnabas and Iustus as being of that number. Eusebius adds Sosthenes, Thaddaeus and Cephas, as Epiphanius doth the VII. Deacons, Act. 6. S. Mark, S. Luke, Apelles, Rufus and Niger; see [Page 36] Epiphan. Haer. 20. and in Anacephal. The Ancients (says Grotius) do probably think that Cleopas and his Companion mentioned S. Luc. 24. 13, &c. were of the LXX. and of Andronicus and Iunias, or Iulias, Rom. 16.7. Origen saith, that perhaps they were of that Number. The short ac­count of the Apostles and some others before Oecumen. in Act. mentions Linus as one of them, as the Martyrol. in Feb. 22. doth Aristion, alledg­ing Papias, but Papias only saith, that he was a Disciple of the Lord. There are those that name others. Dorotheus hath given us a Catalogue of them, but of no great Authority; yea, concerning some of those who are mentioned by Euseb. and Epiphan. there is some question made, whe­ther they were of the LXX. or no. Eusebius names Thaddaeus and Cephas, but of Thaddaeus says only, [...]. There are that say, that he 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 [...]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 [Page 37] 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 Scripture [...], 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? [Page 38] 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 it [...] 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 Marriages, for this Office. They that please may see how Athenaeus, l. 10. describes the Office of the [...], who were also called [...], and how Plutarch Symposiac. l. 1. c. 4. de­scribes the Office of the [...].

They that sold Oxen, Sheep, and Doves. S. Matth. 21. 12, 13. S. Mar. 11. 15, 17. S. Ioh. 2. 14,15,16. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. S. August. in S. Ioh. and Theophylact in S. Mar. say, that these Oxen, &c. were sold to such as came to sacrifice, and this saved them that came from far, the labour of bringing their Bullocks, Lambs, &c. along with them. By sellers of Doves, some understand those that taught or trained them up to fly with or carry Letters; see Selden de Diis Syr. Synt. 2. c. 3. & de jur. nat. l. 4. c. 5. these were so infamous among the Iews, that they [...]were not admitted to give Testimony in any cause, Misn. in Sanhedr. c. 3. §. 3. Of the fifteen Officers of the Temple mentioned in Misn. in Shekal, c. 5. §. 1. [...] the chief Overseer of the Birds or Turtles was one, and some may conjecture, that it was this Officer or his Under-officers and Servants, that sold Doves. S. Hieron. says, that the Priests themselves sold Oxen, Sheep, and Doves; now if the Priests or any Officers of the Temple, to whom it appertained to preserve it from Prophanation, did themselves prophane it, our Saviour had still more cause to express so great indignation. Another of the Officers mentioned in Shekal was [...] the Officer of the Whip, who whipped or scourged those Priests or Levites that were asleep when they should have watched in the Temple, (see the Gloss) and our Saviour turned now Officer of the Whip, and scourged the profaners of the Temple out of it. Origen. in S. Ioh. says, that this Action demonstrated a greater power, than the Miracles of turning Water into Wine, giving sight to the Blind, or raising the Dead, and Hom. 15. in S. Matth. he hints, that if any Prince or armed Power had attempted to do this, they would have met with more resistance than our Lord did. Likewise S. Hieron. extols this above any of the Miracles wrought by Christ, adding that igneum quod­dam & sydereum did shine forth in his countenance, when he did this, see Anastas. Sinait. de rectis fid. dogmat. l. 3. Yet some will needs refer all [Page 39] this to the almost uncontroulable Power which the Zelots had, the ra­ther because the Disciples applyed those words of the Psalmist to this very Fact of his, The Zeal of thine House hath eaten me up. Christ drove them out twice, viz. at two Passovers, his First and Last.

Money-Changers. S. Matth. 21. S. Mar. 11. S. Ioh. 2. The Greek word is [...], by whom S. Hieron. understands those, who, if Per­sons came that had not wherewith to buy an Offering, let them have Money for that end, and received of them the value, or more in fruits or such things as they had. Colyba (says he) dicuntur tragemata vel vilia munuscula, viz. frixi ciceris uvarumque passarum, & poma. So say Hesychius and Phavorinus, [...], and Suidas and Phavorinus, [...]; see Aristophan. in Pluto, and in Iren. [...] is also a kind of small Money says Theophylact, as Hesychius says, and Phavorinus from him, that [...] is a kind of Money, and Pollux interprets it the exchange of Money. In this sense we conceive it to be used by Cicero in Verr. l. 3. and by Sueton. in Octavio c. 4. S. Iohn useth also another word for Mo­ney-changers, viz. [...], from [...] small pieces of Money, so Hesychius [...] as Suidas followed by Phavorinus [...]. In Isidore's Glossary, we read Collybum [...] probably for [...]. From all this we may Collect, that these Mo­ney-changers did exchange greater Money which was brought to them, for less; and perhaps they did also furnish the poorer sort with Money, and received the value of it with advantage, in Fruits or the like. In Misn. in Shekal, c. 1. §. 3,6,7. we are told, that the Collectors of the half Shekel, did begin to sit in the Temple, on the twenty fifth of the Month Adar, and when any one brought a Shekel, they gave him two half Shekels for it. For this trouble they expected some profit, whi [...]h they called [...], a word near in sound to [...].

Many that believed in Christ. S. Ioh. 2.23,24. 7. 31,40,41. 8.30, 31,32. 10. 42. 11. 45. 12. 11.

Nicodemus. S. Ioh. c. 3. and c. 7. v. 50,51,52. and c. 19. v. 39,40, 42. There is frequent mention of one [...] in the Iewish Writings, as in Taanith fol. 19. 2. and 20. 1. Cithuboth fol. 66. 2. Gittin fol. 56. 1. Pirke R. Eliezer c. 2. R. D. Ganz Millen. 4. An. 757. in Taanith fol. 20. 1. it is said that his proper name was Bonai, and in Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1. Bonai is reckoned among the Disciples of Jesus; and this might incline us to think that he was our Nicodemus, if other circumstances did not per­swade the contrary. What ground some have to affirm as certain, that the Colloquy between Jesus and him, S. Ioh. 3. was at the Feast of Pen­tecost, I know not; there is as little certainty as to the place where they had that Conference, whether at Cana of Galilee, as an Anonymous Writer in gr. caten in Ioh. in prooem. or at Bethany as Ammon. or at Ieru­salem which is the most general Opinion, and favoured by the Syr. and Pers. who read S. Ioh. 3. 1. thus, There was there one of the Pharisees, where There surely refers to Ierusalem, S. Ioh. 2. 23. It may seem to make for the first Opinion and against the two latter, that S. Ioh. 3. 22. it is said, [Page 40] that after these things, Jesus came into the Land of Iudea, viz. after this discourse with Nicodemus; so that he may seem not to have been in the Land of Iudea, when Nicodemus came to him, and consequently not at Bethany or Ierusalem; also Nonnus paraphraseth it thus, He left Ga­lilee, and came into the Land of Judea; but Theophylact and others think, that the Land or Country of Iudea, is there opposed to the Metropolis or Mother City of it, and so the meaning is, that Jesus came from the City into the Country, from Ierusalem into some other part of Iudea. Some speak of the house of Nicodemus in Rama. Chrysippus's History ap. Pho­tium, Num. 171. says, that he was Gamaliel's Cousin, and baptized by S. Peter, and S. Iohn, and that the Iews hearing that he was baptized, beat him so severely that (though he suffered it with much Christian for­titude) he dyed shortly after. The Epistle de revelatione S. Stephani, a­scribed to Lucian, gives a different relation, That when the Iews had de­prived him of his Authority as Ruler, had anathematized and banished him out of the City, Gamaliel received and nourished him till his Death, and then interred him honorably by S. Stephen.

A Woman of Samaria and other Samaritans. S. Luc. 17. 15,16,18, 19. S. Ioh. c. 4. Act. c. 8. The Martyrologies in Mart. 20. and the Menology speak of Photina a Samaritane (whom they suppose to be the Woman mentioned S. Ioh. 4.) and Ioseph and Victor her Sons, affirming that they were all Martyrs.

Galileans. S. Ioh. 4. 45.

A. N [...]bleman. S. Ioh. 4. 46, &c. The Greek Word is [...], and S. Chrysost. Theophylact, Leontius and Euthym. say, that he was called so, [...]ither because he was descended from Kings, or because he was dignified with a Principality. By S. Hieron. in Isa. 65. [...] is rendred pa­latinus, one that belonged to the Kings Court or Palace; the Syr. renders it, A Servant of the King, and Nonnus makes him an Officer in the Kings Ar­my. He was (as some have conjectured) Herod's Steward, viz. that Chuza mentioned S. Luk. 8.3. and so the AEthiop. seems to render it, The Kings Steward, as if [...] was put for [...], as we have [...], 3 Esdr. 6.68. He had then (as is most probable) some Office or place of Dignity under the King, but whether under He­rod or the Roman Emperor, Origen will not determine. S. Chrysost. Leon­tius and Euthym. tell of some, that made the Centurion mentioned S. Matth. 8. and S. Luc. 7. and this Nobleman the same, but Chrysost. sufficiently refutes their Opinion. Origen observes, that it is not af­firmed that he was a Iew, and S. Hieron. in Isa. 65. joyning him with the Centurion S. Matth. 8. and the Woman of Caanan, S. Matth. 15. seems to have thought that he was not a Iew. Yet some will needs conclude from those words (Except ye see Signs, and Wonders ye will not believe) that he was a Iew, for the Iews seek a Sign. It is ambiguous in the Greek, whether he lived in Capernaum, or only his Son lay sick there, but S. Chry­sost. and Theophylact say, that he himself was of or from Capernaum, and the Anonymous Writer in gr. caten. in S. Ioh. in proaem. with the [Page 41] Syr. Arab. and AEthiop. do [...]h favour this, though Leontius is of the other Opinion.

A Centurion at Capernaum. S. Matth. 8. 50 &c. S. Luk. 7. 1. &c. There hath been some Doubt whether the two Evangelists speak of the same Cen­turion, but it is fully removed by S. Chrys. S. August. de cons. Evang. l. 2. c. 20. Theophylact, &c. It is unanimously concluded by Origen hom. 5. in divers. S. Hieron. S. Chrysost. S. Ambros. S. August. de verbis Dom. ser. 6. Opus im­perf. Theophylact, Euseb. Emiss. or Eucherius Dom. 3. post Epiphan. that he was a Gentile. And therefore when S. Hilary saith, that he was not of the Gentiles, but an Israelite; perhaps his meaning is, that he was an Israelite as to Religion, though by Birth a Gentile, for there are that think that he was a Proselyte to the Iewish Religion. Some say that he was a Centurion of the Iron Legion, which quartered in Iudea, as Dio l. 55. informs us; and if Dio had said that it was quartered in Iudea in Tiberius's time, there had been good ground for this supposal, but h [...] speaks it of the time when he writ his History, which was many years after.

I [...]irus, his Daughter, the Minstrels, and Others, that were in the House. S. Matth. 9. 18, &c. S. Mar. 5. 22. and S. Luc. 8.41, &c. Ac­cording to our Translation, it is said of his Daughter, in S. Matth. She is even now Dead, in S. Mark only, She lyeth at the point of Death, as in S. Luc. She lay a Dying. To reconcile them Euthym. supposeth that Iairus said both, viz. thus, My Daughter is at the point of Death, or by this time Dead. But perhaps S. Matthew's [...] is no more than S. Mark's [...] as Hesichius, and so [...] may be no more than [...]. Iairus is thought to have been of Caper­naum, and ruler of the Synagogue there, the Ruler of the Synagogue is called [...], see Iomac. 7. §. 1. his Office is described by the Gloss there. That the Iews hired Minstrels at their Funerals appears by Io­seph. de bel. Iud. 3. c. 30. where he relates how they of Ierusalem mour­ned for him, supposing that he was Dead. See also Shabbath c. 23. §. 4. Cethuboth c. 4. §. 4. Bava Metzia c. 6. §. 1. also that [...] sicut cantus tibiarum moerebit (Targum in Ier. 48. 36.) may refer to this. As to the use of them among the Heathens, it was easie to abound in Testi­monies out of their Writers, and probably the Iews borrowed it from them. Theophylact saith, that Nuptial Pipes were used for Iairus's Daughter, because she was unmarryed; but whence he had this I know not.

Persons possessed with Divels or unclean Spirits. S. Matth. 4. 24. 8. 16,28. 9.32. 12. 22, &c. S. Mar. 1. 23,32,39. 5. 2, &c. S. Luc. 4. 33,41. 6.18. 7.21. 8.27, &c. Act. 5. 16. 8.7. There is mention of an Unclean Spirit, or a Spirit of Uncleaness, in Sanhedr. fol. 65.2. which the Gloss interprets, [...], A Devil that hath his habitation among the Graves and Tombs. Buxtorf. in voc. [...] observes that it sign [...] ­ [...]ies not only a Legion, out also a single Person commanding a Legion; and so perhaps the evil Spirit that said, My name is Legion, was the [Page 42] Chief or Commander of all that multitude of Devils, with which the Man was possessed. Of the Roman Legion, see fragmenta Varron.

Luna [...]icks. As the possessed with Devils, and these are joyned toge­ther, S. Matth. 4. 24. so he that is called a Lunatick, S. Matth. 17. 15. had a Devil v. 18. a Dumb and Deaf Spirit S. Mar. 9. 25. an Unclean Spirit S. Luc. 9. 42. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 4. says, that they were not really Lunaticks, but the evil Spirits observed certain seasons of the Moon, and vexed them then, that it might be believed that the Moon was the cause of the Disease, and that this disgrace of the Creature might reflect Blasphemy upon the Creator. In like manner Origen and S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. 17. S. Basil in Psal. 14. Iuvencus l. 3. Nicetas in gr. [...]aten. in S. Matth. 4. and Theophylact. ibid. speak of the evil Spirits vexing them at certain Seasons of the Moon; see Euthym. The Arab in S. Matth. 17. explains the Lunatick to be, He [...]at is vexed in ini [...]iis ple­niluniorum or lunationum. The Syr [...] is more obscure [...], S. Matth. 4. [...], S. Matth. 17. where some interpret [...] filius agrorum, others filius tecti, some extra tecta degens, some filius aegrorum. Schindler reads [...], i.e. (says he) filius vestium, Chemnitius [...], which he renders pythones sylvestres. According to the Greek in S. Matth. 17. 18. there is no more than this, Iesus rebuked him, so that (as S. Hie­ron. observes) it may refer either to the Lunatick or to the Devil, but if we consult S. Mark 9. 25. and S. Luk. 9. 42. we shall incline, with our Translators, to refer it to the latter, as S. Hilary also doth, saying In­crepato daemone, though Theophylact says that he rebuked the Lunatick. But whom doth he rebuke when he saith, O fai [...]hless and perverse generation! S. Matth. 17. 17? whether his Disciples, as Origen and S. Hilary, or the Lunaticks Father, and the faithless Iews, as S. Hieron. S. Chysost. Vi­ctor Antioch. and Theophylact; or all of them, viz. his Disciples (as being weak in the Faith) and the Iews too.

Persons afflicted with the Palsie. S. Matth. 4. 24. 8.6. 9. 2. S. Mar. 2. 3. S. Luc 5. 18. Act. 8. 7.

Lepers. S. Matth. 8. 2. 11. 5. S. Mar. 2. 40. S. Luc. 5. 12. 7. 22. 17. 12. Some gather from Levit. 13. 46. Num 5. 3. and 2 Kings 7. 3, 4, 10. that a Leper might not come into any City, yet it is said S. Luk. 5. that Christ was in a certain City, when a Leper came to him and was healed. Did then the Lepers earnest desire of Cure make him to trans­gress his bounds? or when S. Luke says that he was full of Leprosie, was it his meaning that it covered all his skin from head to foot, in which case the Priest was to pronounce him clean, Levit. 13. 12, 13. and so (though he was not perfectly cured) he might enter into the City? or finally is it certain that a Leper was not to enter into any City? In Misn. in Celim c. 1. §. 7. we read that he was excluded from walled Cities, but it appears not that this was such. In Misn. in Negaim, c. 13. §. 12. we are told, that he might come into their Synagogues, a distinct apartment being made for him. Others say that he might not inhabit in their Cities, but he might enter into and pass through them. Some speak of an Hospital [Page 43] of Lepers near Capernaum, out of which they suppose this Leper to have come. The Village in which the ten Lepers were healed, S. Luc. 17. is by some called Iemni.

Simon the Leper. S. Matth. 26. 6. S. Mar. 14. 3. S. Ambros. tho [...]ght that he was the same with the Simon mentioned S. Luc. 7. 40. but S. Au­gust. de consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 70. and Euthym. inclined to think that he was not. S. Hieron. S. Chrysost. and Iuvencus l. 4. do all agree, that Christ had cleansed him from his Leprosie, only Origen seems to suppose that at that time he stood in need of being cleansed by him. Some ap. Theophylact affirm, that he was the Father of Lazarus, and it is probable that he was related to him; but that which he adds that some said, that it was in this Simon's House that Christ kept his last Passover, is altogether improbable. Some write that he was afterward called Iulianus.

