Works

VERS. IV.

WE will make some enquiry both as to the place and time wherein these things were spoken and do • e.

I. We derive the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Salt, but from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Assembly, or Congregation. So the Lexicons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Assembly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , When thou shalt give notice to the Persians to gather their forces together. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cyrus having gathered together his fathers flocks and herds of Goats, and Sheep and Oxen, sacrificed them, &c.

II. Our Savior after his Resurrection never appeared amongst his Disciples but by surprise and unexpectedly, excepting that one time in the Mountain of Galilee, where he had appointed to meet with them, Matth. XXVIII. 16. So that I would refer these words therefore to that passage in Saint Matthew, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify his meeting with them in the Mountain of Galilee, according to the appointment he had made. Nor do those words hinder, that it is said, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, &c. as if it should necessarily be supposed that they were now at Jerusalem; that passage ver. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when they were come together, may signify their assembling in that place, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he commanded them, &c. may very well be construed, that he commanded them to repair straightway to Jerusalem, and not to depart thence.

III. I conceive therefore that these things were spoken and done in the mountain of Galilee (where probably the five hundred at once were together to see him, 1 Cor. XV. 6.) and that when the time of his ascension drew near. For reason would persuade us, that they would not delay their return into the City when he had commanded them thither; nor that he commanded them thither, but when the time drew near wherein he was to meet them there.

And whereas he adds in the very same place and discourse, ver. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not many days hence; it is necessary that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have its due force, having not been added here in vain; but seems to respect the days that were yet to come between that and Pentecost.

We have frequent mention amongst the Rabbins concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Passover, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of Pentecost; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Feast of Tabernacles. Now the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Paras, (themselves being the interpreters) was that space of fifteen days immediately before any of these Feasts. So that five and thirty days after the second of the Passover, began the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the second day of those fifteen was (this year) the Lord's-day, on which I almost think they had that assembly on the mountain of Galilee, and that the Disciples being remanded from thence to Jerusalem, got thither within three days. But lest we should straighten the matter within too narrow a compass of time, and seem too nice and curious about the very day, I should judge we can hardly more properly apply these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being assembled together with them, than to that meeting on the mountain of Galilee, which Christ himself had made the appointment of. From thence it was that Christ commanded them to Jerusalem, a place which having tainted itself with the blood of their Lord, they might probably have very little mind to return to again, had it not been by some special command: and do we think they would have gone thither to have celebrated the Feast of Pentecost, or indeed have been present all at it, in that place, had not their Master directed them so to do?

VERS. VI.

IT is very apparent that the Apostles had the same phansiful conceptions about the earthly reign of Christ with the rest of that Nation. But yet they seem here a little to doubt and hesitate, either as to the thing itself, or at least as to the time; and that, not without cause, considering some things which had so lately fallen our. Lord, wilt thou restore the Kingdom to those that have dealt so basely and perfidiously with thee? what, to this generation, that lies under the actual guilt of thy bloodshed? Or indeed, to this Nation at all, which by the perpetration of the late wickedness had made itself unworthy of so great a kindness? Now, what our Savior returns for answer, viz. that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons, does not in the least hint any such Kingdom ever to be, but he openly rebukes their curiosity in enquiring into the times, and in some measure the opinion itself, when he tells them, that they should receive power from Heaven, and should be his witnesses, &c.

What that Nation apprehended concerning the temporal reign of the Messias, as to many things they speak plainly and openly enough, but in other things, a man may inquire, but can hardly satisfy himself what they mean or intend. To omit others, they are in three things somewhat obscure.

I. Whether the ten Tribes be to be admitted to the felicities of this reign. For as to this matter it is disputed by the Rabbins. The ten Tribes are not to return. But in the Jerusalem Talmudists it is expressed thus, The ten Tribes have not a part in the world to come. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neither shall they see the future age. Which is discoursed in the Babylonian writers, viz. whether this be not to be understood of those individual persons only, that were carried away by the King of Assyria; that they indeed shall not partake of the blessings of the Messias, though their posterity should. So that there may lie hid something of ambiguity in the word Israel, in this passage we are now examining; that is, whether in the conception of those that speak it, the ten Tribes are included yea or no. For commonly the name Israel amongst the Jews, was wont to be taken for the Jews only, so that they called themselves Israel, and the ten Tribes, by way of distinction, the Ten Tribes. In which sense, and according to which distinction, that of the Apostle seems to be said. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. 2 Cor. XI. 22.

II. What opinion was to be had of the two Messiah's, Messiah ben David, and Messiah ben Joseph, or ben Ephraim, as he is called by the Paraphrast, Cant. IV. 5. Whether they were to reign at the same time, the one over the ten Tribes, the other over the two: or whether in succession to one another, both of them over the whole Nation? Messiah ben Joseph was to be cut off. And then, what must become of his Subjects, whether they were of the ten Tribes or of the two, or of all?

III. It is further obscure in their writings, whether they had an apprehension that the Messiah should reign alone, or whether he should substitute any King or Kings under him, or after him. It seems probable to them that the Messiah should reign his thousand years alone; but then, as to that age which they called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (if Eternity be not meant by it) what did they conceive must be done in it? whether Kings should be substituted in it of the race of David? They can dream of nothing but mere Earthly things: and if from such kind of dreams we might conjecture what kind of future state that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be, we may guess what should then be done. But to what purpose is it to trace error, where, as we cannot so much as fix a foot, so the further we proceed the more we slip?

What kind of Kingdom the Apostles had framed in their imaginations is not easy to conceive: There was something that might seem to cherish that opinion about a temporal reign, wherewith they had been leavened from their very childhood; and that was, That not only Christ, but several of the Saints had rose from the dead; and that the Kingdom of the Messiah should commence from some resurrection, they had already learnt from some of their own traditions. But in what manner should Christ now reign? His body was made a spiritual body. Now he appears, anon he vanisheth and disappears again, and how will this agree with Mortals? The traditions indeed suppose the Messiah would be perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one of the dead: but when he should revive he was to have the same kind of body with other men. This was apprehended by some in Sanhedr. that those dead mentioned Ezek. XXXVII. did revive, returned into the Land of Israel, married wives and begat Children: I myself, saith R. Judah ben Betirah, am one of their offspring, and these very Phylacteries which my Grandfather bequeathed to me, belonged to them. Now, who is it can so much as imagine, what opinion the Apostles conceived concerning the bodily presence of Christ in this Kingdom of his which they had been dreaming?

VERS. XII.

I Have already said something in Luke, XXIV. concerning a Sabbath-days journey. I will add a few things in this place. Whosoever goeth beyond the bounds of the City on the Sabbath day, let him be scourged, because it is said, let no one go out from his place on the seventh day, this place, is the bounds of the City. The Law doth not determine the compass of these bounds. But the wise men define these bounds from without, to be about twelve miles, according to the Israelites camp: for Moses our Master said unto them, ye shall not go out of your camp. However, it is ordained by the words of the Scribes, let no one go out of the City beyond two thousand cubits. For two thousand cubits are the suburbs of the City. From whence we may learn, that it is lawful to walk clear through the City on the Sabbath day, be it as spacious as Nineveh, and whether it be walled or no. He may also expatiate beyond the City to the length of two thousand cubits from every side of it—But if a man go beyond these two thousand cubits, they scourge him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the scourge of Rebellion, that is, if he go so far as twelve miles, but if he go out of the City beyond twelve miles, though it be but the space of one cubit, he is scourged according to the Law. Let us comment a little.

I. It was commonly believed that the Israelites encamping in the wilderness, was about twelve miles square. The length of the Israelites camp was twelve miles, and the breadth twelve miles.

