Works

§. 1. Why the Evangelist doth measure this distance at this time.

This is the first matter of scruple in these words: and it is material to take notice of it, the rather, because that this same Evangelist hath made mention of the Mount of Olives in his other book, and yet never taketh notice of the distance of it from Jerusalem before, as Luke 19. 29. 37. & 22. 39.

§. 2. Why the Evangelist doth measure this distance by a Sabbath days journey, rather than any other measure.

This also is not impertinent to take notice of, because neither the present time, nor the present action had any reference to the Sabbath day at all: For had it been either the Jews Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, when this thing was done; it were easy to see why the measure of the distance betwixt these two places, is by such a standard; but since it was in the middle of the week when our Savior ascended, and near neither the one Sabbath nor the other, it cannot but breed some just scruple why the Evangelist should mention a Sabbath days journey here.

But before we can give satisfaction to these two scruples, it is in a kind necessary to resolve one or two more which are of no less, if not of a greater difficulty: and those are;

§. 3. Whether the Evangelist intend to measure the distance from the Mount Olivet to Jerusalem, or from the place where our Savior ascended on Mount Olivet, to Jerusalem.

§. 4. What space a Sabbath days journey was.

This last, must first fall under determination, and it is not of small obscurity in regard of the different measures that are made of it, and in regard of the different glosses that are made upon this Text.

The Syriac readeth it thus, Which was from Jerusalem seven furlongs. And this hath bred some difficulty more than was in the Text before; for that Josephus saith, Mount Olivet was but five furlongs from Jerusalem, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 6. And John the Evangelist saith, Bethany was 15 furlongs from Jerusalem, Joh. 11. 18. And certain it is that Luke in this place speaketh of the distance from Olivet, or from Bethany, or from both; and yet the Syriac gloss upon him, hath found out a measure that agrees neither with Josephus, nor with John.

There is a like difference between their opinions that come to measure this space not by furlongs, but by another measure; some holding it to be two thousand paces, or two miles; others two thousands cubits, or but one mile: This latter to have been the measure of a Sabbath days journey, namely, two thousand cubits, is apparent in the Talmud, and it may be confirmed out of other Writers of the same Nation; for this position is in the Tractate of Erubhin, Chap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a journey of two thousand middle paces is the bound of the Sabbath: And the Scholiast there saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A middle pace in the way of a man's walk namely a cubit. And so the Chaldee paraphrast on the first of Ruth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We are commanded to keep the Sabbaths and the holy das • ; so as to go not above two thousand cubits. And this tradition or custom seemeth to be fetched from that place in Josh. 3. 4. where, because the people in their march after, and on either side the Ark, were to keep two thousand Cubits distance off it; it is thereupon concluded, that they pitched at that distance when the Ark and they were encamped; and so that that was the space that they went from their Tents to the Tabernacle on the Sabbath day: it is not worth the labor, to examine the truth of this opinion in this place; because we have not here so much to deal with it, as with a custom built upon it: and it is not so material whether that was the distance betwixt their Tents and the Tabernacle in their encampings in the wilderness (for some of them were double, treble that distance) as certain it is, that a custom was grown from this opinion of travelling no further than two thousand Cubits on the Sabbath day; and to this custom the Evangelist speaketh, and that is it that we must look after. Now if we count these two thousand Cubits for whole yards, then was the space a mile, and above half a quarter, or somewhat above nine furlongs in all: but if for half yards, which was the common Cubit, then was it but half so much, and neither of these sums agree with the Syriacks seven furlongs nor with Johns fifteen. But the latter agreeth very well with Josephus his five, and so do I understand the measure to be.

For, first, it were easy to prove that the Cubit by which the Tabernacle was measured at the building of it, both for its own body, and for the ground it stood upon, and its Court, and all things about it, was but the common Cubit of half a yard; and it is most likely that those two thousand Cubits that did distance the people from it in the wilderness, and that measured out a Sabbath days journey now, were Cubits of the same size.

Secondly, The Text of Luke exactly measures the distance from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, and it is very questionable whether he intend the space from that place upon the Mount where our Savior ascended, or no. He saith in the last Chapter of his Gospel, that Jesus led the Disciples our, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Vers. 50. not towards Bethany, but as far as unto it, as our English, and the Syriac, the Vulgar, Beza, and others do truly render it: now Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, Joh. 11. 16. and let us take the two thousand Cubits how we will, either common or holy Cubit, either half yard▪ or yard; or Ezekiel's Cubit, of a Cubit and hand breadth: Yet will none of these measures reach to so many furlongs.