Impotent and infirm [...]ersons. S. Ioh. 5. 3. and S. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. S. Chrysost. S. Ambros. de Sacrament. l. 2. c. 2. Theophylact [...] Leontius and Eu­thym. do all call the Impotent Man, S. Ioh. 5. 5. a Paralytick. It seems to me that it was at the Feast of Pentecost (says S. Chrysost.) that the Im­potent Person was healed, and S. Cyril, Theophylact and Euthymius are of the same Opinion; yet later Writers say, that it was at the Feast of Tabernacles, or (for so some of them say) of the Passover. Haud du­bium, &c. (says one) there is no doubt but that it was at the Passover; and I grant that S. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. is of that Opinion, but why are any so confident in a matter that admits not of any certain determination. S. Chrysost. believed that it was not with a malevolous intent that this Per­son told, v. 15. that Jesus had made him whole, but out of a sincere desire that he should have the Glory of the miraculous Cure; see Euthym.

Persons Wit [...]ered and D [...]yed. S. Matth. 12. 10. S. Mar. 3. 1. S. Luc. 6.6. S. Ioh. 5. 3. S. Hieron. tells us, that the Man with the withered Hand, S. Matth. 12. is in the Gospel which the Nazarens used, said to have been Caement [...]rius.

The P [...]lt or Lame. S. Matth. 11. 5. 15 [...] 30. 21. 14. S. Luc. 7. 22. S. Ioh. 5.3. A Lame Man is mentioned also Act. 3. 2. 4. 14,22. whom the Gloss calls a Paralytick.

Maimed Persons. S. Matth. 15.30,31. The Word is [...], and S. Hieron. saith, Quomodo claudus dicitur qui uno claudicat pede, sic [...] appellatur qui unam manum debilem habet. The Paroemiographi alledged by Heinsius, say, that the Atticks used the Word [...] of the Feet, as well as of the Hands. But here [...] are distinguished from [...], i.e. those that are lame or maimed of their Feet, therefore here it must refer to the hand.

Deaf or Dumb Persons. S. Matth. 9. 32, 33. 11.5. 12.22. 15.30,31. S. Mar. 7. 37. 9. 25. S. Luc. 7.22. 11. 14. The Word [...] according to the usual acceptation of it, signifies rather one Deaf than one Dumb, but in sacred Writ, it is used indifferently for either, (so S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 9.) and possibly some of these Persons were both; see Theophylact in Luc. 11. and Sedulius. l. 3. speaking of the Dumb Devil mentioned there.

[Page 44]A Man that had the Dropsie. S. Luc. 14. 2. S. Cyril apud Lyr. [...]ays, that he did not desire of Christ to be healed for fear of the Pharisees, but only appeared before him as an Object of his Commiseration.

Bartimeus. S. Mar. 10. 46. S. August. de consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 65. believed that he was cast down from great Prosperity, to the depth of outward Misery and Poverty. S. Hieron. in lib. Nom. saith, that some read Bartimeus for Barsemia, which Barsemia he had perhaps from the Syr. in which it is thus, [...], i. e. Timai the Son of Timai the Blind.

Other Blind Men. S. Matth. 9. 27,28. 15.30. 20. 30. 21. 14. S. Mar. 8.22. S. Luc. 7. 21,22. 18. 35. It is questioned whether it be one and the same History which is related, S. Matth. 20. and S. Luc. 18. and S. Mar. 10. 46. Euthymius who thought them to be three distinct Histo­ries would perswade us that there were four blind Men that received sight near Iericho. S. August. de consens. Evang. l. 2. c. 65. and quaest. Evang. l. 2. c. 48. thought that they were three; to one Christ gave sight when he came nigh to Iericho, and to two when he went out thence. But Theophylact and others say that they were but two in all, of which S. Mark and S. Luke mention only one, because he was more known and famed than the other, or else (S. Mark names the one, S. Luke the other; but S. Matthew a lover of brevity joyns both together. It is not against this, that S. Luke's blind Man, is said to have been cured, as Christ came nigh to Iericho, S. Matthew's blind Men when he went out thence, for [...] sometimes signifies (not to draw near, but) only to be near, and so [...] S. Luc. 18. 35. may be rendred, when he was nigh to Iericho; now he was nigh to Iericho when he went out of it, as well as when he was about to enter into it. Thus Deut. 25. 5. in the LXX. [...] is, To a Man that is not near, or that is a Stranger, in the Hebr. it is [...].

A Man Blind from his Birth. S. Ioh. 9. 1. The Pharisees blamed our Saviour for curing this Man on the Sabbath Day, by making clay with his Spittle, and spreading it upon his Eyes; which calls to mind that which some Iewish Writers ap. Buxtorf. in voc. [...] say, viz. that it was forbid to put fasting Spittle on the eye on the Sabbath. Nonnus seems to have thought that he had no Eyes at all, but that Christ made him Eyes; and S. Cyprian de bono patient. says, Sputo suo coeci oculos formavit, and S. Chrysost. useth the Words [...] and [...], see Hom. 49. in S. Matth. and 56. in S. Ioh. see also Asterius ap. Photium Num. 271. and Theophylact. But perhaps their meaning is not that he created Eyes when he had none at all before, but only that he formed and fashioned them, so that they might be fit Organs of sight.

A Woman bo [...]ed together. S. Luc. 13. 11.

S. Peter's Wife and her Mother. S. Matth. 8. 14,15. S. Mar. 1. 30,31. S. Luc. 4. 38, 39. Epiphanius Haer. 51. says, that S. Peter marryed his Wife from Capernaum. Sophronius affirms, that she was the Daughter of Aristobulus, Barnabas's Brother, and her Name (says fragment. Helenae) [Page 45] was Concordia. She dyed a Martyr; so Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. Some say that her Mother was Salome, the Mother also of S. Iames and S. Iohn. S. Ambrose calls her socrus Petri & Andreae, as if she were their step-mother: But see Tertullian de Monogam. c. 8. and Theophylact.

A Woman that was diseased with an Issue of Blood. S. Matth. 9. 20. S. Mar. 5.25. S. Luc. 8. 43. S. Ambrose l. de Solomon. c. 5. seems to have thought that she was Martha, Lazarus's Sister; but Martha was of Be­thany, whereas this Woman is said to have been of Paneas or Cesarea Philippi, and her House was shewed there in Eusebius's time; see Euseb. l. 7. c. 18. S. Hieron. saith, that it was not in the City, that she came to Jesus and was healed, but as he was going to the City, viz. to restore Iairus's Daughter. Some have conceived that she was a Gentile. Iohn Malala's Chronicle calls her Berenice, but see what censure Baronius An. 31. Num. 75. passeth upon that Chronicle.

A Widow and her Son. S. Luc. 7. 11. Some conjecture that she was not of the meaner rank, because so great a train accompanyed the Corps to the place of Burial. Iosephus Ant. l. 20. c. 5. says, that the Galileans sometimes passed though Nais, as they went to Ierusalem at their Feasts; and so it is probable that our Saviour was going that way to Ierusalem, when he raised the Widows Son.

The Woman or Women that annointed Christ. S. Matth. 26. 7. S. Mar. 14. 3. S. Luk. 7. 37. S. Ioh. 11. 2. 12. 3. Expositors do not agree either as to the Number of the Women that annointed Christ, or as to the number of the Unctions. Some conceive that they were three several Women that annointed him, and then the Unctions were as many. Others that he was annointed by two Women, and twice at the least. Some finally say that he was annointed twice, but by one and the same Woman. I dare not determine which of these Opinions is to be prefer­red. The Roman Matrons, when Annibal was at the Gates, wiped the Altars of the Gods with their Hair (Livy l. 26.) but Mary wiped the Feet of Christ with her Hair, which argues a great Ecstasie of Affection and Devotion. Pliny l. 13. c. 3. accounted it a [...]hing more rare to annoint the Feet, adding that M. Otho was reported to have shewed it to Nero. As to Nard Pistich, S. August. thought that it was so called from the place whence it was brought, and some later Writers name Opis a Town near Babylon, where (as they say) most precious Ointments of Nard were made; others name Bist or Pist, the Metropolis (as they tell us) of Ca­rimania, or of Chabul in India. Some say that [...] is corrupted from Spicata, and that Spikenard and Nard Pistich are the same, and so our Translators render it Spikenard, S. Ioh. 12. and S. Mar. 14. and the Vulg. S. Mar. 14. hath Spicati. Others derive [...] from [...], some from [...], some from [...] which we have in Gittin fol. 69. 1. and the Gloss there interprets it [...], i.e. Glans Cedri. The most will have it to signifie Fidelis, (see S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 26. 7. Theophylact and Euthym.) so that this Nard was pure, sincere, not adulterated with the Pseudonard, spoken of by Pliny (l. 12. c. 12.) or otherwise, see [Page 46] Pliny ibid. and Dioscorides l. 1. c. 6. So a Faithful Wife is called [...], by Artemidorus ap. Cappellum Spicileg. in S. Mar. 14. and to the same purpose Casaubon Exercit. 15. c. 13. expounds [...] and [...]. The Syr. renders it Chief or Excellent (or as others Capitatae) and the AEthiop. in S. Mar. Pure, Select, not Adulterate; in S. Ioh. it retains the Greek Word as the Goth. also doth. It is said S. Mar. 14. that the Woman brake the box, yet perhaps she did not break it all in pieces (for if we may believe Suidas in voc. [...] it was preserved to the time of Theodosius the Great) but only brake an hole in it, that the Ointment might be poured out. The Syr. and AEthiop. say, She opened it, the Pers. She opened the Head of the Vessel, which in Pollux l. 10. c. 26. is called [...]. The Greek Word is [...], which we render only to bruise, S. Luc. 9. 39. and Lucian in Demonax hath [...] fustibus contundere, so that possibly she only knock'd and shak'd the Vessel that the Ointment might run out more fluently, 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. [...]. 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 [Page 47] 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 in [...]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 [Page 48] 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 r [...]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 [...]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 Brother, and so the Sister of our Lords Mother. The truth is the Syr. Pers. and AEthiop. read, His Mother's Sister, and Mary of Cleophas, as if Mary of Cleopas, and his Mothers Sister [...] were distinct Persons; but the Vulg. Arab. and the Greek it self, read as our Translation doth. S. Hieron. contr. Helvid. inclined to think, that she was the same with the Mother of Iames and Ioses, but if any be of another Opinion he was not for con­tending with them. Neither would he determine on what account she was surnamed of Cleopas, (sive à patre, sive à gentilitate familiae sive quacunque alia causa) but he says that she was the Wife of Alpheus, and then suppo­sing (as many do) Alpheus and Cleopas to be one and the same name, it is easie to determine why she was so named.

Salome, and Zebedee her Husband. S. Matth. 4. 21. 10.2. 20.20. 27. 56. S. Mar. 1. 19,20. 3. 17. 10. 35. 15.40. 16. 1. S. Luc. 5. 10. S. Ioh. 21. 2. From the number of the Servants which Zebedee imployed some conclude, that he was a Person considerable in the Trade or way of Living which he followed, viz. that of Fishing, and Nicephorus l. 2. c. 3. tells us, that he left an Estate to his Children, and was a Man of note among the Galileans; but S. Chrysost. Theophylact and Autor oper. imperf. did not apprehend him to be so rich. Theophylact saith that he did not believe, and Origen in caten. gr. tom. 1. in S. Matth. that his Sons left him in the state of Unbelief; but though it is probable that he did not believe at that time when they left him, yet he might afterward. The name Zabdi or Zebedee occurs frequently in the Iewish Writings. He that compares S. Matth. 27. 5 [...] with S. Mar. 15. 40. will conclude with Ori­gen Hom. 35. in S. Matth. the Aut. oper. imperf. in S. Matth. 20. Theophy­lact, Euthym. and Kirstenius's Arab. MS. in vit. S. Ioh. that the Mother of Zebedee's Children, and Salome was the same. The MS. adds, that she had also the name of Mary or Marjum, and Kirstenius tells us as from the MS. that she had a third name, viz. Taviphilia, but upon consulting the MS. it self, I incline to think that the Word which he reads Taviphilia, was not intended for a proper Name, but to express the Greek Word [Page 49] [...]. She was the Daughter (as some say) of Cleopas or Alpheus, Brother to Ioseph, the Blessed Virgin's Husband; but others ap. Theo­phylact in praefat. in S. Ioh. and in S. Matth. 27. say, that she was the Daughter of Ioseph himself, and Epiphanius Haer. 78. and in Anchorat. say­ing, that one of Ioseph's Daughters was called Salome, doth countenance this. A discourse between our Saviour and her is recited out of Clemens Alex. by Grotius in S. Matth. 20. 20. but that judicious Writer adds, de quo meritò antiqui etiam dubitarunt.

Ioanna the Wife of Chuza, Herod's Steward. S. Luc. 8. 3. 24. 10. If Chuza was living when Ioanna followed Christ and ministred to him, it is probable that he was also a Disciple, though perhaps secretly for fear of Herod and the Iews. Some have guessed that he was the Noble­man mentioned, S. Ioh. 4 46. We may wonder that Nicephorus, l. 1. c. 33. should make her the Mother of Zebedee's Children. See the Mar­tyrolog. in Maii 24.

Susanna and other Women. S. Luc. 8. 3. It is probable that Ioanna and these were healed of some Infirmity by Christ, for S. Luke having said, v. 2. that certain Women who were healed of Evil Spirits and In­firmities were with Christ, instanceth in Mary-Magdalen, Ioanna and These. These or some of These were of the number of the Women mentioned S. Matth. 27. 55. S. Mar. 15. 40,41. S. Luc. 24. 10. Act. 1. 14.

A Woman that blessed the Womb that bare Christ. S. Luc. 11. 27. Some say that she was Marcella, a Servant of Martha, Lazarus's Sister. Our Saviour was Preaching not far from Tyre (as some tell us) when she said this, but what ground they have for this, I know not. S. August. tract. 10. in Ioan. saith, Admiratae quaedam animae dixerunt, Felix venter, &c. as if some Women in the Company consented at least to what she spake. As the Iews speaking of a Praise-Worthy Person, used to bless her that bare him; so on the other hand, they cursed the Breasts that gave suck to one that was Vile and Debauched. See Buxtorf. in voc. [...].

A Poor Widow. S. Mar. 12. 42. S. Luc. 21. 2. The Iews are said to have given something by way of Alms and Offerings, before their Prayers. Euthymius makes [...] and [...] to have been the same, as instead of [...], S. Matth. 5 26. we have [...], S. Luc. 12. 59. and Plutarch, in the Life of Cicero saith, [...], and the Syr. also seems to favour this, but S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 5. 26. Hesychius and Suidas make [...] to contain two [...], and so we Translate it Two Mites which make a Farthing.

Children brought to Christ. S. Matth. 19. 43. S. Mar. 10. 13. S. Luc. 18. 15 [...] crying, Hosanna to Him, S. Matth. 21. 15. The Disciples for­bad the Children to be brought, lest their Master should be too much crowded or pressed, (S. Ambros.) or lest he should be wearyed with their continued Importunity; or perhaps thinking that it did not suit with his Dignity to take notice of such young Children; see S. Hieron. S. Chrysost. and Opus imperf.

[Page 50]A Child set by Christ in the midst of the Disciples. S. Matth. 18. 2. S. Mar. 9. 36. S. Luc. 9. 47. Some say that the Child was Martialis af­terward Bishop of Limoges; others say that he was Ignatius, as two Syr. Writers, ap. Vsher in Actis Ignatii, Nicephorus, l. 2. c. 35. Menolog. De­cemb. 20. &c. But S. Chrysost. Hom. de S. Ignatio says, that Ignatius ne­ver saw Christ. It is true Ignatius in ep. ad Smyrn. (if S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. have translated his words aright) doth tell us, that he saw him, but that was after his Resurrection, and so belongs not to this matter. Be­sides, whereas S. Hieron. seems to have read [...], vidi, our Editions of Ignatius and likewise Euseb. l. 3. c. 36. have [...] novi; so that Ignatius only saith, I know and believe that Christ was in the Flesh after his Re­surrection.

One that was called by Christ, Another that offered himself volunta­rily to follow him. S. Luc. 9. 59,61. The former is mentioned, S. Mat. 8. 21. and said to be a Disciple of Christ (Clemens Alex. saith, that he was Philip) and S. Basil Constitut. Monast. c. 20. is of Opinion that the other was a Disciple also.

Many Disciples that went back from Christ. S. Ioh. 6. 66. S. Au­gust. in Psal. 98. seems to have thought that many of these were of the LXX. Scandalizati sunt quidam discipuli ejus, septuaginta fermè. Epiphanius seems to have been of the same Opinion, Haer. 51. where he names the Evangelist's, S. Mark, and S. Luke as two of them that went back, but (as he adds) were seasonably reclaimed, the one by S. Peter, the other by S. Paul; see also Euthymius. Yet others think that the LXX never de­serted Christ. These forsook the Faith of Christ (or Profession of it) as well as his Company; see S. Chrysost. S. Cyril. Alex. S. August. Theophy­lact and Euthym.