The breadth of the waters (that is, those that were divided in Jordan) was twelve miles answerable to the camp of Israel, according as our Rabbins expound it. The waters which came down from above, stood and rose up upon an heap, Jos. III. 16. And what was the height of these waters? it was twelve miles height upon twelve miles breadth, according to the camp of Israel. Where the Gloss is, The camp of the Israelites was twelve miles upon twelve miles, (that is, twelve miles square) and they past over Jordan according to their encampings, viz. the whole breadth of their camp past over together for the space of twelve miles. Hence that in Hieros. Sotah, Adam and Zarethan (i. e. the place, from whence, and the place to which the waters were divided) were distant from one another twelve miles.

Whether they took the number of twelve miles precisely, from allusion to the twelve Tribes, or from any other reason retained that exact number and space, is not easy to determine; yet this is certain, that the Israelites camp was very spacious, and had a very large compass, especially granting a miles distance between the first Tents and the Tabernacle. And indeed, as to this commonly received opinion of the camps being twelves miles square on every side, we shall hardly believe it exceeds the just proportion, if we consider the vast numbers of that people: nay it might rather seem a wonder, that the encamping of so many Myriads, or rather so many hundred thousands, should not exceed that proportion. Place the Tabernacle in the midst: allow the space of one mile from each side of it (in which space were the tents of the Levites ) before you come to the first tents of the Israelites, and then guess what length and breadth and thickness all the other tents would take up.

II. It is supposed lawful for any one to have walked upon the Sabbath day, not only from the outmost border of the camp to the Tabernacle, but also through the whole camp from one end of it to the other; Because the whole encamping was of one and the same, and not a diverse jurisdiction. According to that known Canon concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Commixion or Communion of Courts. And hence it is that Maimonides makes such mention of twelve miles, and the lawfulness of walking on the Sabbath day through any City, be it as spacious as Nineveh itself.

III. But when the people were disposed of and placed in their several Cities and Towns in the Land of Canaan, and the face of things quite changed from what it had been in the wilderness, it seemed good to the wise men to circumscribe the space of a Sabbath-days journey within the bounds of two thousand Cubits. And that partly, because the inmost borders of the Israelites tents, was so much distant from the Tabernacle, as may be gathered from Jos. III. 4. and partly because it is said, Numb. XXXV. 4, 5. From the wall of the City ye shall measure a thousand Cubits, and from without the City ye shall measure two thousand Cubits. Now, a thousand Cubits are the suburbs of the City, and two thousand Cubits are the bounds of the Sabbath.

IV. As to these words therefore of the Evangelist now before us, we must suppose they do not define the exact distance of the mount of Olives from Jerusalem, which indeed was but five furlongs, nor do they take in the town of Bethany within the bounds of the Sabbath, which was distant fifteen furlongs, Joh. XI. 18. but they point out that place of the Mount, where our Savior ascended into Heaven, viz. that place where that tract of the Mount of Olives ceased to be called Bethphage, and began to be called Bethany. Concerning which we have discoursed more largely in another place.

VERS. XIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To an upper room, in Talmudic Language.

I. It was very familiar with that Nation, that when they were to concern themselves with the Law, or any parts of Religion out of the Synagogue, they went up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into an upper Room, some uppermost part of the house. Abniah a very rich man, invited Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai, and his Disciples, and Nicodemus, &c. to a Feast which he made at the Circumcision of his Son: when the feast was done, Rabban Johanan and his Disciples went up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into an upper Room, and read, and expounded till the fire shone round about them, as when the Law was given at Mount Sinai. Abniah was amazed at the honor that was given to the Law, and so devoted his Son to the Law. Take notice that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an upper-room is distinct from a dining-room, where they dined and supped, and there it was they handled the Law and divine things: to which if that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 large upper room mentioned Mark XIV. 15. and Luke XXII. 12. where our Savior celebrated the Passover, had any affinity, it seems to have been something different from a common dining-room.

II. Such a kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or upper-room, I presume was the Beth Midras of this or that Rabbin. R. Simeon, saith, I saw 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sons of the upper room that they were few in number, that is, (if I take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aright) the Sons or Disciples of Beth Midras; but I will not contend in this matter.

Those are the traditions which they delivered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the upper room of Hananiah, ben Hezekiah ben Garon: and many instances of that kind. Of this kind seems that upper chamber at Troas, mentioned, Acts XX. 8. And so, where we meet with the Church in such or such an ones house, it seems to look this way: viz. some upper part of the house, sequestered on purpose for the assembling of the Church, in the same manner that the Beth Midras was set apart for the meeting of the Disciples of this or that Rabbin. And as the Beth Midras was always in the house of some Rabbin, so probably for the most part were these Churches in the house of some Minister or Doctor of the Church. Was not Aquila such an one, in whose house we find a Church mentioned? Rom. XVI. 5. compared with Acts XVIII. 26. Was not Philemon such an one? Philem. ver. 2.

VERS. XV.

THE same number was Ezra's great Synagogue. Ezra was the head of all, he was the twenty second receiver of Traditions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and his whole Sanhedrin consisted of an hundred and twenty Elders. There was no stated Council in any City under this number. How many men are requisite in a City, that it might be capable of having a Council settled in it? An hundred and twenty. What is their office? Three and twenty are to make up the number of the lesser Sanhedrin. And there are three classes of twenty three; behold there are ninety two. There are ten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be at leisure for the Synagogue; behold there are an hundred and two. Two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Plantiff and the Defendant) who have business before the Sanhedrin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two crafty witnesses (those who by their counter-evidence might implead the witnesses if possible of a lie.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two counter witnesses, against those counter witnesses. Two Scribes. Two Chazanim, two collectors of the Alms, and a third to distribute. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Physician. (The Gloss hath it, one to circumcise Infants) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Artificer, Surgeon, (the Gloss is, one to let blood) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Libellary, i. e. one that was to write bills of Espousals, Divorces, Contracts, &c. and a Schoolmaster, behold an hundred and twenty. If you will pick anything out of this parity of number, you may. However certainly the number of those we have now before us, ought always to occur to mind, when we read such passages as these, They were all with one accord in one place, Act. II. 1. They were all scattered abroad excepting the Apostles, Chap. VIII. 1. So Chap. XI. 19. &c.

Beside the Twelve Apostles, and Seventy two Disciples, who can tell us who those other thirty six were that were to fill up the number? what kind of men, of what degree and quality, who though they were neither of the number of the Twelve Apostles, nor the Seventy Disciples, yet were admitted members of that great and holy Consistory. Reason itself seems against it, that any women should be accounted of that number. As also it is plain, that though there were more in the City that believed, yet these were for some special cause and reason ascribed into this peculiar fellowship and number. As to the Twelve, and the Seventy, we need not inquire; as to the rest, let us see whether it may not be intimated to us, ver. 21. that they had been the followers of Christ in company with the others from the very first of his publishing the Gospel.

That Peter should be always in the head of them, and have the chief parts in the whole History, as their Prolocutor and chief actor, must be attributed.

• 1. To his Seniority, he being older than any of the other twelve. And whereas under this notion of his age he had been their chief speaker all the while that our Savior conversed amongst them, it was but just and reasonable he should hold the same place and quality, now that their Lord was gone.
• 2. To his repentance. As what was but necessary that he who had so scandalously fallen might by his future zeal and religion, as much as possible give some considerable testimonies both of his repentance and recovery.
• 3. He was designed to the Apostleship of Circumcision, as the chief Minister; it was fit therefore that he should be chief amongst those of the Circumcision. But when we style him the chief Minister of the Circumcision, we do not dream of any Primacy he had over the other Ministers of the Circumcision; only that the greatest work, and the widest space of that Ministry fell to his lot, viz. Mesopotamia, or the Babylonish and Assyrian Captivity, namely, the Jews in Babylon, and the Ten Tribes mixed with them. And when we speak of him as acting the chief and principal parts, we do not believe the rest of the Apostles idle, we know they were endowed with equal authority, an equal gift of Miracles, equal number of Tongues, equal wisdom, and an equal power of Preaching the Gospel; but that he for the reasons above mentioned had shewn his zeal, industry, and activity in some ways and measures very extraordinary.