Now howsoever Beza hath sought to heal this difference by a supposal that Bethany was not only the name of a Town, but also a tract or a space of ground that lay about the Town, as a Lordship or Parish lieth about the Village; and that though the Town itself lay fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, yet that the grounds and demeans that carried the same name, reached within half that space to Jerusalem; the grounds of such a supposal are yet to seek; nay, there is good ground to the contrary.

For first, it is rare in Scripture to find open fields called by the name of a Town, when there is no expression that the fields are meant: particularly, if we should reckon up all the Towns named in the Bible that bear a Beth, in the beginning of them, as Bethlehem, Bethshemesh, Bethsaida, Bethel, and all the rest that are of the like beginning, we could never find that they signify anything but the very Town itself; and why Bethany should be singular, I see no reason.

Secondly, In all the mentioning of Bethany in other places in the Gospel, it is past peradventure that the Town is meant; as Joh. 12. 1. Matth. 21. 17. Mark 11. 11. Matth. 26. 1. &c. and why it should not be so also in Luke 24 50. had need of cogent reasons to demonstrate.

Thirdly, It is very questionable whether Bethphage lay not betwixt Jerusalem and Bethany; or if it did not, it lay very little aside the way, as might be shown out of the story of Christ's riding into Jerusalem, Matth. 21. 1. Luke 19. 29. compared with Joh. 12. 1. and therefore that was like to cut off the name of Bethany, that it should not reach far in the fields towards the City: For Christ lay in Bethany all night, Joh. 12. 1. and on the morning was gone some way towards Jerusalem before he met with the Ass on which he rode, which he had commanded his Disciples to fetch from Bethphage, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before them, as the Syrian well renders it; that is, either directly in their way to Jerusalem, or very little off it; as they were now setting out of Bethany thither. And this is confirmed by the gloss upon the Gemars in Sanhedrin, Perck. 1. where mention being made of Bethphage in the Text, the Scholiast saith, Bethphage was a place before the wall of the City, and governed as Jerusalem in all things.

It is therefore of the most probability, that Christ when he ascended, led out his Disciples to Bethany Town, fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, or thereabout, and that very way that he had ridden triumphantly into the City seven and forty days ago, he goeth now again to ride more triumphantly into Heaven. The Text then that we have in hand doth not measure the sapce from the City to Bethany where Christ ascended, but from the City to the foot of Mount Olivet, on which Mount, Bethany stood; and the measure he maketh of it is two thousand common Cubits, or about five furlongs. And so we have done with two of the Queries that were proposed. But now why he should measure this space at this time rather than any other, and why by the title of a Sabbath days journey, rather than any other measure, remaineth yet to be inquired after.

This Evangelist hath divers times in his Gospel mentioned this Mount, as was shown before; but never shown the situation or distance of it from the City till now, and that may be a reason why he doth it here, being the last time that ever he is to mention it in all his writings; and that one place might explain another: Namely, That from this Text the several passages done on Mount Olivet which are mentioned in his Gospel, might receive some illustration, and it might be known how far they were acted from Jerusalem; or at the least guessed how far, it being from hence determined, how far the foot of Olivet was distant from it: It had been indeed as ready to have said they returned from Bethany, which was from Jerusalem about fiteen furlongs; but the Holy Ghost is not so careful to measure the distance from the place of Christ's Ascension (it may be for the same reason that he concealed the grave of Moses, for fear of superstition) as to measure from Olivet where so many, and remarkable occurrences besides Christ's Ascension had passed, and been done by him.