Five Thousand fed miraculously, and at another time Four Thousand. S. Matth. 14. 15. 16.9. S. Mar. 6. 35. 8. 1, 19. S. Luc. 9. 12. S Ioh. 6. 5. The Words concerning the Women and Children, S. Matth. 14. 21. seemed to Origen to be ambiguous, so that he thought it doubtful whe­ther they did eat or no; but there seems to be Evidence enough otherwise (if not from those Words) that they did. Crescit materies, nescio utrum in mensarum loco, an in manibus sumentium, an in ore edentium, says S Hilary; he might have added, an in manibus Christi & discipulorum ejus, an in mani­bus horum omnium, Nicephorus l. 8. c. 30. says, that it was at or near Tiberias, that our Saviour fed the five thousand, and others say that it was on the sixth of Ianuary. Piscator in S. Ioh. 6. endeavours to represent how they sate down by hundreds and fifties.

The Gergesens and Gadarens. S. Matth. 8. 28. S. Mar. 5. 1. S. Luc 8. 26. S. Hieron. had that Charity for them, as to think that it was out of their Humility, that they desired Christ to depart out of their Coasts, even as S. Peter said, Depart from me, I am a Sinful Man, O Lord. But others are not so favourable to them, S. Chrysost. imputing it to their ingra­titude and insensibleness; Theophylact to their Covetousness; they had lost their Swine, and feared that they should be further damnified, if he stayed [Page 51] among them; see Euthym. It may seem strange that there should be such a Multitude of Swine in these parts, Swines flesh being an Abomination to the Iews, and they that bred or kept them almost equally abominable; especially when they had in the time of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, denoun­ced all that kept or bred them Accursed, so Gemar. in Bava Kama fol. 82. 2. See also Rabenu Ascher in Bava Kam. fol. 137. 1. who saith, that they might not breed them to be sold to Strangers. They that please may also see Misn. in Bava Kama c. 7. §. 7. But to this it may be answered, that though the Gadarens were many of them Iews, yet a great number of Greeks inhabited among them. Yea Iosephus Ant. 17. 13. expresly calls Gadara a Greek City, and de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 33, 34, 35. he relates how the Iews wasted the Cities of Gerasa and Gadara, and how the Gerasens and Gadarens dealt with them. Also S Greg. Nyssen. in caten. gr. in S. Luc. 8. resolves, that these Gergesens were Gentiles. But suppose that they were Iews, might not their Covetousness induce some of them to transgress the Constitutions of their Elders? When they might sell their Swine to very vast profit to the Romans, to whom Swines flesh was a dainty; see Plin. l. 8. c. 51. Bashan was adorned with goodly Woods of Oaks, Isa. 2. 13. Zach. 11. 2. and so we may suppose that this Country of the Gadarens being part of it, was so; and consequently Commodious for feeding Swine.

The Collectors of the Tribute-Money. S. Matth. 17. 24. It is not easie to determine, whether this Tribute-Money was the half Shekel, which every Israelite paid yearly for the Redemption of his Life, Exod. 30. 13. (as S. Hilary; see also S. Cyril in S. Ioh. l. 3. c. 29.) or the Tri­bute which was paid for the Redemption of the First-born, Exod. 13. 13, 15. Num. 18. 15, 16. (as S. Chrysost. Theophylact and Euthym.) or a Tri­bute paid to the Romans, since Iudea was made Tributary by Augustus, as S. Hieron. which Opinion Origen in S. Matth. seems to favour, by his speaking of giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and of the Di­drachmum's having Caesar's Image upon it; see him also in epist. ad African. As to the value of the Didrachmum which we render Tribute Money, in the LXX it constantly answers to the Word [...], and so Epiphanius de pondr. confounds the Shekel and the Didrachmon, making the Shekel to be only half of the Stater. Whereas Iosephus Ant. l. 3. c. 9. makes the Shekel to contain four Drachms, and consequently two Didrachma. With him agrees S. Hieron. in Ezek. 3. also Philo, De voti satisfactione, who says, that fifty Shekels did contain two hundred Drachms. S. Hieron. ibid. makes the Shekel and Stater the same, and Aquila frequently: Symmachus sometimes Translates [...] by [...], now it appears from S. Matthew that a Stater did contain two Didrachma. Yet perhaps these, who seem to thwart one another so directly, may be reconciled by distinguishing between the Alexandrian Drachm, and the Attick; the former of which was as much again as the latter, just as Fastus makes the Alexandrian Talent, as much again as the Attick Talent. Now Iosephus saying that the Shekel contained four Drachms, speaks of Attick Drachms ( [...] [Page 52] [...] are his Words) but the LXX translating at Ale­xandria had respect to the Alexandrian Drachm, and so making the She­kel to contain only two Drachms rendred it [...]. Suppose then that S. Matthew had respect to the Attick Drachm, his didrachmum will be no more than half the Value of the LXX's and so half a Shekel, as the Syr. renders it 2 Zuzim.

O [...]e th [...]t ca [...] out Devils, and yet followed not Christ. S. Mar. 9. 38. S. Luk. 9. 49. S Ambros. S. Chrysost. ap. Aquin. and Euthym. thought that he believed in Christ though he did not follow him; but Victor Antioch. was of a contrary Opinion. S. Cyril Alex. seems to allow us Liberty to follow whether Opinion we will. Howsoever it was, the Name of Christ which was efficacious for expelling the Devils, and the Effect was to be ascribed to it, not to the Person, whether he was Believer or Infidel. S. Chrysost. Theophylact, Victor Antioch. and Titus Bostr. do all resolve, that it was not out of Envy or Emulation, but out of a good Affection that the Apostles did forbid the Man, viz. out of Love to Christ; as S. Am­brose supposeth that it was S. Iohn's great Affection to his Master that made him concern himself so much, as to his acquainting Christ with their Forbidding him. Theophylact says, it was for that he doubted whether they had done well or no in it; others think that he did it for that he ex­pected that they should be commended for it.

A Woman taken in Adultery. S. Ioh. 8.3. The Misn. in Sanhedr. c. 10. §. 1. and Targ. Ionath. in Levit. 20 10. make Strangling (not Sto­ning) to be the Punishment for Adultery; how comes it then that the Scribes here say, that by Moses's Law the Adulteress was to be stoned: To this it may be said, that perhaps this Woman was not married, but only espoused; and Moses saith expresly Deut 22. 24. that such an one should be stoned. And observe the Reason that is given there, why he that lay with a betrothed Damsel should be stoned, viz. because he had humbled his Neighbours Wife; doth not this imply that every one that humbleth his Neighbours Wife, i. e. every Adulterer, should be stoned? Some also gather from Ezek 16. v. 38. compared with v. 40. that Stoning was the Punishment for Adultery, as also from the History of Susanna. Finally, perhaps those Scribes did expound the Law that the Adulterer should be put to death, Levit. 20. 10. by v. 2. where putting to death is explained by stoning. It is impossible to know what it was that our Saviour writ on the Ground, whether some of the Sins of the Woman's Accusers, or that which he said to them v. 7. He that is without Sin, &c. or some such Sentence as that, Terra, terra, scribe hos viros abdicatos; or that, Festucam in fratris oculo vides non trabem in tuo; or that, Recedentes à te in terra scriben­tur; see S. Ambros. epist. 76. S. Hieron. l. 2. contr. Pelagian. &c.

The Parents of him that was born blind. S. Ioh. 9. 2,3,18.

One that came to Christ about [...]ividing an Inheritance. S. Luk. 12. 13. His Brother was like him in Ioma fol. 39. 1. who took his own part and his Fellows too, and was therefore called [...] to his Death.

One that asked if few should be saved. S. Luk. 13. 23.

[Page 53] One that sate at meat with Christ. S. Luc. 14. 15.

A Rich Man, and Lezarus a Beggar. S. Luc. 16. 19. Several of the Ancients have thought that there were really such Persons, Irenaeus l. 2. c. 62. (al. 63.) and l. 4. c. 4. Tertul. de anima c. 7. and a great number more, who speak of the Rich Man and Lazarus as really existing. Yea Leontius and Euthym [...] give us the Rich Mans Name, viz. Nimeusis or Nineusis, and some take upon them to tell us where his House was in Ierusalem. Yet Clemens Alex. Strom. 4. S. Chrysost. tom. 5. orat. 35. in Lazar. Ammonius, Titus Bostr. Eulogius ap. Photium Num. 280. and Theophylact say that it is a Parable; also two Greek Copies usher in the mention of Dives and La­zarus thus, [...]. Yet Titus Bostr. and Theophy­lact tell us from the Tradition of the Iews, that there was a Lazarus who lived in extreme Poverty about that time. Autor Quaest. and Respons. ap. Iustin Mart. qu. 60. says, that it is neither a Parable nor an History, his meaning seems to be that it is mixt of both, i. e. an History expressed Parabolically. Lazarus is by Tertul. de Idololat. c. 13. called Eleazar; for as Drusius tells us out of Iuchasin, Omnis R. Eleazar in Talmud Hieros­dicitur [...].

Publicans. S. Matth. 5. 46,47. 9. 10. 21. 32. S. Mar. 2. 15. S. Luc. 3. 12. 5. 29. 7. 29. 15. 1. Cicero pro lege Manilia, as also pro Cn. Plancio highly extols the Order of Publicans. He likewise commends particu­lar Persons for having demeaned themselves well in that Office: See what a Character he gives of C. Curius a Publican, in orat. pro Posthumo. Sabinus, Vespasian's Father managed it so well, that the Cities erected Statues for him with this Title, [...]. Sueton. in Vespasian c. 1. But generally they were infamous for their Rapine and Extortion, S. Chrys. in S. Matth. 9. Suidas in voc. [...], and Asterius ap. Photium Num. 271. The Romans therefore were forced to make Laws, to restrain their shame­less Exactions and Avarice, (see Tacit. l. 13. and Digest. l. 39. tit. 4.) sometimes the People rise against them, (Dio. l. 48.) sometimes they were punished very severely; see in Livy l. 25. how Posthumius a Publican was dealt with at Rome, and in Plutarch in vit. Luculli, how Lucullus dealt with the Publicans in Asia. More especially they were hated by the Iews, and if any of their own Nation were imployed in that Office, they were still more execrable to them. They were not admitted to give Testimony in Judgment (Gemar. in Sanhedr. fol. 25. 2.) the Iews might not change Money out of the Chests of the Publicans (Misna in Bava Kama c. 10. §. 1) nor Marry a Wife out of a Family where there was a Publican. Tertull. de Pudicit. c 9. seems to have thought that the Pub­licans were all Heathens, but S. Hieron. ad Damasum evinceth the con­trary; also Iosephus de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 25. mentions Iohn a Publican who was certainly a Iew.

Zaccheus. S. Luc. 19. 1. Tertul. l. 4. contr. Marcion. c. 37. and S. Chrysost. serm. in Zacchaeum, and S. Ambrose were of Opinion that he was an Heathen, and S. Cyprian l. 2. ep. 3. seems to agree with them. Asterius ap. Photium Num. 271. expresseth himself somewhat doubtfully. [Page 54] But later Writers say, that his Name speaks him a Iew, the name Zaccai being a pure Hebrew Name, Ezr. 2. 9. Neh. 7. 14. Rabban Iothanan Ben Zaccai or Zechai is much celebrated; see Avoth c. 2. and R. D. Ganz Millen. 4. An. 713. Cicero pro Plancio says, that the Father of Plancius was Princeps Publicanorum; and ad Quintum fratrem l. 1. ep. 1. he speaks of the Societies of Publicans, as Tacitus l. 13. doth of Vectigalium Societates. It is probable that he that was styled Princeps Publicanorum, was Gover­nour of one of those Societies; and such a Governour of a Society, we may suppose Zaccheus to have been. Perhaps also the [...], men­tioned in Schabb. fol. 78. 2. was he whom we call the chief of the Publi­cans. S. Hieron. in epitaph. Paul. speaks of Paula's visiting Zaccheus's Sy­camore Tree. Chrysologus ser. 54. says, that he was Episcopatus honore fultus, and the Constitut. Apost. l. 7. c. 46. that he was Bishop of Ce­sarea.

Certain Greeks. S. Ioh. 12. 20. It is not agreed whether these that are called Greeks, were of the Iews that were dispersed through Asia and Greece, or they were Gentiles but Proselyted to the Iewish Religion, and Circumcised; or they were finally uncircumcised Gentiles. The first Opinion is earnestly contended for by some later Writers, others are for the second Opinion; see Gloss. interlin. But Epiphanius Haer. 30. S. August. Ammonius and Leontius were of the third Opinion, and S. Chrysost. Theo­phylact, and S. Cyril. Alex. agree with them, that they were Gentiles; but the two former add that they were near the being Proselytes, or in­clined to it; and S. Cyril saith, that they concurred with the Iews in the belief of a supreme Deity. The Syr. also seems to favour this. Their coming to Ierusalem to Worship, and that at the Feast, may seem to be against this that they were Gentiles; but it is well known that the Gen­tiles were permitted to Worship in the Temple, i. e. in that part of it which was called the Court of the Gentiles, and a desire of seeing the Solemnity, together with the general concourse of People to Ierusalem at the Feast, might invite them to come then, rather than at another time. The reason why they addressed themselves to Philip might be, either for that they had some acquaintance with him (see Gaudentins Bri­xiens.) or because they met accidentally first with him.

The Master of the House in which Christ kept the Passover. S. Mat. 26. 18. S. Mar. 14. 14. S. Luc. 22. 11. S. Chrysost. and Theophylact say, that he was a Person unknown to the Disciples, and S. Ambrose took him to be poor and ignoble. Yet some later Writers have thought that he was Rich and Noble, and also a Disciple of Christ, but secretly like Ni­codemus and Ioseph of Arimathea.

A Young Man. S. Mar. 14. 15. Whether he was S. Iohn, (as S. Am­bros. in Psal. 36.) or S. Iames the less, (as S. Hieron. in Psal. 37 and some ap. Theophylact, see also Epiphan. Haer. 78.) or one of the House where they did eat the Passover, (to which Theophylact himself, Victor Antioch. and Euthym. did incline) or he was of some Village near the Garden; or finally one that dwelt near to the way by which they led Jesus, I shall not determine.

[Page 55] Malchus and his Kinsman. S. Matth. 26. 51. S. Mar. 14. 47. S. Luk. 22. 50. S. Ioh. 18. 10. Of Malchus Vida episc. Cremon. sings thus,

S. Peter directed the Blow against his Head, which he shunned so far as that it took of only his Ear; see S. Chrysost. in S. Ioh. If it was Malchus that smote Christ, S. Ioh. 18. 22. (as the same S. Chrysost. supposeth) he shewed himself very ungratefull to him in requiting him thus, for the Miraculous healing his Ear. If it be asked how the Apostles came to have Swords, S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. and S. Ioh. answers, that probably they had used them for slaying the Lamb; or they had heard that some would come against their Master, and had provided them for his De­fence; so also Theophylact. Perhaps also the way from Galilee to Ierusa­lem, had begun [...]to be pestered with Thieves: And Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 12. observes of the Essaeans, that they armed themselves against Thieves in their Journey, though they carryed nothing else with them.

A Maid that kept the Door. S. Ioh. 18. 16. and other Servants, v. 18. In the LXX and Vulg. in 2 Sam. 4. 5. we read likewise of a She Porter [...].

False Witnesses. S. Matth. 26. 60. S. Mar. 14. 56. Act. 6. 13. In S. Matth. and S. Mar. they deposed that Jesus said, I am able to Destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three Days; or, I will Destroy this Temple made with hands, and build another in three Days made without hands; which differs much from that which our Saviour really said, S. Ioh. 2. 19. both as to Words and Sense; see Origen, S. Hieron. S. Chrysost. Victor Antioch. and Theophylact. S. Mark's Words [...], are ren­dered by Origen in S. Matth. also by Arab. AEthiop. and our Translators, Their Witness did not agree together; but others render them thus, Their Witness was not equal, i. e. not sufficient to take away Life. The Phrase [...] answers to [...] Misn. in Sanhedr. c. 5. §. 4. The False Witnesses that came in against Stephen, laid to his charge that he had foretold that Jesus would destroy the Temple. Their Zeal for the Temple was such, that none might speak a Word against it; yea the Zealots arrived at last at that height of Impiety, that they derided all Prophecies against it, and laughed at them as Fables. In Misn. in San­hedr. c. 6. §. 4. it is enacted that the hands of the Witnesses, should be first upon him that was to be stoned, (see also Moses Mikotsi praec. aff. 101. and Deut. 17. 7.) This formality they used in the Stoning of S. Stephen.