VERS. XVIII.

THE Vulgar and Erasmus have it, Suspensus crepuit medius: Being hanged he cracked asunder in the midst. So the Italian Translation, Appicato crepo pelmezzo; rendering St. Matthew rather than St. Luke; and I question indeed whether they do rightly take the mind of St. Matthew while they so strictly confine the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to being hanged. I have produced my conjecture concerning this business at Mat. XXVII. viz. that the Devil immediately after Judas had cast back his money into the Temple, caught him up into the air, strangled him, threw him headlong, and dashed him in pieces upon the ground. For,

• I. It is questionable enough whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do necessarily and singly denote he hanged himself, and not as well, he was hanged or choked. And indeed whether the word always suppose the Halter: how the learned Hiensius hath defended the negative, we may consult him upon this place, and upon Mat. XXVII.
• II. If Judas hanged himself as is commonly believed, and commonly so painted, how could it be said of him that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he fell headlong. Grant that upon the breaking of the Halter he might fall upon the ground, yet what matter is it whether he fell on his face, or that he fell backward. But if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be derived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Grammarians would have it, it may be headlong as well as upon the face, that is as upon the face, is opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to supine or backward.
• III. Histories tell us of persons strangled by the Devil. That is a known passage in Tob. III. 8. Asmodeus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so it is in the Heb. of P. Fagius) strangled Sarah's seven husbands, &c. and it may be the less wonder if the Devil being corporally seated in this wretch, should at last strangle him.
• IV. There are also Histories of the Devil snatching up some into the air, and carrying them away with him. Now of all mortals no wretch did ever more deserve so direful a fate than this Traitor; not did any other death become the most impious of all mankind than the dreadfullest the Devil (to whom he was entirely given up) could inflict, as what might be of most horror to himself, and terror to others.
• V. The words immediately following, That this was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, ver. 19. argue it was a thing of no common and ordinary event, and must be something more than hanging himself, which was an accident not so very unusual in that Nation.

A certain Syrian saw a man who fell from the roof of his house upon the ground, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his belly burst and his bowels gusht out. The Syrian brought the Son of him that had thus fallen, and slew him before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but at length it seemed so. The Gloss telleth us he did not strike or hurt the boy, but made as if he would have killed him; because he being loath to meddle with the man's bowels himself, for fear lest he should any way displace them; he seemed as if he had killed the boy, that so the father upon the sight of it groaning and fetching strong and deep sighs, might draw in his bowels into their proper place again.

The Devil had dwelt in this wretch for three days or thereabout, from the time that he had entered him upon his receiving the Sop, Joh. XIII. and now by an horrid eruption tearing out his bowels he goes out again.

VERS. XIX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A field of blood, so called both as it had been purchased with the price of blood, and as it had been watered with the blood of this Traitor; for hither I presume the Devil had thrown him headlong; and upon this event it was that the Priests were moved to purchase this very field; and so in a twofold sense it might be said of this Traitor, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he purchased a field, both as it was bought with his money, and sealed with his blood. If Aceldama was in that quarter of the City that it is now shewn in, to strangers, that is, between the East and the South, as Borchard tells us; then it was in the valley of Hinnom or thereabout.

VERS. XXV.

BAlaam went to his own place, that is, into Hell. It is not said of the friends of Job, that they each of them came from his own house, or his own City, or his own Country, but from his own place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, from a place cut out for them in Hell . The Gloss is, from his own place, that is, from Hell, appointed for Idolaters. Whosoever betrays an Israelite into the hands of the Gentiles hath no part in the world to come. If so, then where must he have his place that betrayed the very Messiah of Israel?

VERS. XXIII.

I. AMongst the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joseph are one and the same name. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose saith, in Babylon the Syrian tongue, &c. which being recited in Sotah , is thus expressed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Joseph said, In Babylon, &c. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose in Hieros. Jom tobh , is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Joseph in Bab. Berac. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jose ben Johanan in Avoth , is Joseph ben Johanan in Maimonides Preface to Misnah. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Mat. XXVII. 56. and Mark VI. 3. is rendered in the Vulgar, Joseph. See Beza upon the place now before us.

II. I would therefore suspect that this Joseph who is called Barsabas, might be Joses the Son of Alpheus, the brother of James the less, who as James also was called the Just; nor could we suppose any a more likely Candidate for the Apostleship, than he who was brother to so many of the Apostles, and had been so oftentimes named with James. What the word Barsabas might signify, it is not so easy to determine, because Sabas may agree with so many Hebrew words; the Nomenclators render it, The Son of Conversion, Son of quiet, Son of an Oath. (But by the way who can tell what Etymology the Arabic Interpreter in Bib. Polygl. refer'd to when he rendered it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barzaphan? ) I would write it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar Saba, which also the Erpenian Arab. does) i. e. a wise Son, unless you had rather Son of an old man. There is also another Barsabas, Chap. XV. 22. Judas surnamed Barsabas, by whom if Judas the Apostle be to be understood, let Joses and he (both Barsabas ) be brothers, both of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sons of old Alpheus.

CHAP. II.

VERS. I.

I. THIS word Pentecost, seems to be taken into use by the Hellenist Jews, to signify this Feast, which also almost all the Versions retain, the Western especially, and amongst the Eastern, the Syriac and Ethiopic. The Hebraizing Jews commonly call this Feast by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from which one of the Arabicks differs very little when it renders it in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is only interserted; the other omits the word wholly, and only hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the day of the fifty.

II. It is well enough known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Holy Scriptures was an Holy-day, Levite. XXIII. 36. Deut. XVI. 8. and the reason why the Jews so peculiarly appropriate it to the Feast of Pentecost, seems to be this, because this Feast consisted in one solemn day, whereas the Feast of Passover, and of Tabernacles had more days. As the days of the Feast are seven. R. Chaija saith, because the Pentecost is but for one day, is the mourning so too? They say unto him, thou arguest from a far fetched tradition. Where the Gloss hath it, That this Feast is but for one day, we learn from the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The men of the Town Mahaesia are strong of heart, for they see the glory of the Law twice in the year. The Gloss is, Thither all Israel is gathered together in the Month Adar, that they may hear the Traditions concerning that Passover in the School of Rabh Asai: and in the Month Elul, that they may hear the Traditions concerning the Feast of Tabernacles. But they were not so gathered together 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the Feast of Pentecost, because that is not above one day.

Hence that Baithusean may be the better believed in his dispute with Rabban Johanan , Moses our Master (saith he) will love Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he knows that the Feast of Pentecost is but for one day.

III. And yet there is mention of a second Holy-day in Pentecost, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabh Papa hath shammatiz'd those bearers that bury the dead on the first Feast-day of Pentecost, &c. where the mention of the first Feast-day hints to us that there is a second, which we find elsewhere asserted in express terms. R. Simeon ben Jozedek saith, in eighteen days any single person repeats the Hallel over, that is to say in the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, in the eight days of the Feast of Dedication, the first day of the Passover, and the first day of Pentecost. But in the captivity they did it in one and twenty days. In the nine days of the Feast of Tabernacles, in the eight days of the Feast of Dedication, in the two Feast-days of the Passover, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the two Feast-days of Pentecost.

Whereas it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the captivity, the difficulty is answered; for although in the land of Israel there was but one solemn day in the Feast of Pentecost, yet amongst the Jews in foreign Countries there were two; which also happened in other Solemnities. For instance, within Palestine they kept but one day holy in the beginning of the year, viz. the first day of the Month Tisri; but in Babylon and other foreign Countries they observed both the first and the second day. And the reason was, because at so great a distance from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, they could not be exactly certain of the precise day as it had been stated by the Sanhedrin, they observed therefore two days, that by the one or the other they might be sure to hit upon the right.