Why he measureth it by the title of Sabbath days yourney, rather than by any other measure, as of paces, furlongs, or the like, since this day that was spoken of is not a Sabbath, we dare not be too curious to determine: Only to conjecture, it is very probable, that this was the common walk of the people of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day in pleasant weather for their meditations, when they had done the public duties of the day: For so it is said of Christ, that he often resorted to a garden of Gethsemani with his Disciples, Joh. 18. 2. and though it be not certain whether he did on the Sabbath, yet it is certain that he did on the Passover night, after he and his Disciples had done the work of the day and Ordinance. And that time of the day fell under the same obligation that the Sabbath did in this particular. For, as was observed even now out of the Chaldee Paraphrast, not only on the Sabbaths, but also on other holy days it was not lawful to walk above two thousands Cubits; and this time that our Savior set thither, was the beginning of such a day: namely, of the first day in the Passover week, which was to be observed as a Sabbath, Lev. 23. 7. and that day was begun at that even when our Savior went out to Gethsemani to pray. And though Judas slipped from behind his Master after they were risen from the Table and come out of the House, and when he should have gone out of the City with him, he stepped aside into the City, and got his cursed train up to go to apprehend Jesus; yet the Text assures us, Joh. 18. 2. that Judus knew where to have him, though he went not to observe whither he would go; because that that was our Savior's common retiring place upon such occasions. And so may we conceive it was the common haunt of others of the City, upon such times, and such occasions of prayer and meditation to resort thither, for the delightsomness of the place, and the helpfulness of it by the delight and solitariness to contemplation. And therefore the Evangelist may be conceived to use this expression for the measure betwixt it and the City, A Sabbath days journey; because it was most remarkably so; not only upon obligation, but for delight, and the people's common Sabbath days walk.

§. Both Peter, and James, and John, &c.

The Syrian readeth, Peter, and John, and James; and for Bartholomew, and Matthew, he and the Arabic read Matthew and Bartholomew; the reason best known to themselves.

§. James the Son of Alpheus.

The word Son, is not in the Greek, neither here, nor Matth. 10. 3. nor Mark 3. 18. nor Luke 6. 15. but it is only thus, James of Alpheus, and so reads the Vulgar. But the Syrian, Arabic, Beza, our English, and divers others have very warrantably put in the word Son.

Now this Alpheus and Cleopas, mentioned, Luke 24. 18. were but one and the same man: the Syrian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serving indifferently to frame his name into Hebrew, or into a Greek pronunciation, Châlphi and Cleaphi, as Paul's double name sounded after these two languages: This Cleopas or Alpheus, was the Husband of Mary, Joh. 19. 25. and she the mother of James the less, and of Joses, Matth. 15. 40. and of Judah and Simon, Mark 6. 3. and from hence is warrant sufficient to call James the Son of Alpheus; though the Text hath not spoken out the word Son.

This James is he, that was commonly called James the less, mentioned, Acts 12. 7. & 15. 3. & 21. 18. Gal. 2. 9. &c. and so often called by the Ancients, the Bishop of Jerusalem, but upon what misprision shall be conjectured afterward.

§. And Simon Zealots.

He is called Simon the Canaite, Matth. 10. 4. Mark 3. 18. which in Hebrew signifieth zealous, as is more apparent by the Syriac and Arabic writing of it, than the Greek: It is like he was so called from Canah in Galilee, the place of his abode; and the Evangelist translateth this proper Hebrew name, into a Greek appellative, as John doth Siloam, Joh. 9. 7. This Simon was the Son of Alpheus also, and so likewise was Judas mentioned instantly after, Mark 6. 3. And so hath Alpheus three sons that were Apostles, and Joses the fourth, is in fair choice to be one too, verse. 23.

§. And Mary the mother of Jesus.

We have no more mention of her in Scripture: it is like she continued under the care of John the Evangelist, to whom our Savior had committed her, Joh. 19. 26, 27. and at the last in some persecution was taken away by martyrdom, as Simeon had prophesied of her, Luke 2. 35.

§. And his Brethren.

That is, his Kinsmen; for by this term doth the Scripture use to express such relations: it is needless to show examples: and to show who these Kinsmen were, will be more proper for another place.

§. The number of names together.

Names, is held by divers in this place, and in Rev. 3▪ 4. & 11. 13. to signify only persons without any distinction of sex: whereas it rather signifieth men distinct from women: and so it seemeth that the Syriac and Arabic understand it here; and the latter addeth that they were men of name or repute.

For, first, in Scripture account, most constantly the reckoning is of men; and women very rarely brought in in the number: nay sometime the reckoning plainly shown to be contradistinguished to women.

Secondly, The name of a family continueth in the males, but is lost in the females; and therefore in the Hebrew, a male is called Zacar, from remembrance; and women Nashim, from forgetting; and in the New Test. Greek, men are called Names upon the like reason.

§. Were about an hundred and twenty.

This summeth the men that are spoken of in the verse preceding; the twelve Apostles, the seventy Disciples, and about thirty eight more, all of Christ's own kindred, country, or converse.

These one hundred and twenty here spoken of, are not to be reputed or accounted as the whole number of believers at Jerusalem at this time; but only those that had followed Christ continually, Vers. 21. were of his own Country, stood in more near relation to him, as being of his own family and society, and appointed by him for the Ministry.

The Believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds, if not thousands at this time; though we read of no converts in this book, till the next Chapter. For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christ's preaching and pains bestowed in that City? Let but Joh. 2. 23. & 3. 2. & 4. 1. & Mar. 3. 8. & Joh. 7. 31. & 8. 30. & 11. 28, 45. & 12. 19. 42. and divers other places be well weighed, and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now than many hundreds, much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all, who were all Galileans, and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all.

This number therefore mentioned by the Evangelist of one hundred and twenty, is not to be thought all the Church in that City; but only the society and company that were of Christ's own train and retinue whilst he was upon earth, that companied with him all the time that he went in and out among his Disciples, Acts 1. 21. And this company though it be mingled and dispersed among the Congregations in the City for preaching the Word, and administering the Sacraments, and joining in acts of worship; yet did they keep together as a more entire and peculiar society, and standing Presbytery, Act. 4. 21. and of the rest durst none join himself unto them, Acts 5. 13. and thus they continued till the persecution at Stephens death dispersed them all but the Apostles, Acts 3. 1.

§. And falling headlong, &c.

Universality, antiquity and consent have so determinately concluded that Judas hanged himself, that there is no gainsaying: yet hath the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 left it so indifferent, whether he hanged himself, or were strangled by the Devil, that if I were not tied up by the consent of all to the contrary, I should the rather take it the latter way: And if I durst so interpret it, I should render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to this purpose: that Satan took him away bodily, strangled him in the air; and then flung him headlong and burst out his bowels. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Qui vel a seipso vel ab alio praecipitatur, saith Stephanus. And to this purpose may that verse of Matth. 27. 5. be very well interpreted; And he cast down the silver pieces in the Temple, and departed, and going away he was strangled: the Devil catching him away and stifling him, and then casting him headlong, and bursting out of him with the eruption of his entrails, and this terrible occurrence would soon be noted of all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Acts 1. 19.

§. Observations upon the election of Matthias.

First, That there was a necessity the Apostles be twelve. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. and this, that the Founders of the Christian Church might be parallel to the twelve Tribes, the founders of the Jewish; for now Jews and Christians were to join together: and this is hinted in the twenty four Elders, the representative body of the Church so often mentioned in the Revelation; and spoken out Rev. 21. 12. 14.

Secondly, That Matthias and Joses being chosen to the presented to the Apostles, the election was not the choice of the whole Church, as if every member of the Church, and believer in Jerusalem, either did or might give his vote to the choosing of them; but it was only the choice of the whole Presbytery, or the hundred and eight among themselves: for so is it most plain, verse. 15. & 21. being compared together. Observe the phrase, Of these men that have companied with us.

Thirdly, That the Apostles could not ordain an Apostle by imposition of hands, as they could ordain Elders; but they are forced to use a divine lot, which was as the immediate hand of Christ imposed on him that was to be ordained: that opinion took little notice of this circumstance, that hath placed Bishops in the place of the Apostles, by a common and successive ordination.

§. And Matthias.

Who, or whence this man was, we cannot determine; certain it is, the sense of his name is the same with Nathanael, though not the sound: and I should as soon fix upon him for the man, as any other, and some probabilities might be tendered for such a surmisal; but we will not spend time upon such conjectures.

Vers. 1. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all together with one accord in one place.

Vers. 2. Cloven Tongues like as of fire. Vers. 3. They began to speak with other Tongues.

Vers. 5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, &c.

It was indeed the Feast of Pentecost at this time at Jerusalem, but it was not the Feast of Pentecost that drew those Jews from all Nations thither.

First, It was not required by the Law, that these Jews that dwelt dispersed in other Nations should appear at Jerusalem at these Feasts.

Secondly, It was not possible they should so do, for then must they have done nothing else but go up thither, and get home again.

Thirdly, These Jews are said to dwell at Jerusalem, and they had taken up their residence and habitation there: but those that came up to the Festivals, stayed there but a few days, and so departed to their own homes.

The occasion therefore of these men's flocking so unanimously from all the Nations of the world, was not the Feast of Pentecost, but the general knowledge and expectation of the whole Nation of the Jews, that this was the time of Messias his appearing and coming among them.

This they had learned so fully from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, especially from Dan. 9. that both the Gospel, and their own writers witness, that this was the expectation of the whole Nation, that the Messias was now ready to appear.