The Captain of the Temple. Act. 4. 1. 5. 24. S. Chrysost. and Eu­thym. expound the Words [Captain of the Temple] thus, Captain of the Souldiers of the Temple, or of the Souldiers that kept the Temple. Some say that he was the Roman Commander of those that were placed in the Castle Antonia, to Guard the Temple, especially at the time of the Iewish [Page 56] Feasts, because of the great concourse of People from all parts then, Ios. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 15. But it makes against this, that S. Luke al­ways calls the Chief Commander of the Roman Garrison there [...] (which we render Chief Captain) never [...] the Captain of the Temple. And Ioseph. Ant. l. 15. c. 14. calls him [...]. Others therefore think that he was one of the Priests, that had the oversight of those that watched in the Temple, Iosephus calls Eleazar a Priest [...], Ant. l. 20. c. 8. and de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 30. and Ananus [...] Ant. l. 20. c. 5. There was one who is called the Man of the Mountain of the House, Misn. in Middoth c. 1. §. 2. he had the oversight of all the Watches that were kept in the Temple. Might not this Man of the Temple, be he that is called the Captain of the Temple? However if by the Captain of the Temple, we understand one Person that had the Rule and Inspection over the rest, (let him be a Roman Commander or any other;) then, by the Captains of the Temple, S. Luc. 22. 4, 52. may be meant his Under-Officers, or those that he used as his Assistants, or per­haps he together with them. Some have conceited that those fifteen Prefects of the Temple in Shekalim c. 5. §. 1. or some of them, were these Captains of the Temple. Rulers of the House of God, are mentioned 2 Chron. 35. 8.

Souldiers. Of them consisted the Watch, S. Matth. 27. 65. where we render [...], Ye have a Watch, taking [...] with the Vulg. to be the Indicative Mood; as also the Syr. Arab. and Munster's Hebr. seem to have done; but the AEthiop. renders it, Take ye Souldiers, for [...] may be of the Imperative Mood, as well as the Indicative. For Custodia the Syr. hath [...] (which is rendred Custodes) not as some would read it [...] from Quaestionarii. The Manual (in S. August.) c. 23. calls the Souldier that pierced Christ's side, Longinus, and under that name he hath found a place in the Martyrol. Mart. 15. yet some suspect that they, who first gave him the Name, took the hint from [...], the Weapon with which he pierced our Saviour. He did it ei­ther designing to gratifie the Iews, (as S. Chrysost. supposeth) or because he doubted whether he was really dead; see S. Cyril. Alex. He pierced Christ's right side, says the Arab. in Erpenius's Edition. The story of his being Blind, and receiving sight by Christ's Blood lighting upon his Eyes, is rejected by Baronius An. 34. Num. 131. In the Miraculous efflux of Blood and Water, whether the Blood did flow first, and the Water afterward, (as Nonnus) or both flowed together, yet unmixed and dis­cernible one from the other, cannot be determined. The Souldiers gave Christ Vinegar mingled with Gall, S. Matth. 27. 34. for which, S. Mar. 15. 23. we have Wine mingled with Myrrhe. S. Hilary, S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 23. and S. August. de consens. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. make S. Matthew to have writ (not Vinegar, but) Wine, and not only the Vulg. but also some Greek Copies, the AEthiop. Munster's Hebr. Iuvencus and Sedulius do all confirm this reading. Yet suppose S. Matthew to have Writ [...], (which we render Vinegar) the Greeks called vinum factitii saporis by the [Page 57] name of [...], and so we have [...] in Suidas, not to urge the affinity of Vinegar to Wine: [...], Plutarch. Sympos. l. 3. qu. 5. But still how do the Evangelists accord, when one says that it was mingled with Gall, with Myrrh the other? S. August. (ubi supra) answers, First, that S. Matthew put Gall for bitterness, and that Wine mingled with Myrrh is very bitter. Secondly, That perhaps the Wine was imbittereed with Gall and Myrrh too. Isidore Orig. l. 17. c. 8. says, that Myrrh hath its name from bitterness. The Hebr. Word is [...] which may well be from [...] to be bitter. Dioscorides i. 1. c. 77. and Galen de simplic. medicam. l. 8. bear Witness to its bitterness. Nor is it against this, that Pliny l. 14. c. 13. reckons Murrhina among sweet Wines, for it is possible that Murrhina hath no relation at all to Myrrh. Festus says, that some thought that it was so called ex uvae genere Murrinae nomine. Hesychius says, that some call [...] a Drink, [...], making it to refer to [...], as AElian also doth l. 12. c. 31. and Pollux l. 6. c. 2. the latter thereupon calling it [...], as also it is called Murina in several Editions of A. Gellius l. 10. c. 23. though in some Murrhina. S. Au­gust. had also reason to suppose that S. Matthew might put [...] (Gall) for bitterness, for in the LXX [...] signifies not only Gall, but also Wormwood, (answering to the Hebr. [...] Prov. 5. 4. Lam. 3. 15.) viz. because of its bitterness; it answers also to [...] (bitterness) Iob 16. 13. 20. 14. The Arab. in S. Matth. renders it by the very Word Myrrh, the Syr. by [...] (bitterness) the Pers. hath the same Word in S. Matthew, which it hath in S. Mark. When a Person was to be put to Death, they gave him Frankincense in a Cup of Wine to Drink, to the end that it might stupifie him, (Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1.) and this Potion was prepared and sent by some honourable Women in Ierusalem. Perhaps they sometimes used Myrrh instead of Frankincense, supposing it to have a like stupifying faculty. S. Hieron. in S. Matth. 27. 48. alludes to the Narcotick quality of Myrrh, saying that Iews and Infidels gave Christ Wine mixed with Myrrh, ut eum consopiant & mala eorum non videat, also Dioscorid. l. 1. c. 77. saith of Myrrh, that it begets sleep. They stripped Christ of all his Garments in the Opinion of the Ancients, who say that he was Crucified naked: S. Chrysost. in S. Matth. S. Ambros. Vt nudi nudum sequamur, says S. Hieron. Some gather from a Law of Adrian mentioned by Grotius, that it was the manner among the Romans, for the Executioners to seize on the Garments of those that were put to Death; and then we may with S. Cyril of Alexand. suppose that they di­vided the Thieves Garments also; but S. Chrysost. and Euthym. thought that they not. In Taanith fol. 11. 2. they tell us that Moses ministred in a seamless Garment, and of the High-Priests seamless coat; see Ios [...]ph. l. 3. c. 8. and S. Chrysost. says, that in Palaestine they weave their Garments, by joyning one piece to another. As to our Saviours seamless Coat, Euthymius mentions a Tradition, that it was made by his Mother; and S. August. in S. Ioh. is of Opinion, that they did not cast Lots for his [Page 58] other Garments, but for that only; but S. Mar. 15. 21. seems to imply the contrary; for there it is not only said that they cast Lots upon them, i. e. his Garments in the plur. Number, but S. Mark adds [...], what every one should take; see S [...] Ambros. and Euthym. Of the Souldiers that kept S. Peter, Act. 12. S. Chrysost. saith, that for sureness they were bound in the same chain with the Apostle, and therefore he is said to have slept between two Souldiers bound with two chains, i. e. with one of the chains he was made fast to one Souldier, and with the other chained to the other. It was usual for the Prisoner to be chained to his keeper; see the story of Manlius Aquilius and Bastarnes in Athenaeus l. 5. In Act. 12. 19. ours Translation renders [...], He (i. e. Herod) com­manded them (viz. the Keepers) to be put to Death; the Syr. renders it, and S. Chrysost. interprets it accordingly; and yet [...] signifies only, To be lead. In the very same sense Pliny, epist. l. 10. ep. 97. saith, Perse­verantes duci jussi. Petrus Alexandr. seems to have read [...], as if Herod commanded them to be strangled.

Pontius Pilate. S. Matth. c. 27. S. Mar. c. 15. S. Luc. 3. 1. 13. 1. and c. 23. S. Ioh. c. 18. and c. 19. Act. 3. 13. 4. 27. 13.28. 1 Tim. 6. 13. Pontius was an usual name among the Romans, so that they are not to be regarded, who say that Pilate had that name from Pontus (from whence they say that he came to Iudea) or from an Island called Ponta near Rome; see Eutychius Patriarch. Alex. The Answer of the Iews to Pilate, It is not Lawful for us to put any Man to Death, admits of a twofold sense, (says S. Chrysost.) First, We cannot put any Man to that Death, which we would have this deceiver to die, viz. the Death of the Cross. Secondly, We cannot put any to Death at this time, i. e. the time of the Feast. S. Cyril Alex. and S. August. are for the latter of these Expositions, Theo­phylact and Euthym. for the former. Ammonius in gr. caten. in S. Ioan. says, that the calling himself King, (for which they accused Christ) [...] was [...] a popular crime, and fell not under their cognizance. Others say that their meaning is, that since they were subdued by the Romans, they could not put any to Death, without the Roman Gover­nours consent; and S. Chrysost. acknowledges that much of their Power was taken from them, and gives this as one reason why they brought Christ to Pilate, and did not put him to Death themselves. Their Doctors also speak much of a Tradition, that their Power as to Life and Death, ceased forty years before the Destruction of the Temple, (see them al­ledged by Buxtorf. in [...]) but some say that it was not taken away by the Romans, but Malefactors and Murtherers were grown so nu­merous and heady, that they could not execute Capital Punishments upon them; and this is rendred as the reason of their not judging in Capital matters in Avoda Zara fol. 8. 2. and Moses Mikotsi praec. affirm. 99. This might perhaps be some reason, but in Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 8. the Iews told Albinus that it was not Lawful for Ananus to assemble the Council without his Licence, and without a Council he could not put any one to Death. To conclude this, the Iews (as best served their present turn) [Page 59] sometimes denyed that they had power in Capital matters, as here in our Saviours case, sometimes pretended that they had, as in S. Paul's case, Act. 24. 6. and therefore I see no reason why we should trouble our selves so much about this answer of theirs. The Procurators of Iudea had Power of Life and Death from the first, which was Coponius, who was sent with this Power (as Iosephus testifies de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 11.) and it was enjoyed and exercised by his Successors, of which Pilate [...] was one; see Philo Leg. ad Caium c. 18. Ios. Ant. l. 18. c. 3. and de bel. Iud. l. 2 [...] c. 14. and Tacitus l. 15. Some will needs gather from S. Ioh. 19.1. that Pilate scourged Jesus himself, but they are answered sufficiently by those words of Tertull. de bapt. c. 11. Imperator proposuit edictum [...] aut Praefectus fustibus cecidit. Numquid ipse proponit? aut nu [...]quid ipse cedit? No, but they do it by their Officers, and so did Pilate. They that were to be scourged, used in order to it, to be bound to a Pillar: Astringite ad columnam fortiter. Plautus in Bacch. see also the Misn. in Mac­coth c. 3. §. 12. accordingly S. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae speaks of the Pillar, to which our Saviour was bound when he was scourged, saying that it was shewed unto Paula; of the Pillar see also Prudentius in Enchir. Some pretend to give us the very words, in which Pilate pronounced sentence upon Christ; first, that he should be scourged, then that he should be crucified; but they do not agree among themselves. The Iews desirous that Christ should be Crucified, accused him for being a mover of Sedi­tion, for Auctores seditionis & tumultus, aut in crucem tolluntur, &c. Pau­lus l. 5. tit. 22. The Constitut. Apost. l. 5. c. 13. say, that the Roman Laws forbad the putting any Man to Death, that was not Convicted, and l. 2. c. 52. they tell us how the Heathens did not presently lead away Malefactors to Punishment, but enquired of them many Days with great deliberation; and Sueton. in Tiber. c. 75. mentions a Decree of the Senate, that the Punishment of condemned Persons should be deferred to the tenth Day (it is mentioned also by Tacit. l. 3. and Dio l. 57. but these seem to restrain it to those that were condemned by the Senate.) These Rules were not observed in the Death of Christ. The same Constitut. l. 2. c. 52. tells us, that among the Heathen, the Judge being about to give sentence, did with hands lifted up, protest that he was clear from the Blood of the Person; perhaps Pilate protested his Innocence by both washing his hands and lifting them up. Whereas S. Mark c. 15. 25. saith, that it was the third Hour, and they Crucified him, S. Ioh. c. 19. 14. that it was about the sixth Hour, when Pilate had not yet delivered up Jesus to be Crucified, S. Hieron. in Psal. 77. suspects that the Copies are vitiated in S. Mark, as Ammonius in caten. gr. in. S. Ioh. and Theophy­lact do, that they are vitiated in S. Iohn, viz. by the fault of the Tran­scribers who might easily mistake one Numeral Letter for another, as [...] for [...] or contrariwise. So the AEthiop. in Mark hath not the Third but the Sixth hour, on the other side several ancient Copies, and those very exact, (says Petrus Alexand. in disput. de Pasch.) and an [...] of S. Iohn kept in the Church of Ephesus (if the Chronic. Alex. do not deceive us) and Nonnus have the third Hour in S. Iohn, not the sixth. Besides [Page 60] this, some tell us that the Iews divided the Day into four Parts (as it is clear that the Romans did; see Censorinus c. 23.) each of which contained three hours, so that the second of those Parts, into which the Day was divided, contained all the time from our Nine to our Twelve, and all that time they called the Third Hour; the third of those Parts, all the time from our Twelve to our Three afternoon, and this they called the Sixth Hour. Now if these things be true, and if our Saviours Cruci­fixion was somewhat before our Twelve of Clock, then S. Mark might truly say, that it was the Third Hour, and S. Iohn as truly, that it was as it were the Sixth Hour. Some finally there are that say, that S. Iohn followed the Roman account of the Hours of the Day, so that his Sixth Hour is the same with our Six of Clock in the Morning, when S. Mark followed the Iewish account. Pilate gave the Emperor Tiberius an ac­count of Jesus's having risen from the Dead, and other things concerning him, Tertull. Apologet. c. 21. Some say that Pilate repented, and cer­tainly (if they mean no more by repentance) he had reason enough to be sorry, for having taken away the Life of a Person, whom he knew to be innocent, as being ipse pro conscientia sua Christianus, Tertull. ibid. The story that Volusianus was sent in Embassage to Tiberius by Pilate, is censured and rejected by Baronius, An. 34. Num. 230. The Samaritans accusing Pilate to Vitellius President of Syria, he was sent by him to Rome, Ioseph. Ant. l. 18. c. 5. I shall not anxiously dispute whether the Title, which Pilate set over our Saviour, was written in that which is properly called Hebrew, or in Syriack. In Syriack says Nonnus; others say, in Syr. Words, but Hebr. Letters.

Pilate's Wife. S. Matth. 27. 19. Not long before that Pilate was sent to Iudea, it was earnestly debated at Rome, whether they who were sent into the Provinces, should be permitted to take their Wives along with them, but carryed in the Affirmative, Tacit. Annal. l. 3. Origen, S. Atha­nas [...] de passion. & cruce Dom. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 23. S. Hieron. Leo, Eu­thym. and Theophylact were all of Opinion, that the Dream was sent to Pi­late's Wife by God; and Origen and Theophylact say, that God designed her Conversion and Salvation in the sending of it. Origen adds, that she had the beginning of her Conversion from the Dream. Yet (say some) the Dream was sent by the Devil; but they are either later Writers, or such as are of less Authority, as the Authors of the Epistle to the Philip­pians, in S. Ignat. and of the serm. de passione Christi in S. Cyprian. The Dream (says S. Chrysost.) was sent not to Pilate, but his Wife; either because she was more worthy, or because the Iews would have thought that he feigned it for an excuse, or perhaps he would not have commu­nicated, but concealed it. Nicephorus l. 1. c. 30. calls her Procle, Lucius Dexter in Chron. Claudia Procula.

Barabbas. S. Matth. 27. 16. S. Mar. 15. 7. S. Luc. 23. 18. S. Ioh 18. 40. Act. 3. 14. In Origen we read, Quem vultis dimittam vobis, Iesum Barabbam, a [...] Iesum qui vocatur Christus? but he adds that the name Jesus was not given to Barabbas in all Copies, and suspects that it was super-added [Page 61] by Hereticks. As to the releasing a Prisoner at the Feast, Cyril. Alex. qu. Titus Bostr. and Theophylact thought that it was upon the account of some ancient custom among the Iews, they delivering one at the Passo­ver, in Memory of the deliverance from the Destroying Angel, and from their being kept as Prisoners in AEgypt. But since we read not of any such ancient Custom among the Iews, there are that incline to Origen's Opinion, that it was from the Romans, a favour granted the Iews by them; for we read in Livy l. 5. Vinctis dempta in eos dies vincula, i. e. the Days lectisternii indicti, by which it seems that they released Prisoners at more solemn times.

Simon of Cyrene. S. Matth. 27. 32. S. Mar. 15. 21. S. Luc. 23. [...]6. Origen, S. August. de pastorib. c. ult. and Theophylact understand by Cyrene, the African Cyrene, though some will have it to be Cyrene of Cyprus, or a Cy­rene which they fansy to be in Decapolis. S. Hilary, S. Ambros. S. Hieron. and S. Leo de passione Dom. ser. 8. took Simon to be a Gentile. S. Athanas. de passion. & cruce Dom. S. Hieron. S. Au [...]ust. de consens. l. 3. c. 10. S. Cyril. in caten. gr. in S. Matth. Theophylact and Euthym. conceived that Jesus him­self carryed the Cross first, S. Ioh. 19. 17. and Simon afterward; yet Origen leaves it doubtful whether of the two carried it first. Others suppose that he only carried the end of the Cross after Jesus. Some tell us, that our Saviour had fallen under the Cross twice, before he was re­lieved by Simon. Theophylact saith, It is likely that Simon was living, when S. Mark writ his Gospel; see also Victor Antioch. We are told by Suidas in voc. [...], that [...], the Word used concerning Simon, and rendred to compel, is originally a Persian word. Some have said that the Cross was fifteen foot in length.