IV. God himself did indeed institute but one Holy-day in the Feast of Pentecost, Levite. XXIII. and therefore is it more peculiarly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a solemn day, because it had but one Feast-day. And yet that Feast hath the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the same titles that the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Passover had, Exod. XXIII. 14, &c. and all the males appeared in this Feast as well as in the others; nor was this Feast without its Chagigah anymore than the rest. So that however the first day of Pentecost only was the Holy and solemn day, yet the Feast itself was continued for seven days. So the Doctors in Rosh hashanah, R. Oshaiah saith, whence comes it that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Pentecost hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compensations for all the seven days? because the Scripture saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Feast of unleaven'd bread, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Feast of Weeks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Feast of Tabernacles. He compares the Feast of Weeks (i. e. Pentecost) with the Feast of unleaven'd bread. That hath compensations for all the seven days, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so the Feast of Weeks (i. e. Pentecost) hath compensations for all the seven days. They called that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compensations, when any one had not made his just offerings in the beginning of the Feast, he repaired and compensated this negligence or defect of his by offering in any other of the seven days. And thus much may suffice as to this whole Feast in general. Now as to the very day of Pentecost itself it may not be amiss to add something.

I. It is well known that the account of weeks and days from the Passover to Pentecost took its beginning from, and depended upon the day of offering the sheaf of the firstfruits, Levite. XXIII. 15. But through the ambiguity of the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the morrow of the Sabbath, there hath arose a controversy betwixt the Scribes and Baithusians, whether by the Sabbath, ought to be understood the weekly Sabbath (or as the Scribes commonly called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sabbath of the Creation ) or whether it should be understood of the Sabbatical day, i. e. the first day of the seven days of Passover, which was a solemn day, Exod. XII. 16. the Baithusians contend vehemently for the former, and will not have the sheaf offered but after the weekly Sabbath. As suppose the first day of the Passover should fall out upon the first day of the week, they would stay till the whole week with the Sabbath-day was run out, and then on the morrow of that Sabbath, i. e. the first day of the following week they offered the sheaf. But the Scribes very differently keep strictly to the sixteenth day of the Month Nisan, for offering the first-fruits without any dispensation, after the Sabbatical-day, or the first day of the Feast is over. And amongst other arguments by which they strengthen their opinion, those two different places of Scripture, Exod. XII. 15. Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread, and Deut. XVI. 8. Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; they according to the sense they have do thus reconcile, Seven days indeed you shall eat unleavened bread; that is, unleavened bread of the old wheat on the first day of the Feast, the sheaf being not yet offered, and unleaven'd bread of the new wheat the remaining six days after you have offered the firstfruits .

II. If the day of the first-fruits be to be taken into the number of the fifty days, which the Authors now quoted do clearly enough affirm out of those words, Deut. XVI. 9. Number the seven weeks to thyself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when thou beginnest to put the sickle into the corn; then it will appear plain enough to any one that upon whatsoever day of the week the sheaf-offering should fall, on that day of the week the day of Pentecost would fall too. And hence the Baithusians contended so earnestly that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the morrow after the Sabbath (on which it is commanded that the sheaf of the first-fruits should be offered) should be understood of the first day of the week, that so the day of Pentecost might fall out to be the first day of the week too; not so much in honor of that day (which is indeed our Lord's-day) but that the Pentecost might have the more Feast-days, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Israelites might delight themselves for two days together, as one of them speaks out their meaning .

III. As to the year therefore we are now upon wherein Christ ascended, and the Holy Ghost came down, the sheaf-offering was on the Sabbath-day. For the Paschal lamb was eaten on Thursday, so that Friday (on which day our Savior was Crucified) was the first day of the Feast, the Sabbatical or Holy-day. And the following-day which was their Sabbath, was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the second, on which the sheaf was offered, whiles Christ lay in the grave; and for this very reason was it said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an high day of the Sabbath, Joh. XIX. 31.

IV. Let us inquire therefore whether the day of Pentecost fell out on their Sabbath day; I know indeed that the fifty days are reckoned by some from the Resurrection of our Lord, and then Pentecost, or the fiftieth day, must fall on the first day of the week, that is, our Lord's-day; but if we number the days from the common Epocha, that is, from the time of offering the sheaf of first-fruits (which account doubtless St. Luke doth follow) then the day of Pentecost fell out upon the Jewish Sabbath. And here, by the good leave of some learned men it may be questioned, Whether the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Disciples on the very day of Pentecost or no. The reasons of this question may be these.

I. The ambiguity of the words themselves, ' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may be either rendered as we have done in English, When the day of Pentecost was fully come; or as they in the Italian, Et nel finire del giorno de la Pentecoste, q. d. when it was fully gone. So that the phrase leaves it undetermin'd whether the day of Pentecost was fully come, or fully gone; and what is there could be alleged against it, should we render it in the latter sense?

II. It is worthy our observation that Christ the Antitype in answering some Types that represented him, did not tie himself up to the very day of the Type its self for the fulfilling of it, but put it off to the day following. So it was not upon the very day of the Passover, but the day following that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. V. 7. It was not on the very day that the sheaf of the first-fruits was offered, but the day following that Christ became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the firstfruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. XV. 20. So also did he institute the Christian Sabbath not the same day with the Jewish Sabbath, wherein God had finished the work of his Creation, but the day following wherein Christ had finished the work of his Redemption. And so it was agreeable to reason, and to the order wherein he disposed of things already mentioned, that he should indulg that mysterious gift of the Holy Ghost, not upon the day of the Jewish Sabbath, but the day following, the day of his own Resurrection from the grave; that the Spirit should not be poured out upon the same day wherein the giving of the Law was commemorated, but upon a day that might keep up the commemoration of himself forever.

III. We can hardly invent a more fit and proper reason why upon this day they should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , All with one accord in one place; than that they were so gathered together for the celebration of the Lord's-day. So that although we have adveutur'd to call it into question whether the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the very day of the Jewish Pentecost, yet have we not done it with any love to contradiction, but as having considerable reason so to do, and with design of asserting to the Lord's-day its just honor and esteem; for on that day beyond all controversy, the Holy Ghost did come down amongst them.

Who were these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , these ALL here mentioned? probably the CXX spoken of Chap. I. 15. and the connection falls in well enough with the foregoing story. Those All were together when the Election of the twelfth Apostle was propounded, and when the choice was made too. And therefore why the ALL in this place ought not to have reference to this very number also, who can allege any reason? Perhaps you will say, this reason may be given why it should not; namely, that all those that were here assembled, were endu'd with the gift of Tongues, and who will say that all the hundred and twenty were so gifted? I do myself believe it, and that for these reasons.

• I. All the rest were likely to publish the Gospel in foreign Countries, as well as the Apostles, and therefore was it necessary that they also should be endowed with foreign Tongues.
• II. The Apostles themselves imparted the same gift by the imposition of hands to those whom they Ordained the Ministers of particular Churches. It would seem unreasonable therefore that those extraordinary persons that had been all along in company with Christ and his Apostles, and were to be the great Preachers of the Gospel in several parts of the world, should not be enriched with the same gift.
• III. It is said of the seven Deacons that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , full of the Holy Ghost, even before they were chosen to that office; which doth so very well agree with what is said in this part of the story, ver. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, that we can hardly find out a more likely time or place wherein these Deacons had been thus replenished, than when the Apostles themselves were so, that is, upon the coming down of the Holy Ghost.
• IV. The dignity and prerogative of the Apostles above the rest of the Disciples, did not so much consist in this gift of Tongues being appropriated to themselves; but in this amongst other things, that they were capable of conferring this gift upon others, which the rest could not do. Philip the Deacon doubtless did himself speak with Tongues, but he could not confer this gift to the Samaritans, that they also should speak with Tongues as he did; this was reserved to Peter and to John the Apostles.
• V. The Holy Ghost as to the gift of Tongues fell upon all that heard Peter 's discourse in the house of Cornelius, Chap. X. 44. it may seem the less strange therefore if it should fall on these also at this time and in this place.

VERS. II.