In the Scripture, these passages assert this matter, Luke 2. 26. 38. & 3. 15. & 19. 11. and Joh. 1. 20, 21.

In the Hebrews own writings we may find divers that speak to the same matter, as that The Son of David shall come about the time when the Romans have reigned over Israel nine months, from Mic. 5. 3. that his appearing shall be under the second Temple, that it shall be not very long before Jerusalem should be destroyed; and many such passages; fixing the time of the Messias his coming, to the very time that Jesus of Nazareth did appear and approve himself to be the Christ, as may be seen in Sanhedrin. cap. Helek. Galat. lib. 4. Jeronym. a Sancta Fide, Mornaeus de Veritat. Christ. rel. And this so clearly and undeniably, that when the wretched and blasphemous Jews cannot tell what to say to their own Doctors, that assert the time so punctually agreeable to the time of Christ's appearing, they have found out this damnable and cursed way to suppress that truth, as to curse all those that shall be industrious to compute these times; for they have this common execration 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let their spirit burst, or expire, that compute the times.

And to these assertions of the Jews own Authors concerning this opinion of their Nation; we may add also the testimony of Suetonius, affirming the very same thing, Percrebuerat Oriente toto, saith he, vetus & constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judea profecti rerum potirentur: In Vespas. And so likewise Tacitus, Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judea rerum potirentur, Histor. lib. 5. That is, An old and constant opinion had grown through the whole East, that it was foretold, that at that time some coming out of Judea should obtain the rule of things: And many were persuaded, that it was contained in the old records of the Priests, that at that very time the East should prevail, and some coming out of Judea should obtain the rule: which, though the blind Authors apply to Uespasian and Titus their obtaining of the Empire, yet there can be no Christian eye but will observe, that this opinion that was so prevalent, regarded matters of an higher nature, namely, the coming of Christ, and the conquest of the world by the Gospel, which came forth from Judea, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

And to these might be added that Eclogue of Virgil, which is titled Pollio, in which he doth clearly speak of a new world then beginning, of a child to come from Heaven, of a wondrous repair of the world in point of happiness, and the like; that it cannot be doubted but this same opinion was got into the West also, as well as in the East, very many of the Jews being there also, and raising this expectation, as well as in the other place.

So that this expectation and thought being so general among all the Nations of the Jews, yea, among other Nations also; that this was the time that the Kingdom of God in the coming of Christ should appear; this was it that brought such multitudes to Jerusalem about this time out of all Nations under Heaven, to see the accomplishing of those things that they so earnestly and eagerly longed and looked after: and this made them to take up their dwellings and residence in Jerusalem, and to resolve to settle there; for that though they were acquainted with the time of Christ's coming, yet were they not acquainted with the manner of his Kingdom, but expected that it should be earthly and pompous, and his Royal seat in Jerusalem, as the Disciples themselves opinionated; yea, even after long converse with Christ himself, Matth. 20. 20. Acts 1. 6. And therefore these men make sure to get into Canaan out of other Countries, and to get houses in Jerusalem, that they might share in this pomp and prosperity which they expected.

It was not therefore Pentecost that brought them thither, nor were they flitting Guests there, to be gone home as soon as Pentecost was over, but they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dwellers and resident there, and when they were converted to the Christian Faith by thousands, they had their Congregations.

Vers. 9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, &c.

The Text speaketh of Jews of all Nations under Heaven now dwelling at Jerusalem, and yet it reckoneth but fifteen here, which were not all the Nations in the World; no, nor all that were in the Roman Empire, by very many: but to omit the Hyperboles that the Scripture useth very commonly, as Cities walled up to Heaven, shooting at an hair, and not miss, &c. The languages here spoken of, took up all the Nations where it is imaginable any Jews were scattered at this time through the world. [If so be they were not also all the languages that were spoken at Babel: ] as to take example of one or two; the Parthian, Median, Persian, and Mesopotamian, were the Tongues that served all the Eastern dispersion; and all the Jews that had been Captivated by the two first Monarchies, Babylonian and Persian, wheresoever they were, in East or North, spake some of these Languages, throughout the vast space of that their scattering. For to instance in the Mesopotamian only; how many large and mighty Countries spake that one Tongue? Assyria, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Syria, Caelosyria, to inquire no further; all these spake that Chaldee Language, so certainly, that there needeth not the least pains to prove it. And Judea was fallen into the same Tongue now also; but with so much difference from the Mesopotamian, Syriac, or Chaldee, that here it is nominated as a Language distinct: And this showeth the reason of the Phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that he might distinguish the Syriac of Judea and of Chaldea asunder: that those that dwelt in Mesopotamia heard their Syriac, and those that dwelt in Judea heard theirs. Or if we should instance in the Cretan Tongue, that is here intended: the Island of Crete was but of a small compass, but the Language of Crete reached all over Greece, not to search how far it reached further. And the like might be observed of other of the Tongues that are here mentioned.