Alexander and Rufus. S. Mar. 15. 21. They are mentioned either for the more exact description of what was done, or that it might be better known what Simon it was (Victor Antioch.) or for that they were Disciples (Commentar. in S. Mar. ap. S. Hieron.) and that of some Note, who could certifie those that would enquire of them, what they had heard their Father Simon relate concerning Christ. Whether the Alex­ander mentioned, Act. 19. 33. was the same with this Alexander, or this Rufus, the same with the Rufus in Rom. 16. 13. cannot be determined. Some tell us that there was a third Brother named Lucius. Erasmus in­stead of [...] hath [...].

A great number of People and Women. S. Luc. 23. 27.

Two Thieues. S. Matth. 27. 38. S. Mar. 15. 27. S. Luc. 23. 32. S. Ioh. 19. 18. S. Matthew and S. Mark say, that the Thieves reviled Christ speaking in the plur. Number: S. Luke saith, that one of the Malefactors railed on him, so that either S. Matthew and S. Mark used the Plural for the Singular, (see S. August. de consens. l. 3. c. 16. S. Athanas. ser. contr. omnes Haereses, S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 13. and Sedulius l. 4.) or else both the Thieves reviled him at the first, afterward one of them [...] instead of reproaching vindicated him, (see S. Hilary, S. Chrysost. S. Prosper. contr. Collator. c. 14. Iuvenc. l. 4. Tit. Bostr. Victor Antioch. Theophylact and [Page 62] Euthym.) S. Hieron. and S. Ambrose take notice of both these ways of re­conciling the Evangelists, as Origen doth of the latter, and then adds, nisi forte alii sunt hi duo latrones qui ambo blasphemaverunt. S. Hilary seems to have believed that the penitent Thief did hang on Christ's Right hand, (and so the impenitent Thief on his Left hand) just as the Righteous and the Wicked shall be disposed at the last Day, those on the Right, these on the Left hand of the Judge. (See also S. Leo ser. 4. de pass.) Some have inclined to believe that the converted Thief, was sprinkled with the Wa­ter and Blood, which leaped out of Christ's pierced side. There are those that say, that Christ had the Prerogative to be Crucified on an higher Cross than the Thieves were, but this agrees not well wi [...]h the History of the invention of the Cross, ap. Ruffin. l. 10. c. 7,8. Theodoret. l. 1. c. 18. Sozomen l. 2. c. 1. Of breaking the Legs of those that were Crucified, see Lactant. l. 4. c. 26. They that pretend to give us the Names of the Thieves agree not among themselves, [...]ome calling the Convert Thief Dimas, the other Gesmas, but others call the former Vicinius, the latter Iustinus. Seneca de vit. beata tells, how some ex patibulo spectatores suos conspuerent, the impenitent Thief could not forbear even upon the Cross, to spit out the venom of his Reproaches upon our Lord.

Some that passed by, or stood beholding Jesus on the Cross. S. Mat. 27. 39. S. Mar. 15. 29. S. Luc. 23. 35. S. Ioh. 19. 29. S. Matthew and S. Mark say, that having filled a spunge with Vinegar, they put it on a Reed; S. Iohn saith, that they put it on Hyssop, suppose that the Reed was a Rod of Hyssop, and there is no difference between S. Iohn and S. Mat­the [...] with S. Mark. Some ap. Theophylact say expresly, that Hyssop is called a Reed, (see also Euthym.) and the Arab. and Pers. render [...] in S. Ioh. just as they do [...] in S. Matth. The Hyssop that sprung out of the Wall (though supposed to be the least of Hyssops) is recko­ned a Tree, 1 Kings 4. 33. and called [...] by Ioseph. Ant. l. 8. c. 2. Accordingly the Misn. in Parah c. 11. §. 8. distinguisheth between ga­thering Hyssop for Meat, and gathering it for Wood. Finally among the Reeds, &c. wherewith they covered their Tents in the Feast of Ta­bernacles, the Gemar. in Succah fol. 13. 1. reckons Hyssop. If this satisfie not, we may suppose that as the Misn. in Parah c. 12. §. 1. speaks of tying Hyssop with a Thread, (suppose to or about a staff) so here Hyssop might be tyed about the Reed, and the spunge then about the Hyssop; or contrariwise the spunge was bound about the Reed with Hyssop as with a Thread; see the AEthiop. in S. Ioh. Some of the Ancients make the meaning to be, that Hyssop was mingled with the Vinegar, as Gall was in a former Potion, (see Origen S. Chrysost. Nonnus and Theophylact) which may also be the meaning of those Words of S. Hilary, in Psal. 68. spongiam plenam aceto Hysopo admiscentes. We need not then hearken to those that will have [...] here, to have the signification of [...]. Neither need we enquire so anxiously as some do, how it came that a Vessel of Vinegar was set there, for the Roman Soul­diers drunk Vinegar; yea Pescernius Niger commanded that they should [Page 63] all be content with it, (as AElius Spartianus informs us) and refrain from Wine.

Many Bodies of Saints that Arose. S. Matth. 27. 52. S. Hieron. and some ap. Theophylact say, that they rose not till after Christ's Resur­rection, as Origen says, that they went not out of their Graves till after it. Yet some later Writers think that they both arose, and also came out of their Graves before Christ's rising, but lurked about the City till he was risen. The Syr. and Pers. favour this Opinion, reading thus, They came forth, and after his Resurrection entred into the Holy City. The Arab. and AEthiop. with Glycas, read not After his, but After their Resur­rection. The Author of the Quaest. and Answ. ap Iustin. Mart. qu. 85. Eu­seb. de Demonstr. l. 4. c. 12. and Epiphan. Haer. 75. thought that they did not die again, but ascend with Christ into Heaven. On the other hand, Theophylact is positive that they did die again. The Author de assumpt. Virginis ap. S. Hieron. is unwilling to determine either way. Quadratus ap. S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. says, that he saw many that were healed of In­firmities in Iudea, and had risen from the Dead; as likewise ap. Euseb. l. 4. c. 3. he saith that some of them lived to his time; but it may be questio­ned whether he speaks this of these Saints in S. Matth. 27. or of some others that had been raised by Christ. S. Chrysost. speaking of those that were now raised saith, [...], so that (though we cannot necessarily conclude so much from the Word [...]) perhaps he had respect to the Patriarchs Noah, Abraham, &c. but others think that they were such as had been known to those to whom they appeared, as Zachary, Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna and the like. A later writer names one Scarioth as one of them.

The Centurion and Others that watched Jesus on the Cross. S. Matth. 27. 54. S. Mar. 15. 39. S. Luc. 23. 47. Constantin. Porphyrogen. calls [...]; and perhaps it was upon this account, that this Cen­turion got the name Longinus, though Lucius Dexter in Chron. calls him C. Oppius. He was not only a Convert, but also a Martyr, (as some ap. S. Chrysost. do affirm) and Metaphrastes Mart. 15. saith, that Pilate be­headed him with two Souldiers, and that he was ignominiously treated after his Death; but how will this be reconciled, with that which the same Metaphrastes saith, Octob. 16. viz. that the Iews being inraged a­gainst him, for asserting the Truth of our Lords Resurrection, he left his Office (as two Souldiers left their Service) and published the Works of Christ in Cappadocia.

Ioseph of Arimathes. S. Matth. 27. 57. S. Mar. 15. 43. S. Luc. 23. 50. S. Ioh. 19. 38. S. Hieron. de loc. Heb. makes Arimathea, to have been that which is called Ramathaim Zophim, and was Samuel's Town, 1 Sam. 1. 1. and therefore some suppose that Ioseph was a Priest or Levite S. Hie­ron. also, both de loc. Hebr. and in Epitaph. Paulae saith, that it was not far from Lydda or Diospolis. And de loc. Heb. speaking of Rima, (which we call Arumah, Iud. 9. 41.) he informs us that many called it Arima­thea. Theophylact. and Euthym. say, that Ioseph was one of the LXX [Page 64] Disciples, and S. Chrysost. in S. Ioh. saith [...], Perhaps he was of the LXX; but indeed it seems not probable that he was. The word rendred Counsellour is [...], and it occurs frequently in the Talmud. In Ioma fol. 8. 2. we read of [...], which was also called [...], i. e when the High-Preists came to be changed every twelve Months, and it was distinct from the [...] where the Sanhedrim or great Senate sat, and therefore these [...] are such as were distinct from them of the great Senate, though possibly the same Person might be both a Counsellor and a Senator. In Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 29. [...] and [...] are found together, and perhaps as the [...] there were these Counsellors, so the [...] were the Men of the great Se­nate. Some suppose that these [...] were Counsellors for the Temple, such as consulted and took care about things appertaining to it. What affinity the [...], in Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 33. had to the [...], I know not. [...] is often rendred Decurio, for the Decuriones were such as were singled out for publick Counsel, when any Colony was deduced, decima pars eorum qui ducerentur consilii publici causa conscribi solita est. Digest. l. 50. tit. 16. l. 239. §. 5. S. Cy­ril Alex. calls Ioseph a young Man. Some ap. S. Hieron. thought that the first Psalm was made of him, and Tertul. l. 4. contr. Marcion. c. 42. applies the first verse of it to him. Though Arimathea was the place of his Nativity, he dwelt at Ierusalem, and so had his Sepulchre hewn out in his Garden, with­out the Walls of it. One saith, Nullibi mentio [...] Hierosolymitani, but Buxtorf. in voc. [...] alledges out of the Iewish Writings, the very Words [...], Ioseph's asking the Body of Jesus may remind us of the Laws de cadaveribus punitorum. Digest. l. 48. tit. 24. and Cod. l. 3. tit. 44. l. 11. which enact that the Bodies of Persons executed should be gran­ted to their relations or others that desired them; and Vlpian adds, that Augustus wrote in the tenth Book of his Life, that he observed this. But Verres made Men purchase the Liberty of burying the Bodies of such, (Ci­cer. in Verrem l. 5. and Quintilian declamat. 6.) and Theophylact says, It is probable that Ioseph purchased the Body of Jesus of Pilate; but Pilate was guilty enough otherways, we need not load him with this. S. Chrysost. in S. Ioh. thought that he was known to Pilate, and so went in to him more boldly, and had his suit granted. It was (says Metaphrastes) by the perswa [...]ion of the Mother of our Lord, that he begged the Body. They wrapped the Body of a condemned Person in an old worn linen cloth, (Megilla fol. 26. 2.4.) but Ioseph did not wrap the Body of Jesus so. Some relate that he was imprisoned that Night in which he buried his Body, and that to comfort him our Lord appeared first to him; others say, that he was put into a Cell, and watched there by the Priests them­selves, yet miraculously delivered; but Baronius An. 34. Num. 192. gives little credit to the latter relation, and the former seems not to de­serve much.

Cleopas. S. Luc. 24. 13. According to Dorotheus he was also called Simon, and was the Lords Cousin-germain, and the second Bishop of [Page 65] Ierusalem; and as to Simon or Simeon the second Bishop of Ierusalam, it is possible that he also had the name of Cleopas; for Euseb. l. 3. c. 11. says, that Simeon the second Bishop of Ierusalem was the Son of Clopas or Cleo­pas, and so he might be called Cleopas after his Father. Some have thought that this Cleopas was that very Cleopas, who (as Hegesippus saith) was the Father of Simeon, and Brother of Ioseph the Blessed Virgins Hus­band; but this cannot be, if that be true which Nicephorus saith, that Ioseph marryed the Widow of his Brother Cleopas, (see him l. 1. c. 33.) for then it is clear, that that Cleopas was dead long before our Saviours appearing to our Cleopas. Of whom S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. saith, that he was of Emmaus; and in epitaph. Paulae, that Jesus being known at Em­maus in the breaking of Bread, ejus domum in Eccesiam consecravit. The Martyrol. Sept. 25. adds, that he was slain in the same House for the Confession of Christ; see the Menolog. Octob [...] 13. The Ancients (says Grotius) probably thought that both he and the other Disciple, who went with him to Emmaus, were of the number of the LXX; but who that other Disciple was there is no Constat. He was Nathanael, (says Epiphan. Haer. 23.) S. Luke (say some ap. Theophylact. and Nicephorus l. 1. c. 34.) see Anastas. Sinai [...]. in Hex. l. 10. one Simon as Origen l. 2. contr. Celsum. S. Basil also in Isa. calls him Simon (though some Copies have Menahem instead of Simon.) S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 12. calls him Amaus, in S. Luc. 2 [...]. Ammaon, (which Grotius will needs have to be put for Simeon.) The two Disciples mentioned S. Mar. 16. 12. were the same with these two in S. Luc. 24. in the Opinion of Theophylact, and all others that I have consulted, except Euthymius.

Five Hundred Brethren, 1 Cor. 15. 6. with Others added to them af­terward, Act. 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. 6. 1,7. 21, 20. When it is said, 1 Cor. 156. [...], S. Chrysost. Oecumenius, and Theophylact observe the Ambiguity of the Word [...], that it may either signifie Above, referring to the number of the Brethren, or From above, denoting that Jesus appeared to them from Heaven, viz. after his Ascension. But Theophylact adds, that the most are for the former Interpretation, mak­ing it to refer to the Number of the Brethren, and so do the Syr. Arab. and Vulg. as well as our Translators. The Tradition is, that this famous appearing to so many, was in Galilee upon Mount Tabor; see S. Matth. 28. 16. The hundred and twenty mentioned Act. 1. 15. were not the whole number of the Disciples, which our Lord had at his Ascension, but the Disciples then present amounted to so many. The Conversion of the three thousand, Act. 2. was the Fruit of Christ's Prayer for his Cru­cifiers, Father forgive them, so S. Chrysost. Leo de passione Dom. ser. 11. and S. August. in Psal. 93. and ser. 4. de Sanctis. As to the five thousand Act. 4. the question is whether they were distinct from the three thousand, so that eight thousand in all were now gained by the Apostles Sermons, or whether they were now made five thousand in all. S. Hieron. in Isa. 11. S. Chrysost in S. Matth. Hom. 1. and 32. and in Act. Theodoret. in Zach. 13. S. August. Tract. 39. in S. Ioh. also contr. Crescon. l. 4. c. 54. and Oecumen. [Page 66] seem all to be for the former Opinion that the five thousand are to be ta­ken as distinct from the other, and that they were now in all eight thou­sand. Whether the Men alone came into the computation, or the Wo­men also, I shall not determine. They that were added, Act. 5. 14. were of the common sort, called the People, v. 13. for we are told there that the rest, i. e. the Wealthier sort, or those that were in Office, or place of Rule, durst not joyn themselves to the Church, for fear of losing their Estates and Places, though they were moved to it, by the notable Mira­cles which they saw wrought.

Ioseph surnamed Barsabas and Iustus. Act. 1. 21, &c. Some have thought him the same with S. Barnabas, lead thereto by the Affinity of the Names; but Euseb. l. 1. c. 12. Epiphan. Haer. 20. and S. Chrysost. in Act. 4. make them distinct Persons. Others say that he was the same with Ioses the Lord's Brother, S. Mar. 6. 3. If the Epitome [...] say true, he was that Iustus who was the third Bishop of Ierusalem [...] Diony­sius de Divin. nomin. c. 11. alledgeth one Iustus, calling him [...], and the Greek Scholiasts on Dionysius, viz. Maximus and Pachymeres say, that it is this Iustus, and call him Ioses, even as one of Beza's Copies, Act. 1. 23. hath (not Ioseph, but) Ioses. Papias (ap. Euseb. l. 3. c. ult.) re­ports, that he drunk deadly poison, and received no harm by it. He was Bi­shop of Eleutheropolis, according to Dorotheus. He suffered great Perse­cution from the Iews, and being a glorious Conqueror over all, finished his course in Iudea; so the Martyrolog. Iul. 20.

Devout Iews out of other Nations. Act. 2. If they had their fixed habitation at Ierusalem, (of which Opinion S. Chrysost. Oecumen. and Theophylact seem to have been) it is probable that the general expectation of the Messiah's appearing about that time, had brought them thither. But others are of Opinion as to many of them, that they were come thi­ther only upon occasion of the Feast. From the Word [...], v. 5. nothing can be concluded, for though [...] often signifies. To dwell, yet many times it signifies no more than to sojourn or tarry for a time, see the LXX in Gen. 27. 44. 1 Kings 17. 20. Ier. 42. 15. 43. 5. 44. 8,28. 49. 17, 32. 50. 40. It may seem by those Words of Iosephus, in his Life, [...], as also from those of Augustus ap. Sueton. c. 76. Ne Iudaeus quidem tam diligenter Sabbatis jejunium servat, quàm ego hodie servavi, that it was the manner of the Iews on their Feast-days to fast, however till the sixth hour; therefore when they scoffingly said, that the Disciples were full of new Wine, S. Peter replyed, that it was but the third hour of the Day. It was improbable that they should be drunk at that hour, when they used no [...] to eat or drink till the sixth hour.