THE sound of a mighty wind, but without wind; so also Tongues like as of fire, but without fire. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is fitly and emphatically enough added here; but I question whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was so properly put by the Greek Interpreters in Gen. I. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Spirit of God was carried upon the face of the waters; and yet the Paraphrast and Samaritan Copy is much wider still from the meaning and intention of Moses, when they render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he breathed upon the waters. I conceive they might in those words, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, have an eye to those waters that covered the earth; whereas Moses plainly distinguisheth between the Abyss, that is, the waters that covered the earth, upon the face of which deep the darkness was; and those waters which the Spirit of God moved upon, that is, the waters which were above the firmament, ver. 6, 7. And by the moving or incubation of the Spirit upon these waters, I would rather understand the motion of the Heavens, the Spirit of God turning them about, and by that motion cherishing the things below, as the bird doth by sitting upon its young, than of any blowing or breathing of the Spirit or the wind upon them; or that the Spirit was carried upon the waters as a wind is upon the Sea, or upon the Land.

VERS. III.

THE confusion of Languages was the casting off of the Gentiles, and the confusion of Religion; for after once all other Nations, excepting that of the Jewish, came to be deprived of the use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue; in which Language alone the things of true Religion, and all Divine truth were known, taught, and delivered, it was unavoidable but that they must needs be deprived of the knowledge of God and Religion. Hence that very darkness that fell upon the Gentile world by that confusion of Tongues, continued upon them to this very time. But now behold the remedy, and that wound that had been inflicted by the confusion, is now healed by the gift of Tongues; that Veil that was spread over all Nations at Babel was taken away at mount Zion, Isai. XXVII. 7. We meet with a form of prayer in the Jewish writings, which was used on the solemn fast of the ninth month Ab, of which this is one clause , Have mercy, O God, upon the City that mourneth, that is trodden down and desolate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because thou didst lay it wast by fire, and by fire wilt build it up again. If the Jews expect and desire their Jerusalem should be rebuilt by fire, let them direct their eyes toward these fiery Tongues, and acknowledge both that the building commenc'd from that time, and the manner also how only it is to be restored.

VERS. XIII.

RAbba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A man is bound to make himself so mellow on the Feast of Purim, that he shall not be able to distinguish between cursed be Haman, and blessed be Mordecai. Rabbah and R. Zeira feasted together on the Feast of Purim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and they were sweetened, or made very mellow. The Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they were sweetened, i. e. they were got drunk. So that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is nothing but what they were wont to express in their common Dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they are sweetened, that is, are drunk.

But may we not rather judge those drunk, who by saying the Apostles were full of new wine, imputed that sudden skill of theirs in so many Languages to wine and intemperance? The Rabbins indeed mention a Demon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cordicus, who possesseth those that are drunk with new wine . But is he so great a Master of Art and wit, that he can furnish them with Tongues too? These scoffers seem to be of the very dregs and scum of the people, who knowing no other Language but their own Mother-tongue, and not understanding what the Apostles said, while they were speaking in foreign languages, thought they said nothing but mere babble and gibberish.

VERS. XV.

THAT is with us, nine a Clock in the morning; before which time especially on the Sabbath and other Feast-days the Jews were not wont so much as to taste anything of meat or drink, nor indeed hardly of other days. This was the custom of the Religions of old, first to say over his morning prayers on the Sabbath-day, with those additional ones in the Synagogue, and then go home and take his second repast. For he had taken his first repast on the evening before at the entrance of the Sabbath. Nothing might be tasted before the prayers in the Synagogue were finished, which sometimes lasted even till noonday; for so the Gloss upon the place, When they continue in the Synagogue beyond the sixth hour and an half, which is the time of the great Minchah (for on a Feast-day they delayed their coming out of the Synagogue) then let a man pray his prayer of the Minchah before he eat, and so let him eat. And in those days it was, that that commonly obtained, which Targ. in Coheleth noteth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After they had offered the daily Sacrifice they eat bread in the time of the four hours; i. e. in the fourth hour. In Bava Meziah , a certain officer of the Kings teacheth R. Eleazar the Son of R. Simeon how he should distinguish betwixt Thieves and honest men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 go (saith he) into the Taberne on the fourth hour, and if thou seest any person drinking Wine, and nodding while he holds his Cup in his hand, &c. Where the Gloss hath it, The fourth hour, was the hour of eating, when everyone went into the Taberne, and there eat. So that these whom ye deride, O ye false mockers, are not drunk, for it is but the third hour of the day; that is, it is not yet the time to eat and drink in.

VERS. XVII.

THE Prohet Joel hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After these things. Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . After these things. Where Kimchi upon the place hath this note, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it shall come to pass after these things, is the same with, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it shall come to pass in the last days. We have elsewhere observed that by the last days is to be understood the last days of Jerusalem, and the Jewish Economy, viz. when the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the end of the Jewish world drew near. And there would be the less doubt as to this matter, if we would frame a right notion of that great and terrible day of the Lord: that is, The day of his vengeance upon that place and Nation. Which terror the Jews, according to their custom and fashion, put far off from themselves, and devolve it upon Gog and Magog, who were to be cut off and destroyed.

The Jews cautiously enough here, though not so honestly, apply this Prophesy and promise to Israel solely, as having this for a Maxim amongst them, That the Holy Ghost is never imparted to any Gentile. Hence those of the Circumcision that believed were so astonished, when they saw, That on the Gentiles also was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Chap. X. 45. But with the Jews good leave, whether they will or no, the Gentiles are beyond all question included within such like promises as these. All flesh shall see the Salvation of God, Isai. XL. 5. And All flesh come and worship before the Lord, Isai. LXVI. 23, &c.

VERS. XIX.

THE Prophet hath it in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and pillars of smoke. St. Luke follows the Greek, who as it should seem, are not very solicitous about that nice distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pillaring smoke, or smoke ascending like a staff, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Smoke dispersing itself here and there. A distinction we meet with in Joma , where we have a ridiculous story concerning the curiosity of the Wisemen about the ascending up of the smoke of Incense.

As to these prodigies in blood, fire, and smoke, I would understand it of the slaughter and conflagrations that should be committed in that Nation to a wonder by seditious and intestine broils there. They were monsters rather than instances, than which there could never have been a more prodigious presage of the ruin of that Nation, than that they grew so cruel within themselves, breathing nothing but mutual slaughters, and desolations.

VERS. XXIII.

WE may best fetch the reason why St. Peter adds this clause, from the conceptions of the Jews. Can he be the Messiah, think they, that hath suffered such things? What! The Messiah Crucified and slain? Alas! how different are these things from the character of the Messiah? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To him belongs honor, and glory, and preeminence above all Kings that have ever been in the world, according as all the Prophets from Moses our Master (to whom be peace!) to Malachi (to whom be peace!) have Prophesied concerning him. Is he then the Messiah that was spit upon, scouged, thrust through with a Spear, and Crucified? Yes saith St. Peter, these things he suffered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the determinate counsel, and fore-knowledge of God. And these things had been foretold concerning him from Moses to Malachi, so that he was never the less their Messiah though he suffered these things; nor did he indeed suffer these things by chance, but by the determinate counsel of God. What the learned have argued from this place, concerning God's decrees, I leave to the Schools.

VERS. XXIV.

LET these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be either the pains of death, or the hands of death, yet is it doubtful whether St. Peter might speak only of the death of Christ, or of death in general; so that the sense may be, that God raised him up, and by his Resurrection hath loosed the bands of death, with respect to others also. But supposing the expression ought to be appropriated to Christ only (whom indeed they do chiefly respect) then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we are not to understand so much the torments and pangs in the last moments of death, as those bands which followed, viz. the continued separation of Soul and Body, the putrefaction and corruption of the body in the Grave, which two things are those which St. Peter acquits our Savior from in the following words. For, however it be a great truth that death is the wages of sin, yet is it not to be understood so much of those very pangs whereby the Soul and Body are disjoined, as the continuation of the divorce betwixt Soul and Body in the Grave.