So that it is hard to find, if not impossible, any Jews at this time under Heaven, where one or other of these Languages here mentioned were not spoken vulgarly in that Country where they were; and so may we very properly understand that phrase, there were Jews of all Nations under Heaven, now gathered to Jerusalem.

Now as it was impossible for these to understand one another in the Languages of the Countries where they were born; for it was impossible an Arabian should understand a Cretan, or a Cretan an Arabian, a Parthian a Roman, or a Roman a Parthian; and so in the most of the rest; so was it impossible they should all of them understand any one Tongue, either Hebrew or Syriac, which are the likeliest to suppose, or whatsoever else may be supposed.

For first, how easy is it to show how the Hebrew Tongue was utterly lost among them from common use; and how the Syriac which was in common use in Judea, yet was unknown to them in other Countries, as appeareth by the necessity of the Chaldee Targum, by the most familiar use of the Septuagint, by the writings of Philo and Josephus, and others of the Jews themselves.

Secondly, If they could have understood any one Language, which was as the common Language of the Nation; then was the gift of Tongues most utterly needless: for why should the Apostles speak divers Languages to them that could have all of them understood one Tongue? Tongues indeed were given for a sign, 1 Cor. 14. 22. but this was not the proper end for which they were given, but for instruction and edification; and as was said before, for acquainting those Nations with the knowledge of God, which had lost it and him, by the loss of the Hebrew Tongue. And if the Jews had understood all of them one Tongue, this gift had been needless to have been given till the Apostles were to go to preach to the Heathens.

This then being past all denial, that these Jews of several Nations, could neither understand one another in the Tongue of the Country where they were born, nor understand any one Language as common to them all; it is past all denial also, that when they were converted to Christianity, they were severed into divers Congregations; for else it was impossible for them to join together in Public Worship.

Vers. 13. Others mocking said, these men are full of new Wine.

Malice is often senseless and reasonless in her accusations, especially, when it is bent against Religion: Yet can I not hold these men so stupid and senseless, or so shameless and impudent, as either to think that drunkenness could make men speak Languages which they never understood before: or if they thought not so, yet to go about to persuade the people so. But their words proceed from this occasion as I should suppose; these Folks that mocked were Natives of Jerusalem or Judea, and not understanding the Languages of the Nations there present, they could not tell that the Disciples spake those strange Languages when they did speak them; but conceived they had babbled some foolish gibberish, and canting, they themselves could make nothing of, as drunken men are used to do. And this caused their so wretched a construction of so Divine a Gift. For the Jews of the strange Nations and Languages, that perceived and understood that the Disciples did speak in their Languages; were amazed, and said one to another, What meaneth this? Vers. 12. But these other Jews, Natives of Jerusalem and Judea, that understood only their own Syriac, and did not understand that they spake strange Languages indeed, these mocked and said, These men are full of new, or sweet wine: grounding their accusation the rather, because that Pentecost was a feasting and rejoicing time, Deut. 16. 11.

And according to this conception it is observable, that Peter begins his speech, Ye men of Judea.

Vers. 14. But Peter standing up with the eleven said, &c.

Reason itself, if the Text did not, would readily resolve, that it was not Peter alone that converted the 3000 that are mentioned after; but that the rest of the Apostles were sharers with him in that work: For if Peter must be held the only Orator at this time, then must it needs be granted, that either the 3000 which were converted were all of one Language; or that the one Language that he spake, seemed to the hearers to be divers Tongues; or that he rehearsed the same speech over and over again in divers Languages; any of which to grant, is senseless and ridiculous; and yet unless we will run upon some of these absurdites, we may not deny, that the rest of the twelve preached now as well as Peter.

But the Text, besides this, gives us these arguments to conclude the matter to be undoubted:

First, It saith, Peter stood forth with the eleven, verse. 14. Now, why should the eleven be mentioned standing forth, as well as Peter, if they spake not as well as he? They might as well have sitten still, and Peters excuse of them would as well have served the turn. It was not Peter alone that stood forth to excuse the eleven, but Peter and the eleven that stood forth to excuse the rest of the hundred and twenty.