Ioses called Barnabas. Act. 4. 36, 37. 9. 27. and c. 15. Gal. 2. 1, 9. The MS. Alex. and several other ancient Copies, as also the Syr. AEthiop. and Vulg. instead of Ioses, Act. 4. read Ioseph. The Name [...] occurs frequently in Pirke Avoth, see c. 1. §. 4, &c. The Name Barnabas is by S. Luke interpreted [...] A Son of Consolation or Exhortation, [Page 67] and is by some derived from [...] to Prophecy, (for the Prophetick Office comprehends both Exhortation and Consolation) by others from [...] which in the Arab signifies To Exhort. According to others [...] is put for [...], and [...] is a Contraction of [...] Consolation. Some say that [...] signifies sometimes to be refreshed, and will have Barnabas to be put for Barnaphas. Some finally would derive it from [...], whence comes [...] Consolation, the very Word which the Syr. useth Act. 4. 36. but they do not find it easie to form [...] from [...]. To the en­quiry how S. Barnabas a Levite came to have Lands, it is answered, that perhaps he had them not in Iudea but in Cyprus, where the Iewish Con­stitutions did not take place. Others add, that a Levite might have or purchase an Estate even in the Land of Iudea. Abiathar had Fields in Anathoth, 1 Kings 2. 26. and Ieremiah a Priest, bought a Field there of his Uncles Son, Ier. 32. 8,9. The Hill in which Eleazar was buried be­longed to Phinehas his Son, as being given him, Iosh. 24. 33. Some col­lect from 1 Sam. 1. 1. and 9. 5. that Samuel was born on his own Land, which descended to him from Zuph. Of the Sale and Redemption of the Levites Possession, see Levit. 25. 33. Theodoret and Oecumenius in 2 Cor. 8. 18. incline to think, that the Brother mentioned there was S. Barnabas; and the latter adds that many were of that Opinion, yet grants that others said, that he was S. Luke. See S. Chrysost. What reason some have to say that he was the Brother of Zebedee, viz. by the Mother, I know not.

Ananias and Sapphira. Act. 5. Origen. Hom. 8. in S. Matth. had the Charity for them to think that they were judged so severely of the Lord, that they might not be condemned with the World. Whereas we Act. 5. 1, 3, 8. call that which they sold A Possession or The Land, the AEthiop. still calls it A Vineyard.

Hellenists. Act. 6. 1. 9. 29. (we in both places Translate it Grecians.) They were the Iews of the Dispersion (say some) such as were Iews (i. e. Proselytes) as to their Religion, but Greeks by Nation, (say others.) The Syr. in Act. 9. says, that they were such Iews as knew the Greek Tongue, and with the Syr. agree S. Chrysost. Oecumen. and Theophylact. It is probable that these Hellenists read the Old Testament in Greek, as afterward some Hebrews desired Licence of the Emperor, to read the Scripture in Greek, and had it granted, when others of them were for reading it in the Hebrew Tongue only; see Iustinian Novel. 146.

Stephen. Act. 6. item c. 7. and c. 8. 2. 22. 20. He was a young Man and beautiful, says S. August. ser. 6. de Sanctis. The Misn. in Sanhedr. c. 6. and Moses Mikotsi praecept. aff. 100. set down the Rules or Orders which were observed in stoning Persons. The hands of the Witnesses were to be first upon them, according to Deut. 17. 7. The place of stoning was without the City, or without the Three Camps, see the Gemar. in Sanhedr. fol. 42. 2. These two Rules they did observe in stoning S. Stephen. But their eager thirst after his Blood, would not permit them to observe other Circumstances, or as much as to wait until [Page 68] a judicial sentence was past upon him. The place of his suffering was a furlong from the City, says Nicephor. l. 14. c. 50. Some later Writers say, that he suffered on the third of August, but S. Greg. Ny [...]sen. and Ful­gentius in their Sermons de S. Stephano, and S. August. de diversis ser. 97, 98. and de Sanctis ser. 5. did celebrate the twenty sixth of Decemb. as the Day of his Martyrdom. See the rest in D. Cave.

Philip. Act. 6. 5. also c. 8. and c. 21. Epiphan. Hae [...]. 21. S. Hieron. contr. Lucifer. S. Chrysost. and Oecumen. and Theophylact agree, that this S. Philip the Deacon (not S. Philip the Apostle) preached to the Sama­ritans, Act. 8. I know that he who baptized the Eunuch is called an Apostle by Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. and S. August. de doctr. Christ. in Proleg. but the Word Apostle is frequently used in a larger sense, and so from the bare name of Apostle, no certain Argument can be drawn. Yet I acknowledge that S. August. tract. 6. in S. Ioh. leaves it doubtful whether S. Philip it was, whether the Apostle or this. When Act. 8. 39. we read that the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip: some Copies read, The Angel of the Lord caught away Philip; the Spirit of the Lord did it by the Ministery of an Angel. S. Philip built a Sepulchre in which he and his Daughters did rest, Gratian. c. 13. q. 2. §. Vnaquaeque.

Prochorus. Act. 6. 5. Petrus de Natal. says, that he was S. Stepha­ni Nepos, but Genebrard. in Calend. Apr. 9. makes that Prochorus not to have suffered till An. Dom. 170.

Nicanor. Act. 6. 5. Dorotheus relates, that he suffered the same day with S. Stephen, but it is strange that S. Luke who so particularly describes S. Stephen's, should omit the mention of Nicanor's Martyrdom, if he dyed the same Day with him.

Timon. Act. 6. 5. He was also called Timotheus (as some say,) but was not Timothy, S. Paul's Disciple.

Parmenas. Act. 6. 5. He dyed Ministring in the presence of the Apostles, saith Dorotheus.

Nicolaus. Act. 6. 5. He was first a Proselyte to the Iewish Religion, then a Convert to the Christian, Epiphan. Haer. 25. a Proselyte not of the Gate, but of Circumcision or of Righteousness. He was Bishop of the Samaritans, as say Hippolytus and Dorotheus in the Lat. Edition.

Convert Priests. Act. 6. 7. and Rulers, S. Ioh. 12. 42. The Syr. i [...] ­stead of A great Company of the Priests, Act. 6. hath Much People of the Iews, but the other Versions, and also the Greek Copies themselves read, Of the Priests, as we do. Whether these Priests did openly profess the Faith to which they were obedient, or they were Disciples secretly like those Rulers, S. Ioh. 12. may be questioned.

Many Christians that were punished, imprisoned, dispersed and slain in the Persecution raised about S. Stephen, Act. 8 1, 3, 4. 26. 10, 11.

An Eunuch. Act. 8. 27. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. S. Athanas. ad solita­rios, S. Hieron. in Isa. 56. S. August. Hom. 23. inter Hom. 50. Chrysol. ser. 160. Arator, &c. understood him to be an Eunuch, in the sense in which we ordinarily use the Word. Pontius Diaconus saith, that he was a Iew, [Page 69] but whether the meaning be that he was so by Birth, or that he was a Iew as proselyted to the Iewish Religion, I know not. Eusebius calls him the First-fruits of the believers through the World, and the first of the Nations or Gentiles that had knowledge of the Mysteries of the Word of God, so that he seems to have thought that he was a Gentile. And he might be originally so, but such an one as was praecatechizatus & in timore Dei praeaptatus à Propheris, as S. Irenaeus l. 4 c. 40. says of him. The AEthiopians worshipped a God which they accounted immortal, and the cause of all things, (so Strabo l. 17.) they were Circumcised (Herodotus ap. Ioseph. Ant. l. 8. c. 4.) and in these respects they were not at so great a distance from the Iewish Religion as others, and so more easily prose­lyted to it. S. Hieron. de loc. Hebr. says, that he was baptized in a Foun­tain bubling up at the Foot of an Hill near Bethsura, a Village in the way from Ierusalem to Hebron, and (as some add) therefore called sons AEthiopis. Later Writers say, that he was baptized in the Brook or River Sorech, or in a Brook near Nehel Eshcol, or in a River which some call Eleutherus, and say that it gave the name to Eleutheropolis; but why we should believe them more than S. Hieron. I know not. The MS. Alex. and several ancient Greek Copies, and S. Hieron. contr. Lucifer. read Act. 8.39. thus, When they came up out of the Water, the Holy Spirit came, or f [...]ll upon the Eunuch, but the Angel of the Lord caught away Philip. S. Greg. Na­zianz. orat. 40. Anastas. Sinait. and Euthym. in Psal. 67. seem to have thought that Candaces was the name of the Eunuch, but the Syr. Arab. AEthiop. and Vulg. do all make Candace the name of the Queen, and the Greek it self is sufficiently plain, not to add that Strabo l. 17. and Dio l. 54. mention a Candace that was Queen of the AEthiopians, and that Pliny l. 6. c. 29. saith, that Candace was for many years a common name of their Queens; also some call this Eunuch not Candac but Indich. He was Go­vernour of the City Gaza, says the AEthiop. taking [...], Act. 8. 27. to be a proper name there, as it is in the very Verse foregoing; perhaps also S. Chrysost. took it to be [...]o; s [...]e Theophylact. Some say that he brought gifts from Candace for the Temple at Ierusalem.

Ananias of Damascus. Act. 9. 10 [...] 22. 12. Oecumenius, Dorotheus and the Menolog. say, that he was one of the LXX Disciples. The Martyro­log. Ianuar. 25 and the Menolog. both affirm, that he Preached the Go­spel in Eleutheropolis in Palestine.

AE [...]eas. Act. 9. 33. It may be that [...] is the same name with [...] in the Talmudists, in whom there is mention of [...]. Oecu­menius calls this AEneas [...].

Tabitha. Act. 9. 36. The Syr. Word [...] (from the Hebr. [...]) signifies a Roe, as Dorcas doth in the Greek. The Upper Chamber in which she was laid, was, it may be, the place where the Christians as­sembled for Divine Worship.

Simon a Tanner. Act. 9. 43. 10. 6, 17.

Corne [...]ius, and two of his Servants, a Souldier, his Kinsmen and near Friends, Act. c. 10 and 11. The Gens Cornelia was Famous at Rome, [Page 70] and it is probable that our Cornelius belonged to some Branch or Family of it. It is probable also, that the Italian Band, of which he was Cen­turion, did belong to one of the Italian Legions mentioned in Dio l. 55. and an ancient Inscription in Lipsius's notes in Tacit. hist. l. 2. S. Hieron. in epitaph. Paulae, says of her, Cornelii Domum Christi vidit ecclesiam, and in Epist. ad Salvinam he makes Cornelius to have been the first Fruits of the Gentiles. The Constit. Apost. l. 7. c. 47. say that he was Bishop of Cesarea after Zaccheus; see the Martyrol. Feb. 2.

Six Brethren that went with S. Peter to Cesarea. Act. 10. 23,45. 11. 12. The Iews had a Maxim that the Holy Ghost would not dwell upon a Gentile, therefore Cornelius and his friends being such, these Bre­thren who were of the Circumcision, marvelled that the Holy Ghost fell upon them. Cornelius was well reported of by the Iews for his fearing God, but being uncircumcised, he was in their account no better than a Gentile.

Agabus and Other Prophets. Act. 11. 27. 21. 10. Orosius l. 7. saith, that in the Famine foretold by Agabus, the Christians in Ierusalem were relieved by Helen Queen of the Adiabeni.

Herod Agrippa. Act. 12. S. Hieron. ad Eustochium de vinculis B. Pe­tri, seems to have thought the Herod Act. 12. to have been Herod the Tetrarch above mentioned, others contend that he was Herod King of Chalcis, but the most received Opinion is, that this Herod is he who is called Agrippa, as by Iosephus, so also by Philo in legat. ad Caium, who both of them testifie his Zeal for the Iewish Religion, and that together with his desire to gratifie the Iews put him upon persecuting the Chri­stians. The Syr. saith expresly, Herod who was called Agrippa, and ac­cordingly Suidas calls him Herod Agrippa; see Euseb. l. 2. c. 10. and Oe­cumen. It is said Act. 12. 23. that an Angel of the Lord smote him, and some question whether it was a good Angel, (suppose the Angel that de­livered S. Peter v. 7.) or an Evil Angel; for some think that an Evil Angel may be called an Angel of the Lord; as according to the Hebr. LXX. Vulg. and Syr. in 1 Sam. 18. 10. it is said, An Evil Spirit of God came upon Saul, (though we Translate An Evil Spirit from God) and so when Psal. 35. 5. it is said, Let the Angel of the Lord chase them. S. Hie­ron. saith, Angelus Domini, i. e. spiritus malus. Si malus, cur Domini? Si Domini, cur malus? Domini quia Dominus illum creavit, & Dominus illum habet in potestate. Malignus non natura sed sua adinventione. Iosephus Ant. l. 19. c. 7. describes the manner of his Death thus, Having proclaimed solemn Sports and Shews in Honour of Caesar, on the second Day of the Festivity he came early in the Morning into the Theatre, having on a Robe most curiously wrought with Silver, which encountring the beams of the rising Sun, reflected such a lustre upon the Eyes of the People, as begat an equal Wonder and Veneration in them. Hereupon some Flat­terers beginning the Acclamation, saluted him as a God, and desired that he would be propitious to them. He did not repel their impious Flattery, or express his dislike of it. Looking up he espied an Owl over his head, [Page 71] which he beheld as a presage of his Death, as it had been before of his Advancement or Prosperity. Suddenly an hearty Grief siezeth him, with a vehement Griping, and extreme Torment in his bowels. So looking on his Friends he said, Behold the Deity which ye admired, and your selves convinced of Flattery and Falshood, see him hurried to Death, whom even now ye proclaimed to be immortal. His Torments not remitting put an end to his Life in five Days: Thus Iosephus. Compare the Description of Antiochus's Death 2 Mac. 9. 5, 9. with this. When it is said that he was eaten up of Worms Act. 12. 23. MS. Cant. adds [...], i. e. being yet alive.

The Accuser of S. Iames the Great, or he that drew him before the Tribunal, beholding his constant Resolution and Courage, confessed himself to be a Christian. So being lead with the Apostle to be executed, in the way he heartily begged his Pardon, who said, Peace be to thee my Son, and kissed him; so they were beheaded together Euseb. l. 2. c. 9. and Suidas in voc. [...]. Some say that his Name was Iosias.

Mary the Mother of Iohn-Mark. Act. 12. 12. She is supposed to have been S. Barnabas's Sister. They say that he being convinced by the sight of Christ's Miracles, communicated the notice of the Messiah to her, who thereupon hasted to come to Christ, and invited him to her House. In that house (as some tell us) he celebrated his last Supper, and appeared to Thomas and the rest, in it the hundred and twenty Disci­ples met, Act. 1. and in it the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles. See Acta Alexandri.

Iohn-Mark. Act. 12. 12, 25. 13. 13. 15. 37. Origen, Oecumen. Eu­thym. Victor Antioch. Kirstenius's MS. Arab. and Theophylact argument. in S. Mar. make him and the Evangelist to be the same. Also S. Hieron. in Philem. 24. makes the Mark spoken of there, S. Paul's Companion, to be the same with the Evangelist. It is true S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. calls Iohn-Mark, S. Barnabas's Disciple, and the Evangelist, S. Peter's, (see him both in S. Barnab. and S. Mar.) so that he may seem there to distin­guish them, but we cannot certainly conclude from thence that he doth; for the same Person might be the Disciple first of the one, then of the other. Dorotheus saith, that there were three Marks, one S. Barnabas's Disciple, another S. Paul's, the third S. Peter's; how can he be refu­ted, but by saying that the same Person might be the Disciple of more than one Apostle? Papias ap. Euseb. l. 3. c. ult. S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1. and S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. say, that he was Interpres Petri. That Prologue to S. Mark's Gospel which we have in Lyra (and which he fathers upon S. Hieron.) hath these Words of S. Mark, Sacerdotium in Israel agens se­cundùm carn [...]m Levita; and afterward these, Amputasse sibi post fidem polli­cem dicitur, ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur. There are others that say, that he wore the Petalum; yea some will needs suppose that he was one of the Priests mentioned Act. 6. 7. Some conjecture that he was the young Man that bare the Pitcher of Water S. Mar. 14. 13. See the rest in D. Cave.

[Page 72] Rh [...]d [...]. Act. 12. 13. Whether she was a Servant as S. Chrysost. Pro­clus, &c. supposed her to be, or a young Damosel of some note, yet so officious as to go to the door and listen, they that please may determine. Some call her Rosulia perhaps for that they thought that Rhoda and Ro­sulia have the same signification.

Manaen. Act. 13. 1. R. D. Ganz, Millen. 4. An. 728. tells of one Menahem that was joyned with Hillel, but went away to the King (i. e. Herod the Great) with eighty Men richly arrayed. This Manaen Act. 13. was brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and so as Herod the Te­trarch was Herod the Great's Son, in like manner this Manaen might be the Son of that Menahem mentioned by Ganz. By Herod the Tetrarch here Act. 13. I suppose S. Luke meant that Herod whom he constantly calls so in his Gospel, (see S. Luc. 3. 1, 19. and 9. 7.) and not Agrippa the younger, as some would have it.

Simeon [...] that was called Niger. Act. 13. 1. The Arab. and Vulg. call him Simon, for Simon and Simeon is one and the same name.