VERS. XXVII.

IT is well know what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Greek Authors: viz. the state of the dead, be they just or unjust. And their Eternal state is distinguished not so much by the word itself as by the qualities of the persons. All the just, the Heroes, the followers of Religion and Virtue, according to those Authors are in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hades, but it is in Elysium, in joy and felicity. All the evil, the wicked, the unjust, they are in Hades too, but then that is in Hell, in torture and punishment. So that the word Hades is not used in opposition to Heaven, or the state of the blessed, but to this world only, or this present state of life; which might be made out by numberless instances in those Authors. The Soul of our Savior therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , descended into Hell, i. e. he passed into the state of the dead, viz. into that place in Hades, where the Souls of good Men went. But even there did not God suffer his Soul to abide, separate from his body, nor his body to putrefy in the Grave, because it was impossible for Christ to be holden of those bands of death, seeing his death was not some punishment of sin, but the utmost pitch of obedience, he himself being not only without sin, but uncapable of committing any.

VERS. XXIX.

IT is doubted whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendered I may, or let me: If that which R. Isaac saith, obtained at that time, viz. Those words, my flesh shall rest in hope, teach us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That neither worm nor Insect had any power over David , then was it agreeable enough that St. Peter should, by way of Preface, crave the leave of his Auditory in speaking of David's being putrefied in the Grace; and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well rendered, let me. But I may, pleaseth me best, and by this Paraphrase the words may be illustrated.

I cannot slip over that passage R Jose ben R. ben saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 David died at Pentecost, and all Israel bewailed him, and offered their Sacrifices the day following.

VERS. XXXIV.

SEEING St. Peter doth with so much assurance and without scruple apply these words to the Messiah, it is some sign that that Comment wherewith the later Jews have gloz'd over this place, was not thought of or invented at that time; Glossing on the words thus, The Lord said unto Abraham, sit thou on my right hand. Sem the great, said unto Eleazar when the Kings of the East and of the West came against you, how did you do? He said unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God took up Abraham and made him sit at his right hand. He threw dust upon them, and that dust was turned into Swords; Stubble, and that Stubble was turned into Darts; so it is said in David's Psalm, the Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand. Where the Gloss very cautiously notes, that these words, The Lord said unto my Lord, are the words of Eleazar, whose Lord of right Abraham might be called.

R. Zechariah in the name of R. Ishmael saith. God had a purpose to have drawn the Priesthood from Sem, according as it is said, he was the Priest of the Most high God. But when he pronounced his blessing of Abraham, before his blessing of God, God derived the Priesthood from Abraham. For it is said, and he blessed him saying, Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of Heaven and Earth: and blessed be the Most High God. Abraham saith unto him, doth any one put the blessing of the Servant before the blessing of his Lord? Immediately the Priesthood was given to Abraham. As it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand: It is written afterward, thou art a Priest forever, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the words of Melchizedek [who had not placed his blessings in due order.] And forasmuch as it is written, And he was a Priest of the Most High God, it intimates to us, that he was a Priest but his seed was not. Can we think that this Gloss was framed at that time, when St. Peter so confidently, as though none would oppose him in it, applied this passage to the Messiah? which also our Savior himself did before him to the great Doctors of that Nation, and there was not one that opened his mouth against it, Matth. XXII. 44.

VERS. XXXVIII.

BEZA tells us, That this doth not declare the Form of Baptism, but the scope and end of it. Yet this clause is wanting in the Syriac Interpreter. Wherever he might have got a Copy wherein this was wanting, yet is it not so in other Copies. But to let that pass: What he saith that this doth not declare the Form of Baptism, is, I fear, a mistake: for at that time they Baptized amongst the Jews, in the name of Jesus (although among the Gentiles they Baptized in the Name of the Father, and the Son and holy Ghost ) that Jesus might be acknowledged for the Messiah by them that were Baptized, than which nothing was more tenacionsly and obstinately denied and contradicted by the Jews. Let the Jew therefore in his Baptism own Jesus for the true Messiah, and let the Gentile in his, confess the true God, three in one.

VERS. XLI.

AND Chap. IV. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . About five thousand. To which I would refer that passage in Psal. CX. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thy people shall be a willing people in the day of thy power. The day of Christ's power was the day of his Resurrection, when he had subdued Death and Hell; and the day of his Ascension when he was set at the right hand of God above all principality and power; concerning which the first Verse of that Psalm speaks. The story in this place therefore is the fulfilling of the Prophesy, Vers. 3. and is shewn how willing his people were in that day of his power.

VERS. XLII.

BReaking of bread was a phrase much in use amongst the Jews, arising from a custom as much in use among them. For their Dinner began with blessing and breaking of Bread. R. Zeira was sick. R. Abhu came to him, and bound himself, saying, if R. Zeira recover, I will make a Festival day for the Rabbins; He did recover, and he made a Feast for all the Rabbins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When they were going to dinner, R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Master begin for us. To whom he answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Doth not the Master remember, or call to mind that of R. Johanan, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Master of the House breaketh Bread? Where the Gloss upon these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is this: It signifies a Feast, as if he should have said, break Bread to us with the blessing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that bringeth forth food out of the Earth, &c. The Gemaro goes on: When they came to give the blessing, R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, let the Master give the blessing for us, to whom he answered, Doth not the Master call to mind that of R. Hounah of Babylon, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that breaketh Bread, giveth the blessing. And a little after: He that breaketh Bread, doth not break it before the Amen of all that sit down at meat be pronounced, and that they all answer Amen, to him when he giveth the blessing. Again in the same place: No one of the guests must taste anything, till he who breaketh Bread, hath first tasted.

R. Abba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Man is bound on the Sabbath day, to break upon two loaves, because it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 double Bread, Exod. XVI. 22. Rabh. Issai saith. I saw Rabh Calina, that he took two loaves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and brake but one. Instances of this kind as to the use of this phrase, are endless.

But now the question is, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking of Bread in this place, be to be taken in this sense: that is, for common Bread, or not rather for Bread of the Holy E • charist; which question also returns, verse. 46. breaking Bread from House to House. Now I ask whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking of Bread amongst the Jews was ever used to denote the whole Dinner or the whole Supper? It signifies indeed that particular action by which they began the meal, but I do not remember that I have anywhere in the Talmudists observed the phrase applied to the whole meal of Dinner or Supper. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the word by which they commonly expressed the whole repast: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking Bread, never, if I am not much deceived. And I doubt that of Beza is but gratis dictum, rather then proved, when he tells us, Factum est ut mutuus convictus, &c. It came to pass that eating together, and so all the Feasts they were wont to make amongst one another, went under the name of breaking of Bread. Which if true, I ingenuously confess my ignorance: but if false, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or breaking Bread in these places we are now upon, must not be understood of their ordinary eating together, but of the Eucharist; which the Syriac Interpreter does render so in express terms: a parallel to which we have in 1 Cor. X. 16. Acts XX. 7.

VERS. XLIV.

TO repeat here what is disputed concerning the Essenes and Theraputae, is to say the same thing over and over again: but what is said of the Jerusalem Writers, and is not so obvious, I cannot omit: viz. that they did not hire either Houses or Beds in Jerusalem; those things were not mercenary, but lent gratis by the owners to all who came up to the Feasts. The same may be well supposed of their Ovens, Cauldrons, Tables, Spits, and other Utensils: Also provisions of water were made for them at the public care and charge .

CHAP. III.

VERS. I.