Secondly, It is said, They were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, What shall we do? Why should they question and ask counsel of the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter, if they had not preached as well as he?

Thirdly, And it is a confirmation that so they did, in that it is said, Vers. 42. They continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles; of the rest, as well as Peter.

Fourthly, If that were the occasion that we mentioned why they suspected the Apostles and the rest drunk; then will it follow, that Peter preached and spake in the Syriac Tongue, chiefly to those Jews of Judea and Jerusalem that would not believe, because they could not understand that the Disciples spake strange Languages, but thought they canted some drunken gibberish: And to give some probability of this, not only his preface, Ye men of Judea; but also his laying flatly the murder of Christ to their charge, Vers. 22. 23. do help to confirm it; and the conclusion of his Sermon, and of the story in the Evangelist doth set it home, that if Peter preached not only to these Natives of Judea, yet that he only preached not at this time, but that the others did the like with him, in that it is said, They that gladly received his words were baptized; and then as speaking of another story, he saith, there were added about the same day 3000 souls.

Now the reason why Peters Sermon is only recorded, and the story more singularly fixed on him, we observed before.

Vers. 42. And in breaking of Bread.

The Syriac expressly understandeth this of partaking of the Lord's Supper, for he useth the very Greek word Eucharistia here. And so divers take that to be the meaning of this phrase, both here, and in some places else in the New Testamen •• Yea, even they that suppose that it meaneth partaking of their common meals and food; yet do they think that they had the Sacrament added to it, as our Savior added it to the Passover. And indeed the manner of speech doth signify both the one and the other, both ordinary meals, and the receiving of the Sacrament, as in Luke 24. 35. He was known of them in breaking of bread; here it meaneth a common Supper in the Inn at Emmaus: 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Here it betokeneth the receiving of the Sacrament. But it may be conceived to intend the Sacrament the rather, and chiefly, if not only.

First, Because the phrase of breaking of bread for common eating, is very rare both in the Old Testament and Jewish Authors; but eating of bread is the expression that speaketh that.

And secondly, because breaking of the bread in the Sacrament, is a concomitant that cannot be parted from it, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he blessed and brake, and said, this is my body which is broken, 1 Cor. 11. 24.

Vers. 44. And all that believed were together.

This Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of frequent and of various use in the Septuagint. It sometimes betokeneth the meeting of persons in the same company, as Josh. 11. 5. Judge. 6. 33. & 19. 6, &c. so of Beasts, Deut. 22. 10. Sometimes their concurring in the same action, though not in the same company or place, as Psal. 2. 2. & 34. 3. & 49. 2. & 74. 6. & 83. 3. &c. Sometimes their concurring in the same condition, as Psal. 46. 10. & 62. 9. Esa. 66. 17. Jer. 6. 12. And sometimes their knitting together though in several companies, as Joab's and Abner's men, though they sat at distance, and the pool of Gibeon between them, yet are they said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 2 Sam. 2. 13. And in this sense is the word to be understood in this story: For it is past all imagination or conceiving, that all those thousands of believers that were now in Jerusalem, should keep all of one company and knot, and not part asunder, for what house would hold them? But they kept in several Companies or Congregations, according as their Languages, Nations, or other references did knit them together. And this joining together, because it was apart from those that believed not, and because it was in the same profession and practice of the duties of Religion; therefore it is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though it were in several companies and Congregations. And to such a sense doth Rabbi Solomon understand the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Deut. 25. 5. as indeed it must of necessity be understood, not of brethren dwelling in the very same place, but of brethren 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that are united in inheritance; as these believers were now in the Gospel. And so is the building of the Jews to be understood, Ezra 4. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in separation from the Samaritans, and in joining in the action, though they were of several companies in the building, and those companies far distant one from another, Neh. 3. per totum. & 4. 19.

Vers. 46. Continuing daily with one accord in the Temple.

This is not to express, that the Temple was their meeting place, either for hearing of their Sermons, or administering the Sacraments, for neither of these would have been endured there, as appeareth, Chap. 4. 1. but this is to show that they had not yet shaken off all the Worship of the Temple, nor the observance of Moses, but resorted thither to the duties of Religion, at the hours of prayer, as they had done before. For many years after this, the believing Jews were still tenacious of the Law, and reverential of the Temple, Acts 21. 20. which they might lawfully be while the Temple stood, if their observance of Moses did not destroy in them the doctrine and application of their justification by faith in Christ. And hence was it that the Apostles did so far comply with them both in that place in Acts 21. and also in Acts 15. because Moses was to stand till the Temple fell, those Rites not nullifying the death of Christ, if rightly used.