S. Luke. He was one of the two Disciples to whom Jesus appeared in the way to Emmaus, if we may believe some ap. Theophylact, and Niceph. l. 1. c. 34. see also Euseb. Emiss. or Eucher. fer. 2. post Pascha. A Greek Expositor ap. Aquin. in proem. in S. Luc. affirms, that he was a perfect Master of Grammar, Poetry, and Rhetorick, not wanting the Gifts of Prophecy; that going into Iudea, he there learned the Truth of Christ, and remained with him as his Disciple. Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. says [...] that in his Gospel, he writ the things which they who were eye-witnesses of them had delivered to him, in the Acts the things which he had himself heard and seen; see also S. Hieron. in proem. in S. Matth. and de vir. illustr. He was the Brother mentioned 2 Cor. 8. 18, 19. according to S. Ignat. ep. ad Ephes. Origen Hom. 1. in S. Luc. S. Hieron. (ubi supra) Titus Bostr. in S. Luc. 1. By S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 2. he is styled a Disciple or follower of the A­postles [...] by Tertul. contr. Marcion. l. 4. c. 2. &c. S. Paul's Disciple; Kir­sten. MS. Arab. says, that he was first Christ's Disciple, then S. Peter's, then S. Paul's. See the rest in D. Cave.

Certain Persons that went with S. Paul from Antioch to Ierusalem. Act. 15. 2. I conceive that they were some of the Brethren, and not of the Iewish Zealots or false Teachers mentioned v. 1. though it is possible that some of the Zealots also went up at the same time. For S. Hieron. ep. 11. inter epist. Augustini says, that both the accusers and the accused deter­mined to go. The MS. Cant. Act. 15. 2. adds, that the Zealots bid Paul and Barnabas and some others to go up to be judged by the Apostles, and S. Irenaeus saith l. 3. c. 13. His qui ad Apostolos vocaverunt eum, de quaestione acquievit Paulus, & ascendit ad eos.

Titus. Gal. 2. 1, 3. If S. Paul's going up to Ierusalem mentioned here Gal. 2. was the same with that Act. 15. 2. then it is probable that Titus was one of those, who were sent by them of Antioch to Ierusalem, with S. Barnabas and S. Paul. S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 13. some ap. S. Hieron. and Primasius were of Opinion, that it was the same with that Act. 15. but [Page 73] S. Chrysost. and Epiphan. Haer. 28. do dissent. S. Paul saith, Gal. 2. that he went up by Revelation, when as Act. 15. it is said that he was sent up by the Church of Antioch, therefore it may seem not to be one and the same going up which is spoken of in those places. But to this it may be an­swered, First, that he might be sent up by the Church, and yet incou­raged also to the Journey by a particular Revelation; or secondly, the Church might be directed by Revelation, to take that course, i. e. to send S. Paul and Others to Ierusalem. It was the Opinion of the Incertus Autor ap. S. Hieron. and also of some mentioned by S. Hieron. himself, that Titus was Circumcised, (see also Primas.) but S. Ambros. Theodoret, S. Hieron. &c. were of Opinion that he was not. S. Hieron. also acquaints us what it was that misled those that conceived that he was Circumcised, viz. when we read, Gal. 2. 5. To whom we gave place by Subjection, no not for an hour, they left out the Negative, and read thus, To whom we gave place by Subjection for an hour; and it is true, that S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 13. S. Ambros. the Latin Copy alledged by S. Hieron. and the Copies which Primas. consulted, did follow this latter reading, and Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 5. c. 3. earnestly contends for it. But on the other hand the Greek and Latin Copies which we have now; and so Theodoret, Epiphan. Haer. 28. the Syr. Arab. and AEthiop. have the Negative, and read to the same sense that we do; so did also the Greek Copies in S. Hierom's time. But sup­pose that S. Paul did write thus, To whom we gave place for an hour, it doth not follow that he gave place so far as to Circumcise Titus. S. Hie­ron. ad Hedib. Qu. 11. says, that Titus was S. Paul's Interpres.

Iudas surnamed Barsabas. Act. 15. 22, 27, 32, 33. Perhaps he was the Brother of Ioseph called Barsabas, Act. 1. And (if Iudas and Thad­deus was one and the same name) possibly he was the Thaddeus whom Euseb. l. 1. c. 12. affirms to have been one of the LXX Disciples.

Silas. Act. 15. 22, 27, 32, 33, 34, 40. S. Hieron. epist. 143. ad Da­masum, and Anselm. in 2 Cor. 1. 19. thought, that Silas is he, who is otherwhere called Silvanus, and S. Athanasius (on these Words, Omnia mihi tradita sunt à patre) seems to favour this, when he saith, that S. Paul took Sylvanus to be his Associate. Hippolytus, Dorotheus, and the Meno­log. make Silas and Silvanus to have been distinct Persons; but the Autho­rity of the former may well oversway theirs. Some later Writers have thought that Silas was the Brother mentioned, 2 Cor. 8. 18.

Trophimus. It is evident from Act. 21. 29. and 27. 2. that he and Aristarchus went up with S. Paul to Ierusalem, and it is believed that Sopater, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Timothy, who are named together with them, Act. 20. 4. did the same.

The Daughters of S. Philip. Act. 21. 9. S. Ambros. in Eph. 4. 11. and S Chrysost. in 1 Cor. 11. 5. say, that they foretold things to come. Yet S. Chrysost. denies that they foretold the things which befel S. Paul, though some later Writers affirm that they did. T [...]e Menolog. in Sept. 4. calls one of them Hermione.

[Page 74] Mnason. Act. 21. 16. [...], which we render, And brought with them, one Mnason, with whom we should lodge, as do also the Vulg. Syr. and AEthiop. yet we may render it thus, And brought us to one Mnason, with whom we should lodge. Some Latin Co­pies have Iason instead of Mnason, (and so March. Veles. [...]) as others have in place of it Nason. It is uncertain whether he was to lodge them in the way from Cesarea to Ierusalem, or when they came thither; S. Chrysost. inclined to the later. It is uncertain also whether he was one of the LXX, and therefore said to be an old Disciple, or whether he was called so only because he was a more early Convert than many o­thers.

Disciples of Cesarea. Act. 21. 12, 16.

Certain Asian Iews. Act. 21. 27. 24. 18.

Four Men that had a Vow. Act. 21. 23, 24. i. e. the Vow of a Na­zarite, not of a perpetual Nazarite (Nazaraeus seculi) but of a Tempo­rary Nazarite, (Nazaraeus dierum) of whom see Num. 6. Some con­ceive that they were Poor, and therefore S. Paul was at charges with them. It was the custom (says Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 26.) for those that were in any sickness or distress to Vow Abstinence from Wine, and to shave their heads certain Days, before that they offered Sacrifice.

Claudius Lysias his Centurions and Souldiers. Act. 21. 31. 22. 24. 23. 10, 17. He was Commander in Chief of the Roman Garrison, which kept the Castle or Tower Antonia. Both Lysias and the Centurion knew that it was not Lawful to scourge a Roman, and Uncondemned, Act. 22. 25, 26, 29. see what Cicero pleads against Verres l. 5. for his scourging Gavins; also that Oration of Iulius Caesar, which we have in Salust. de bel. Catilin. See S. Chrysost. in Act. 22. 25. with whom agrees Oecu­menius.

Above forty Iewish Zealots. Act. 23. 12. Some fansy that they might be of those Priests (spoken of by Iosephus in his Life) who being sent bound to Rome by Felix, lived there on Figs and Nuts; but there is little ground for such a Conjecture.

S. Paul's Sister's Son. Act. 23. 16. He perhaps overheard acciden­tally when the forty Iews made the compact to kill S. Paul, or chanced to be present when they came to the Chief Priests, or finally being sollicitous for his Uncle, he set himself purposely to observe the Conspiracies of the Iews against him.

Felix. Act. c. 23. and c. 24. He is in Tacitus, Hist. l. 5. called Anto­nius Felix, in Iosephus Ant. l. 20. c. 5. Claudius Felix, perhaps he had both Names, that of Claudius from the Emperour of that Name, whose Freed-Man he was (see Sueton. in Claudio c. 28. and Tacitus) and that of Antonius he might have from Antonia the Emperours Mother. He is branded by Tacitus with the practice of all Cruelty and Incontinence, and so S. Paul's discourse of Righteousness (the contrary to his Injustice and Cruelty) and Continence, (the contrary to his Libidinousness) was a di­rect reproof of the Vices that were chiefly predominant in him. The [Page 75] Iews requited his leaving S. Paul bound to pleasure them by repairing to Rome, to inform against him, Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 7.

Drusilla. Act. 24. 24. Tacitus, Hist. l. 5. says, that Felix took to Wife Drusilla the Grandchild of Cleopatra and Antonius; so that as Sueton. in Claudio c. 28. tells us, that he was the Husband of three Queens, so it seems he Marryed two Drusilla's. The Drusilla mentioned by Tacitus, was the Daughter of Iuba King of Mauritania. This in the Acts was the Daughter of Herod Agrippa abovementioned, and first Marryed to Azi­zus King of the Emessenians, but Felix so wrought upon her by the Per­swasion of Simon a Magician, that for him she left both her Husband and her Religion, Ioseph. Ant. 20. c. 5.

Tertullus. Act. 24. 1. He is believed to have been a Roman, though putting on the Person of his Clients, he speaks, v. 6. as if he were a Iew.

Porcius Festus. Act. c. 24. and c. 25. and c. 26. See also Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 7. and de bel. Iud. l. 2. c. 24. Lyra hath Porticius instead of Porcius; but perhaps it is only through the fault of the Transcriber.

The Council which Festus conferred with. Act. 25. 12. It was the Iewish Council or Sanhedrim, (says S. Chrysost. together with others) or those of them that were then present. But the Word here used is not [...] (the usual Word for the Iewish Council) but [...], by the AEthiop. rendred, His Counsellours; by the Syr. The Sons of his Council. Add hereto that we are told that the Judges used to have some to assist them, or with whom they might consult as occasion was, so that those may be they who are here called the Council. That passage in Cicero pro P. Quintio; Quaeso C. Aquili vosque qui estis in consilio, may help to explain this.

Agrippa the Younger. Act. c. 25. and c. 26. He was the Son of He­rod Agrippa abovementioned. S. Chrysost. saith, that he had also the Name of Herod, as his Father had before him. He removed Ananus from the High-Priests Office, because he had called a Council, and sentenced S. Iames and others to be stoned.

Bernice. Act. 25. 13. 26. 30. She was the Sister both of Agrippa the younger, and of Drusilla beforementioned. Yet S Chrysost. seems to call her Agrippa's Wife, ( [...]) and inclined to think that she also was desirous of hearing S. Paul. The great Pomp of which S. Luke speaks, hath reminded some of the Diamond on Bernice's finger, mentioned by Iuvenal. Sat. 6. There is mention of her in Tacit. Hist. l. 2. in Iosephus often, and in Gorionides. Some have taken Bernice in the Acts to be a Man's Name, which to me is matter of admiration.

Iulius, Act. 27. 1. In Dio l. 55. and the ancient Inscription which we have in Lipsius's Notes on Tacitus, both the second and the eighth Legion have the Name of Augusta, it is probable that the Augustan Band, of which Iulius was Centurion, belonged to one of those Legions. The Milites Au­gustales in Dio l. 61. and the Equites Augustani in Tacit. Annal. l. 14. were perhaps called so upon some other account, and did not belong to those Legions. The MS. Alex. in Act. 27. 3. hath Iulianus instead of Iulius.

[Page 76]According to Dorotheus, Erastus was Steward of the Church of Ie­rusalem, afterward Bishop of Paneas; and Philemon was Bishop of Gaza.

Apollos with Twelve more. Act. 18. 25. 19. 1. S. August. de unic. Bapt. c. 7. alledges, some who thought that the Twelve Persons lyed in saying that they were Baptized into Iohn's Baptism, but he himself was of another Mind, Tract. 5. in Ioan. and de Bapt. l. 5. c. 9. and so Tertul. de Bapt. c. 10. Origen tom. 8. in Ioan. S. Hieron. contr. Lucifer. Op­tatus l. 5. They are by S. Chrysost. supposed to have been Asian Iews, who going up to Ierusalem at some of the Feasts, heard the fame of Iohn, and were Baptized of him. We may suppose, that Apollos likewise was Baptized by Iohn, when he went up to some of the Feasts.

Albinus succeeded Festus in the Procuratorship of Iudea. All Good Men and Studious of the Law in Ierusalem, were so displeased with Ananus, for Condemning S. Iames and his Fellow-Martyrs, that they not only desired Agrippa to charge him to desist from such rash Proceed­ings, but also acquainted Albinus with his presumptuous Fact in calling a Council to Condemn S. Iames and the rest, which they said he ought not to have done without his leave. Hereupon Albinus Writ a sharp and menacing Letter to Ananus, Ioseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 8.

Zocharias the Son of Baruch was slain by the Zealots in the midst of the Temple, and is supposed by some to be the Zacharias mentioned S. Matth. 23. 35. He hath the Character, that he was a just, unblamea­ble Person, and an Enemy to Wicked Men; see Ioseph. de bel. Iud. l. 4. c. 19. and Gorionid.

Certain of our Lord's Kindred, Nephews or Grandchildren of S. Iude, called the Brother of Christ, were accused to the Emperor Domitian, as being of the Stock of David, but dismissed by him. Being looked upon now not only as the Lords Kinsmen, but also as Martyrs, (because they had born Testimony to the Truth before Domitian) they had the Presi­dence of Churches, and continued to the time of Trajan. They seem to have been only two; see Euseb. l. 3. c. 20, 32. The Person that accused them to Domitian, is in some Copies of Eusebius called [...], in o­thers [...], in others [...], in Nicephorus. l. 3. c. 10. [...], by Ruffinus Revocatus, and by some Evocatus. So that some think that it is not a proper Name, but that he was Miles evocatus. There is frequent mention of Milites evocati in the Roman History, but Dio gives the best account of them, both what they were l. 45. and when they began l. 55. see also l. 48.

Simeon Bishop of Ierusalem, after S. Iames was of the number of them that saw and heard Christ, so Hegesippus ap. Euseb. l. 3. c. 32. See also Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. above in Cleopas, and D. Cave.

The place to which the Christians betook themselves, when they fled out of Ierusalem before the Destruction of it, is said to have been Pella.

Sect. 2.

ATTICUS was the Person to whom Simeon was accused in the time of Trajan. He was amazed to see a Man of the Age of one hundred and twenty years, endure most cruel Torments for ma­ny Days together. Euseb. l. 3. c. 32.

Simeon's Accusers, who had impleaded him as being descended from David, enquiry being made, were found to be of the Royal Line of Iudah themselves. Euseb. ibid.

Tiberian [...]s, Governour of Palaestina Prima, writ to Trajan, That he was wearied out with executing the Laws against the Christians who offered themselves freely to Punishment. Suidas in voc. [...].

Simeon's [...]ess [...]rs in the Second Century according to Euseb. were these that follow:

Iustus the Third Bishop of Ierusalem, whom Epiphan. Haer. 66. calls Iudas. See above in Ioseph called Barsabas.

The Fourth Zache [...]s. Epiphan. and Nicephorus Patriarch. ap Ios, Scalig. call him Zacharias.

The Fifth Tobias.

The Sixth Benjamin.

The Seventh Iohn.

The Eighth Matthias. The Martyrolog. Ianuar. 30. saith, that he suffered much under Hadrian for the Name of Jesus.

The Ninth Philip.

The Tenth Senecas or Seneca.

The Eleventh Iustus.

The Twelfth Levi, or Levis, or Lebes; see Nicephor. l. 3. c. 25.

The Thirteenth Ephres. Epiphan. calls him Vaphres. Nicephorus Patriarch. ap. Vales. and the other Necephorus, Ephrem.

The Fourteenth Ioseph, or Ioses, or Iosis; see Epiphan.

The Fifteenth Iudas. All these were of the Circumcision, Euseb. l. 4. c. 5. Epiphan. Haer. 66. So Sulpitius Severus l. 2. says, that almost all the Iews in Iudea, to Hadrian's time, joyned the observance of the Law, with the Profession of the Faith of Christ. Eusebius could no where find how many years each of these Bishops sate, but it is certain that they continued but a short time in the See, yea, perhaps Simeon alone held it longer than all the Thirteen that followed him.

The Sixteenth Mark, the first after them of the Circumcision; for now a Church begun to be gathered in Ierusalem of the Gentiles. Euseb. l. 4. c. 6. see also Epiphan. and Sulpit. Sever. l. 2. The Martyrol. Octob. 22. says, that he dyed a Martyr.

The Seventeenth Cassianus.

The Eighteenth Publius.

The Nineteenth Maximus.

[Page 78]The Twentieth Iulianus, called by some Iulius; see Nicephor. l. 4. [...]c. 19. in Marg.

The Twenty first Gaius, Euseb. l. 5. c. 12. but in Chron. he calls him Gaianus, as Epiphanius calls him Gratianus, Nicephor. Caius.

The Twenty second Symmachus.

The Twenty third another Gaius, or Caius. See Euseb. Hist. and Chron.

The Twenty fourth, another Iulianus.

The Twenty fifth Capito. Nicephorus Patriarch. in Ios. Scalig. places Elias between Iulianus the Second and him.