WHether it was the ninth hour of the same day, wherein about the third, the Holy Ghost had been poured out, must be left to conjecture. This is certain that the ninth hour of the day (which with us is Three a Clock in the Afternoon) was the ordinary hour as for Sacrifice, so also for Prayer too. As to the hours of Sacrifice Josephus gives us this account: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Twice a day, viz. in the morning, and at the ninth hour, they offer Sacrifices on the Altar. And concerning the hours of Prayer, the Talmudists thus: R. Jose ben R. Chaninah saith, The Patriarchs appointed the Prayers. R. Joshua ben Levi saith, they appointed them according to the daily Sacrifices. Morning Prayer is till the fourth hour. The Prayer of the Minchah, or Evening is till the Evening. Which is the great Minchah? That from the sixth hour and an half. Which is the less Minchah? from the ninth hour and an half, &c.

They distinguish betwixt the Afternoon Prayers, and the Evening Prayers, although part of them, if not all, were one and the same. For whereas the precise time for recital of the Phylacteries and the Prayers annexed for the Evening, was not but at the entering in of night, yet they recited them in their Prayers at the Minchah. Hence that dispensation in the Gloss in Beracoth, The recital of the Shemaa in Bed, is the foundation. That is, after that the Stars have begun to appear: And so it is in the Jerusalem Talmud. If any one recite them before that time he doth not do his duty. If it be thus, then why do we say our Phylactery-prayers in the Synagogue? It is that we way continue in prayer because of the words of the Law.

VERS. II.

HERE I am at a stand as to the determination of this Gate, according to the uncertain signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If in the Etymology of it, it hath any relation with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , time (which any one would imagine) then we might suppose it the Gate called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Huldah, perhaps so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heledh, time, or age. There were two Gates of this name on the South-side of the Court of the Gentiles, under that noble Porch called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Royal Porch. Through which the way led from Jerusalem itself, or Acra, into the Temple. But if by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be meant strictly beautiful, as it is commonly rendered, then we might suppose it the East Gate of the Women's Court: which although it was but a Brazen Gate, yet for splendor and glittering it exceeded the other Gates of Silver or Gold. There were nine of the Gates indeed that were overlaid with Silver and Gold—There were nine Gates overlaid with Gold and Silver—And one without the Temple, made of Corinthian Brass, which far exceeded those of Gold or Silver.

Let the Reader judge whether that which is added v. 11. increase or explain the difficulty. As the lame man which was healed, held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch which is called Solomon's. From whence this difficulty ariseth: Whether Peter, and John, and the lame man had hitherto gone no further than the Court of the Gentiles, or whether they had come back thither, from the Women's Court. If the former, then the lame Man lay at some Gate of the Court of the Gentiles that was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we may suppose was the Gate called Huldah: If the later, then he lay at that Corinthian Gate.

VERS. IV.

IN the Jerusalem Language perhaps it might be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Look on us, and he looked on them. On a certain day, Elias came to R. Judah while a fit of Toothach was upon him, and he said unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Look on me. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he looked on him, and he touched his Teeth, and cured him.

VERS. VI.

IT is a Tradition Let no one enter into the Mountain of the Temple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with money bound up in his Linnen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nor with his Purse hanging behind him. Where by the way we may observe the Gloss of Rambam upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is a Garment, saith he, which a Man puts on next his skin, in which he sweats, that he may not spoil better cloths: nor is it the custom for any one to go abroad with that Garment alone, having no other Cloths on. We leave the Reader to spell out his meaning; but with this remarque, That he is not followed in the explication of this word by his Country-men.

But though it was not lawful for any to carry a Purse into the Temple with them, yet was it very seldom that any did go into the Temple without money, either in his hand, or carried about them some other way, and that, with an intent either to bestow in Alms, or to make a voluntary Offering in the Treasury: this is evident from those two mites of the poor Widow. Might not Peter have something of this nature to bestow to a beggar though he had neither Silver nor Gold? Doubtless he had no such equivocation, but meant it sincerely, that he had no money at all.

VERS. XI.

IF we will distinguish betwixt Porch and Porch, then Solomon's Porch, was on the East, and the Royal Porch on the South, &c. But if we would have the whole Court of the Gentiles to be comprehended under the name of Solomon's Porch (though it may seem something obscure why it should be called a Porch, and why Solomon's Porch, yet) it may not be unfitly admitted here. But whether it took its name from Solomon's Porch, strictly so called, as being the most noble Porch, and anciently that of Solomon's: or because Solomon consecrated that Court in his Temple by Sacrifices : Or whether because Solomon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (as Josephus tells us) filled the deep trenches with earth, that by levelling the place he might have room enough to make this Court. Whatever it was I deny not but the whole Court might go under that name, although as I have elsewhere shewn, the very Solomon's Porch, strictly taken as a Porch, was only the Eastern part and Porch of that Court, And let me only repeat what I have quoted in that place. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priest's Gate, and the Gate Huldah, were not to be destroyed at all, till God should renew them. Which increaseth our suspicion, that the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hhuldah is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hheled, which signifies time, and Age, from the lastingness they had fancied of this Gate; and that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in this place might have some such signification, as one would say, the gate of time. And perhaps the little Priest's Gate was the other Gate of Hhuldah, from the same duration they conceited in that Gate also. For there were two Gates of that name, on the South side of the Court, as we have noted before.

VERS. XIX.

I May perhaps betray my ignorance in the Greek Tongue, if I should confess that I cannot see by what Authority of that language the most Learned Interpreters have rendered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. That when the times of refreshing shall come: as the Vulgar, • rasmus, and the Interlinear; or When they shall come: also the English, French, and Italian: or, After they shall come, as Beza. I am not ashamed to confess, I do not understand by what reason they thus render it; when it so well agrees with the Idiom of that Language to translate it, That the times of refreshing may come. Psal. IX. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That I may show forth, &c. Psal. XCII. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may be destroyed forever. Psal. CXIX. 101. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That I might keep. Acts XV. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That they might seek, &c. And so in this place, repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the times of refreshing may come, and God may send Jesus Christ to you. These last words, may send Jesus Christ, I suppose have begot the difficulty in this place, and occasioned the variety of Versions we meet with: And how the Chiliasts apply these things is well known. But if our Interpretation be admitted, what could be more fully and plainly said to answer the conceptions of the Auditors, who might be ready to object against what St. Peter had said. Is it so indeed? Was that Jesus whom we have Cruci • ied, the true Christ? then is all our hope of refreshment by the Messiah vanished, because he himself is vanished and gone. Then our expectation as to the consolation of Israel is at an end, because he who should be our consolation is perished.

And hence it is that I the less doubt of the reading of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , preached before unto you, (whereas some would rather have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made ready ) for St. Peter 's design and discourse is about preaching. He shall send Christ to to you by way of Preaching, as he was before preached of. We may observe, That the Apostle in this discourse of his instances in a threefold time: 1. The time before his coming, wherein he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , preached before by Moses and all the Prophets from Samuel and so on. 2. This time when he came and God exhibited him to the world, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having raised him up, verse. 26.) raising him up for a Savior, he sent him to the first, that by his Doctrine he might turn everyone of you from his iniquities. And, 3. Now that he is gone up into Heaven, and is there to abide, yet God will send him to you that repent, in the preaching of his word, as he was before preached.

VERS. XXIV.

WE have Moses and Samuel mentioned together in this place, as also Psal. XCIX. 6. because there were few or no Prophets between these two, 1 Sam. III. 1. and the Apparitions of Angels having been more frequent. And after the decease of Phineas it is a question whether there was any Oracle by Urim and Thummim, through the defect of Prophesy in the High Priests, till the times of Samuel: but then it revived in Abimelech, Abiathar, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Samuel was the Master of the Prophets.

CHAP. IV.

VERS. I.

WE have spoken already of this Captain of the Temple in Notes upon Luke XXII. 4. and told you that he was the Captain of all those Priestly and Levitical Guards and Watches that were kept in the Temple. He is termed in the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Man of the mountain of the House; or the Ruler of the mountain of the Temple.

VERS. V.

IN Jerusalem, admits of a double construction. Either as the City may be set in opposition to the Country: or the Town itself to the Temple.