The Twenty sixth Ualens. Euseb. l. 5. c. 12. but in Chron. he puts two Bishops between Capito and Valens, viz. Maximus and Antoninus. Epiphan. and Nicephorus Patriarch. agree with his Chron. but the other Nicephor. with the History. The Truth is, those two Bishops seem to be omitted in his History, through the Negligence of the Transcribers, for in that very place, l. 5. c. 12. Euseb. makes Narcissus the Thirtieth Bishop in Succession from the Apostles, and the Fifteenth from the Over­throw of the Iews, by Hadrian; whereas if these two be left out of the Catalogue, Narcissus was not the Thirtieth, but only the Twenty eighth from the one, and only the Thirteenth from the other.

The Twenty seventh, or Twenty ninth Dolic [...]ianus, or Dulychianus.

The Twenty eighth, or Thirtieth Narcissus, of whom hereaf­ter.

Hegesippus was one of those that first succeeded the Apostles, Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. he was near to the time of the Apostles, S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. He Writ in five Books the Ecclesiastical History, from the Passion of Christ to his time, S. Hieron. ibid. There are several fragments of his Writings here and there in Eusebius, who l. 4. c. 22. informs us, that he alledges some things out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Syriack Gospel, and hath some things that relate to the Hebrew Dia­lect, whence he Collects, that he was an Hebrew by Birth, and converted to the Faith of Christ. See the Martyrolog. April. 7.

Iustin M [...]tar was [...] Photius Num. 125. the Son of Priscus Bacchius. He calls himself in his Second Apology, [...], where (say some) [...] plainly shews, that Priscus and Bacchius, are not names of one and the same Person, but Priscus was the Son of Bacchius, and Iustin the Son of Priscus. But it is not necessary that [...] should refer to [...], for (as I con­ceive) [...] denotes, the Inhabitants of Flavia or Neapolis, and the meaning is, that Iustin was of them of Neapolis. The Spanish Annals. ap. Vasaeum, An. Dom. 140. make him the same with Iustin the Historian, the Epitomizer of Trogus Pompeius, and so doth the Fasciculus Temporum; but Vasaeus refutes this, though it is true, that our Iustin, and the Historian, were Contemporaries. Irenaeus hath recorded two sayings of his, one l. 4. c. 14. that he would not have believed our Lord him­self, if he had Preached any other God, than the Maker of the World; the [Page 79] other l. 5. c. 26. that before our Lords coming, Satan durst not blaspheme God, for until that time he knew not of his own Damnation. Tatianus (who calls him the most admirable Iustin) adds a Third, wherein he compares the Devils curing Diseases, to the practice of Thieves, in helping Persons to that which they themselves have stolen. Whereas Euseb. l. 4. c. 18. speaks of a Book of his in which he disputes, [...] de natura Daemonum (see S. Hieron. de vir. illustr.) Suidas instead thereof hath [...] of the Flight of Daemons. Some speak of a Commentary of his on Genesis, others of a Commentary upon the Revelation; but probably the former, is that Commentary on the Hexemeron, mentioned by Anastas. Sinaita, the latter only what he discourseth of the One Thousand years; or per­haps when Euseb. saith of him, that he makes mention of the Revelation, some have improved that mention into a Commentary. The Tract called Quorundam Aristotelicorum dogmatum eversio, may be that which Photius Intitules, Contra Primum & Secundum librum Physicae auscultationis. Posse­vinus mentions a Commentary of his on Dionysius's Eccles. Hierarchy, but never saw it; only he found such an Inscription in some MS. Books. It is imputed to him as a great Error in Chronology, that he in Dialog. cum Tryph. makes Christ to have suffered under Herod the Ascalonite; and some add that he makes his Son Antipas, to have been then the High-Priest, But the latter Imputation is wholly groundless, and all that Iustin saith as to the former is, that the Iews said it, [...]. See the rest in D. Cave.

Tryphon was an Hebrew of the Circumcision, and fled out of Iudea because of the Wars there, (viz. in the Emperor Adrian's time) as he himself told Iustin in his Dialogue with him. In init. There is some Affi­nity between the Names Tryphon and Tarphon: also Euseb. l. 4. c. 18. saith, that Tryphon was a Man of great Note amongst the Hebrews, therefore some have thought that he was R. Tarphon the wealthy Priest, the Master, (say some) the Collegue, or Associate (say others) of R. Akiba; see K. D. Ganz.

Narciss [...]s Bishop of Ierusalem was a Chief Person in a Synod assembled about the Paschal Controversy, Eus. l. 5. c. 23. The Inhabitants related ma­ny Miracles wrought by him, this amongst the rest. In the Easter-Vigils it happened, that the Ministers wanted Oyl, at which the Multitude was much grieved. Narcissus seeing this commanded Water to be brought, over which having prayed, he bid them pour it out into the Lamps with a firm Faith in God, which they did, and found the Water changed into the Nature of Oyl; some of which the Brethren reserved for a Memo­rial of the Miracle. Certain lewd Persons fearing some severe censure from Narcissus; to prevent this, accused him of a very heinous crime, confirming the Accusation with grievous Oaths and Imprecations. One wished that if he lied he might be burnt to ashes, the second that he might die by a cruel Disease, the third that he might be smitten with Blindness; all which befel them. A small spark of Fire kindling in the House of the first, consumed it, him, and his whole Family to ashes. The second was seized [Page 80] from head to foot, with a most grievous Disease. The third being a­larmed with these dreadful Judgments upon the other, confessed their wicked Compact, and wept for it so much and so long, that he lost both his Eyes. In the mean time Narcissus much troubled at the Accusation, (though none of the Faithful believed it) had retired into Deserts, but after some years, he shewed himself again, as one risen from the Dead, and being now more admired than ever (God having vindicated his inno­cence so miraculously) was intreated to resume his Bishoprick, Euseb. l. 6. c. 9, 10. Being one hundred and sixteen years old, (not one hundred and six as Nicephor. l. 5. c. 10.) he saluted the Antinoites, and besought them to be of one Mind, Euseb. l. 6. c. 11. Hierosolymis natalis beati Narcissi Epis­copi. Martyrolog. Octob. 29.

Theoph [...]lus was Cornelius's Successor, and the third Bishop of Cesarea; so the Constitut. Apost. l. 7. c. 47. However he was Bishop there, and presided in a Synod, held about the Controversie of Easter, together with Narcissus, Euseb. l. 5. c. 23.

Sect. 3.

WHEN Narcissus had gone aside into the Desarts, the Neighbour­ing Bishops ordained Dios, or Dius, Bishop of Ierusalem, who held not the See long. To him succeeded Germanion, or Ger­manio, and to him Gordius, in whose time Narcissus appeared again after his recess, Euseb. l. 6. c. 10.

Alexander was a Confessor in the Persecution under the Emperor Se­verus. Being admonished by a Vision he went up to Ierusalem, to visit the places there, and to Pray. Coming thither he was met, and joyful­ly received by the chief Persons of that Church, who were also war­ned in a Vision to hasten out of the City, and meet the Bishop ordained of God for them. So by the Concurrence and Assistance of the Bishops of the Neighbouring Cities, they constrained him to abide with them, and to assist Narcissus, who by reason of his great Age, was now unable to execute the Office. Nicephorus l. 5. c. 10. tells of a Voice from Heaven, after they were gone out of the City to meet Alexander, which incouraged them to receive him as their Bishop. He Writ sundry Epistles. One to the Antinoites, desiring them to be of one Mind. Another to the Church of Antioch, Writ in Prison, in which he Congratulates their Happiness, in having Asclepiades for their Bishop. A third to Origen, in which he calls Pantenus and Clemens Al [...]xand. his Masters and Progenitors, acknow­ledging how much he had profited by them. A fourth to Demetrius, who expressed his dislike of Origen's expounding the Scriptures in the Church, when he was not in Holy Orders, but Alexander produced sundry Exam­ples of those that had done the like. He and the Bishop of Cesarea ap­proved themselves firm Friends to Origen all along, they also ordained him Presbyter, about which there was no small stir. He erected a Library [Page 81] at Ierusalem. In Decius's Persecution, he was brought before the Presi­dent at Cesarea, and constantly confessing the Faith, by him cast into Pri­son; where having now attained to a great Age, he ended his mortal Life, Euseb. l. 6. c. 8, 11, 14, 19,20, 23, 39. and in Chron. and S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. in Origene & Alexandro. As to his Ordaining Origen, he said that he did it upon the Testimonial of Demetrius himself, S. Hieron. ibid. in Alexandro. Alexander sent his Letter to the Church of Antioch, by Clemens a Presbyter, upon whom he bestowed an high Encomium. S. Hieron. ibid. in Clement. Alex. thinks, that that Clemens was S. Clemens Alexandrinus, but according to Ruffinus's Translation of Euseb. l. 6. c. 11. he was a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch. Sixtus Senensis saith, that Alexander left behind him a Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians; S. Hieron. also in his Preface to that Epistle, mentions an Alexander that was the Author of a Commentary upon it; but he calls him an old Here­tick, therefore he could not be our Alexander. To our Alexander, Cle­mens Alex. dedicates his Book called The Ecclesiastical Canon, and Dio­nysius of Alexandria gave an honourable Testimony of him, Euseb. l. 6. c. 13, 46.

Clemens Alexandrinus was sometime in Palestine, as he himself ac­quaints us in Stromat. l. 1. The Master which he had there is supposed to have been either Theophilus abovementioned, or one Theodotus, the Epitome of his Hypotyposes, being thus inscribed, [...]. See Vales. Annot. in Euseb. l. 5. c. 11.

Theoctistus, Bishop of Cesarea, had a great Veneration for Origen, as Alexander Bishop of Ierusalem had, joyned with Alexander in Ordaining him Presbyter, also in defending him against the Accusations of Demetrius. He was one of those that invited Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, to a Sy­nod held at Antioch, about the Novatian Heresie; see Euseb. l. 6. c. 19, 23, 27, 46.

Aphricanus, a Person of great Renown, writ an Epistle to Origen, touching the History of Susanna, another to A [...]istides, about the seeming Dissonancy of S. Matthew, and S. Luke, as to our Saviours Genealogy. He left five Volumes of Chronicles accurately composed, and was Author of the Books called [...], Euseb. l. 1. c. 6, 7. and l. 6. c. 31. In his Epi­stle to Origen he calls him his Son. His History or Chronicle begun at the Creation of the World, and was continued to the Empire of Macri­nus, Photius Num. 34. The [...] were written in fourteen Books says Photius, in twenty four says Suidas, in voc. [...], but this diffe­rence might happen by the fault of the Transcribers. Whereas Euseb. in Chron. and S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. give Aphricanus the name of Iulius, Suidas calls him [...], adding that he was a Philosopher, (whereas others call him an Historian, Euseb. l. 1. c. 6. and S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto c. 29.) and a Man of Libya, whereas he is generally supposed to be of Palestine. Some therefore have thought that it was another Aphricanus (not ours) that was Author of the Books inscribed [...], and when they [Page 82] are prest with the Authority of Euseb. Photius, Suidas, Niceph [...]r. l. 5. c. 21. the [...], & Historiarum Synagoge, ap. Ios. Scal. who do all ascribe them to our Aphricanus; they say that the passage concerning the [...] crept into Eusebius's Copies, and they mi [...]led all the rest, and the truth is, it doth not appear either in Ruffinus's Translation of Eusebius, or in S. Hieron. de vir. illustr. Tri [...]hemius attributes other Books to Aphri­canus besides the above-mentioned, as, Of the Trinity of Attalus, Of the Circumcision, Of the Passeover, and Of the Sabbath. He saith also that he erected and furnished a Library at Cesarea at his own Charge. He un­dertook an Embassy to Rome about rebuilding Emmaus, Euseb. in Chron. and S. Hieron. de vir. illustr.

Origen was s [...]veral times in Palestine. if any would know what he did, or is [...]aid to have suffered there, they may consult D. Cave in his Life, §. 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23.

Firmilianus, Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, had that Esteem and Re­verence for Origen that he would come sometimes from thence to visit him, and would stay a considerable time that he might improve himself by his Society and Converse, Euseb. l. 6. c. 27.

Theodorus (al. Gregorius) and his Brother Athe [...]dorus, were Ori­gen's Scholars at Cesarea among many others, whom the Fame of such a Master has drawn, not only from the Country adjacent, but also from Provinces more remote, Euseb. l. 6. c. 30. See the rest in D. Cave in the Life of S. Greg. Thaumaturgus.

Another Theodorus is reckoned among Origen's Scholars, by Nice­phor l. 5. c. 20. of whom he says, In Palaestina cum magna gloria sacerdotio functus est.

Protostetus was a Presbyter of Cesarea, and a Glorious Confessor in the Persecution by Maximinus, in which he suffered no small Affliction. Origen dedicated his Book of Martyrdom to him, and Ambrose, Euseb. l. 6. c. 28. See Origen exhort [...] ad Martyr.

Repara [...]a, a Noble Virgin, is said to have obtained the Crown of Mar­tyrdom at Cesarea under Decius, being, after she had with much Christian courage endured sundry sorts of Torment, at last beheaded. Some fansied that they saw her Soul fly up to Heaven in the shape of a Dove, Marty­rolog. Octob. 8. and Volaterran, l. 19. who says, that she was but twelve years old.

Christophorus the Martyr mentioned by Nicephor. l. 5. c. 27. is said by Volaterran, l. 14. to have been genere Iud [...]us, natione Chana­naeus.

Mazabanes, or as Epiphan. Haer. 66. calls him Mazabanus, was Bi­shop of Ierusalem next after Alexander, Euseb. l. 6. c. 39. and l. 7. c. 5. and in Chron.

Priscus, Malchus, and Alexander, blaming themselves for their sloth, in not striving for the Crown of Martyrdom, repaired to the Pre­sident of Cesarea, and confessing themselves Christians, were sentenced by him to be devoured with Wild Beasts, Euseb. l. 7. c. 12.

[Page 83] Domnus succeeded Theoctistus in the See of Cesarea, Euseb. l. 7. c. 14.

The [...]tecnus followed Domnus, and governed the Church with great Care and Diligence. He had been Origen's Scholar, and was present at a Synod at Antioch, against Paulus Samosatenus. He Ordained Anatolius Bishop, designing him for his Successor, Euseb. l. 7. c. 14, 28.

Anatolius did not succeed Theotecnus as was designed, yet for some time he governed the Church of Cesarea together with him, Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.

Hymeraeus was Bishop of I [...]rusalem after Mazabanes, and present at a Synod held at Antioch, against Paulus Samosatenus, Euseb. l. 7. c. 28. Ni­cephorus l. 5. c. 26. says, that he was of a very great Age.

Marinus, a Person rich and well descended, being to be advanced to a Military Dignity called the Vine, or to the place of a Centurion, another steps forth and objecteth, that by the Ancient Laws he was incapable of that Dignity, being a Christian, and not sacrificing to the Emperors. Being examined by the President whether he was so, and confessing it, he hath only the space of three Hours granted to deliberate. When he came forth from the President, Theotecnus beforementioned took him by the hand, lead him into the Church, and having brought him into the Chan­cel, after other discourses, shewed him the Sword that hung by his side, laying the New Testament over against it, and bid him chuse whether of them he would. Marinus forthwith takes up the Testament, whereupon Theotecnus said to him, Hold fast then, cleave firmly to God, and thou shalt enjoy the things that thou desirest. So having received the Bishops solemn Benediction, and the time allowed for deliberating being expired, he is called again to the Bar, and there manifested that undaunted Courage and firm Resolution, that he was sentenced to be beheaded, and the Sen­tence was accordingly executed, Euseb. l. 7. c. 15. Ruffinus makes Ma­rinus to have been a Citizen of Ierusalem. Of the Vine, see Lucan. l. 6.

Astyrius a Roman Senator, very dear to the Emperors, rich as well as noble, being present when Marinus was beheaded, laid his Body (being decently bound up) upon his Shoulders, and interr'd it very honourably. Several things are related of him; This amongst the rest: Near Cesarea Philippi or Paneas, is the Hill Panius, at the Foot whereof are certain Fountains which are the Original of the River Iordan. Here the Inha­bitants on a solemn Day offered Sacrifice, which being cast into those Waters, by some diabolical Art never appeared afterward. Astyrius being present at the offering the Sacrifice, and pitying the deluded Peo­ple (who looked upon its Disappearing as a notable Miracle) with Eyes lifted up, pray'd to God through Christ, that he would rebuke Satan, and restrain him from seducing men. Which done, the Sacrifice is said to have floated on the top of the Water, Euseb. l. 7. c. 17. Ruffinus saith that Astyrius was himself a Martyr.

Acbaius or Acheus was the President that condemned Marinus. Som [...] Question there is, whether when Euseb. l. 7. c. 15 [...] saith [...], [Page 84] we are to take [...] to be the President's proper Name, or the Name of his Country. Of his Country we must say, if we with some render the Words thus, Achivus hic erat genere. But when we consider that [...] was a proper Name, as well as a common, (we may instance in that [...] of whom Polybius speaks so much, l. 5. and 8.) we may per­haps incline to think, that it was his proper Name.