I. If we admit the former and that these had gathered themselves from the adjacent Towns to meet in Jerusalem; then we may suppose them assembled rather upon the account of some Solemnity of the day, than merely to take cagnizance of the cause of Peter and John. It is a question whether they all knew of their Imprisonment which was done the Evening before, and probably while they were absent, their commitment was made and that act done by some chief of the Priests, the Captain of the Watches, and by the Sadducees, not by a just Sanhedrin.

If we will grant therefore that the lame Man was healed that day in the Afternoon, on which the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon the Disciples in the Fore-noon, then on this very day it behooved every male to appear before the Lord in the Temple with some oblation or other. For, whereas the day of Pentecost fell then on the Jewish Sabbath, and this day (that being supposed) was the second day after that, it was the day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of appearing in the Temple, which probably might occasion these Rulers and Elders meeting together in the City at this time.

II. But if we take Jerusalem in this place, in opposition to the Temple, it remembers us of the Tradition concerning the Sanhedrin's removal from the Temple to the City, which Jewish Authors tell us of. The Sanhedrin removed from the Room Gazith to the Taberne, and from the Taberne into Jerusalem, &c. Where we may observe the same contradistinction between the City and the Temple: For in the Temple was both Gazith, and the Taberne, or Shops. This removal happened forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Forty years before the destruction of the City, the Sanhedrin removed—For when they observed the strange increase of Murderers amongst them, that they grew too many to be called in question, they suid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is best for us to remove from place to place. Upon which very words it is best for us to remove, I cannot but remember that passage in Josephus, On the Feast which is called Pentecost, the Priests, according to custom, entering into the inner Temple by night, to perform the Service, perceived first, as they said, a certain motion and crack, and then a sudden voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let us remove from hence. Which words whether they agree amongst themselves, and fall in with the time now before us, let the Reader himself consider and judge. That passage in Chap. V. 25. gives some hint that the Sanhedrin at this time sat in the City and not in the Temple; which the Reader may all •• consider.

III. I hardly believe any one will doubt but that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rulers, Elders, and Scribes, must be understood the Great Council: but to distinguish these particularly, I can hardly say whether it be more nice, or more difficult. We might say that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rulers, might be meant Gamaliel the President, and Simeon his Son, the Vice-President: By the Elders, the rest of the body of the Sanhedrin; by the Scribes, either the two Registers, or those wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who judged before the Sanhedrin, or both. But I wave being too curious.

VERS. VI.

IF we may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Vulgar, ex genere sacerdotali, and especially with the Syriac and Arabic, of the stock of the Priests; I would without any stickling conceive this John here mentioned to be no other than Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, because at that time there was not any one more famous throughout the whole Nation, and he was of the stock of the Priests.

Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai the Priest, lived an hundred and twenty years, &c. He sound favor in the eyes of Caesar: From whom he obtained Jasneh, and his wise men, and Physicians that cured R. Zadok. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the time that he died, the glory of wisdom ceased. About that very time which we now have under consideration, we have this passage related concerning him. Forty years before the destruction of the City, when the Gates of the Temple flew open of their own accord, Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said. O Temple, Temple, why dost thou disturb thyself? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zechariah hath spoken concerning thee, open thy doors, O I ebanon, that the fire may devour thy Cedars.

He saw the flames of the City and of the Temple: and having obtained from the Emperor Titus, that the Sanhedrin might be settled at Jabneh, he presided there two or five years; for the certain number is not agreed upon.

All that can be objected against this Johanan ben Zaccai being the John mentioned in this place, seems to be this, that if this was an Assembly of Priests leavened with the leaven of the Sadducees (as may be conjectured out of Chap. V. 17.) then this Johanan ben Zaccai ought not to be reckoned amongst them, for he both lived and died a Pharisee, at least not a Sadducee. But if the whole Sanhedrin is to be understood here, wherein the Priests as much as they were capable would strengthen their own party, then would I look for no other John than this Son of Zaccai.

VERS. XI.

THE words are taken out of Psal. CXVIII. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The stone which they rejected, &c. And are these things said of the Messiah? Surely the Jew will hardly believe his pompous Messiah should be rejected, and set at naught by his own Country-men. And therefore doth St. Peter the more vehemently inculcate it. This is the Stone. Our Savior had said before, Matth. XXI. Did you never read in the Scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, &c. yes, they had read and read it again, and oftentimes recited in their great Hallel, but you shall never persuade them that these things were spoken of their Messiah, but rather of Jacob, as some ; or of David, as others ; or of the Congregation of Israel as Ibn Ezra, &c. but by no means of their Messiah. For they dreamt of such a Messiah that should come so according to their heart's desire, that it was incredible any Jew should ever reject or despise him.

VERS. XIII.

ILliterate and Uulgar persons also. For it is supposed in Joma , that even the High Priest himself, may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unlearned, when yet he was by no means a vulgar person, no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Plebeian. They say unto him, Lord High Priest do thou read thyself, out of thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgotten, or perhaps thou didst never learn. And so vice versa. There are some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who were not so unlearned. There are three Kings that have no part in the world to come, viz. Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and four common persons, Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi.

But these Apostles were unlearned, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , men of no degree or quality, but vulgar persons, and of the common people. So 1 Sam. XVIII. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a poor and vile man. The Targumist reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A poor man and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or vulgar person. And Chap. XXIV. 14. After a dead Dog, after a Flea? Targumist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After one feeble wretch, after one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common person.

VERS. XVII.

I. THIS incessant and implacable enmity, and stubbornness, the Sanhedrin had against the Doctrine and Miracles of the Apostles in the name of Jesus, (of which this was the first specimen) did betray a most particular spite and ill-will they had toward Jesus above all other men. Let us only compare the case of Jesus with that of John the Baptist. All men esteemed John a Prophet, Matth. XXI. 26. Nor did they so much oppugn his preaching. And why should they so unanimously set themselves against the preaching of Jesus which was signalized with so many, and so great miracles beyond that of John the Baptist?

II. We conceive in our Notes upon John XI. 48. that the Fathers of the Sanhedrin had either a down right knowledge, or at least a suspicion that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and hence arose their hatred against his person and doctrine. It is much disputed and questioned concerning the testimony which Josephus gives concerning Jesus, whether it was Josephus his own, or whether it had not been foisted and thrust in by some Christian. And yet in it (excepting the last clause) you will hardly find anything, but what the very Rulers of the Jews either owned or at least suspected if they would speak out. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . About this time there was one Jesus a wise man (if it be lawful to call him a man) for he wrought strange works. I suspect, that Josephus in those words [ if it be lawful to call him a man ] did not set the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Man, in opposition to God, but in opposition to Prophet, in some such sense as this; if it be lawful to call him merely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a wise man [Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] and not to call him him a Prophet; for he did great miracles. He goes on: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This was the Christ, Matth. XXI. 38. The Husbandmen seeing the Son, said among themselves, this is the heir come let us kill him. Now if the rest of that Parable agree with the actions of the Rulers of that Nation, in persecuting the Prophets and even Christ himself, which any one may discern; then why may not this clause be accounted to agree so far with them too, as that when it shows that they said amongst themselves this is the heir, &c. it may intimate, that the chief of the Jews who Condemned and Crucified the Lord Jesus knew him to have been the Messiah.

To proceed in the Historian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He appeared to them (his Disciples) having revived the third day. Let us but consult Matth. XXVIII. 13, 14, 15. and see if there can be any doubt whether the Priests and Fathers of the Sanhedrin were not convinced and persuaded, that Jesus had indeed arose from the Dead, when they did so knowingly and industriously devise a tale to elude his Resurrection. Thus far therefore Josephus (if it was he indeed that was the Author of that passage) hath uttered nothing but what the Rulers themselves were conscious of, if they would have spoken out: but what is added in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The divine Prophets having said these and a thousand other wonderful things of him. This I confess is so noble and ingenuous an acknowledgment of Jesus, that I would hardly expect it from Josephus, and much less from any of his Countrymen. But however, be this passage