§. 1. The time, and nature of the Feast of Pentecost.

THE expression of the Evangelist hath bred some scruple; how it can be said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the day to be completed, or fulfilled, when it was now but newly begun: and the sight of this scruple it is like hath moved the Syrian Translater, and the Vulgar Latin, to read it in the plural number, When the days of Pentecost were fulfilled: Calvin saith, compleri is taken for advenire, to be fulfilled, for to be now come: Beza accounts the fullness of it to be, for that the night, which is to be reckoned for some part of it, was now past; and some part of the day also. In which exposition he saith something toward the explanation of the scruple, but not enough.

Luke therefore, in relating a story of the feast of Pentecost, useth an expression agreeable to that of Moses, in relating the institution of it, Lev. 23. 13. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath; from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seven Sabbath, shall ye number fifty days.

It will not be amiss to open these words a little, for the better understanding and fixing the time of Pentecost.

First, The Sabbath that is first mentioned in the Text, in these words, Ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, is to be understood of the first day of the Passover week, or the fifteenth day of the month Nisan; the Passover having been slain on the day before. And so it is well interpreted by the Chaldee Paraphrast, that goeth under the name of Jonathan, and by Rabbi Solomon upon this Chapter, at the 11 verse; And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord after the holy day, the first day of the Passover.

And it was called a Sabbath, be it on what day of the week it would, (as it was on the Friday at our Savior's death) because no servile work was to be done in it; but an holy convocation to be held unto the Lord, verse. 7. and the Passover Bullock, Deut. 16. 2, 7. 2 Chron. 30. 24. & 35. 8. to be eaten on it, Joh. 18. 28. as the Lamb had been eaten the night before; and this Bullock was also called a Passover, and the day the preparation of the Passover, Joh. 19. 14. as well as the Lamb, and the day before had been.

This helpeth to understand that difficult phrase, Matth. 28. 1. about which there is such difference and difficulty of expounding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In the evening of the Sabbath, saith the Syriac and the Vulgar: And o utinam! for then would the Lord's day be clearly called the Sabbath, the Sabbath of the Jews being ended before the evening or night of which he speaketh, did begin. In the end of the Sabbath, saith Beza, and our English, but the Sabbath was ended at Sun-setting before. It is therefore to be rendered, after the Sabbaths, for so signifieth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after, in Greek Writers, as well as the Evening: and the plural number of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is to have its due interpretation, Sabbaths. Now there were two Sabbaths that fell together in that Passover week in which our Savior suffered; this Convocational or Festival Sabbath, the first day of the Passover week, and the ordinary weekly Sabbath, which was the very next day after: the former was a Friday, and on that our Savior suffered, the latter a Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath, and on that he rested in the grave, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after these Sabbaths; early in the morning on the first day of the week he rose again.

Secondly, The morrow after this Sabbath of which we have spoken, or the sixteenth day of the month Nisan, was the solemn day of waving the sheaf of the first fruits before the Lord, and the day from which they began to count their seven weeks to Pentecost, Lev. 23. 11. Deut. 16. 9.

This day then being the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or second day in the Passover week, and being the date from whence they counted to Pentecost, all the Sabbaths from hence thither, were named in relation to this day: as the first Sabbath after it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 6. 1. Not as it is rendered, the second Sabbath after the first, but the first Sabbath after this second day: the next Sabbath after was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so the rest accordingly.

Thirdly, Now in their counting from this morrow after the Sabbath, or this day of their first-fruit sheaf, to Pentecost, seven Sabbaths or Weeks were to be complete: whereupon R. Solomon doth very well observe, that the count must then begin at an evening; and so this day after the Sabbath was none of the fifty; but they were begun to be counted at Even when that day was done: so that from the time of waving the first-fruit sheaf, Pentecost was indeed the one and fiftieth day; but counting seven weeks complete, when an evening must begin the account, it is but the fiftieth.

Fourthly, To this therefore it is that the phrase of the Evangelist speaketh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which our English hath very well uttered, the day of Pentecost was fully come; thereby giving an exact notice how to fix the day that is now spoken of from our Savior's death, and to observe that he speaketh of the time of the day indeed, and not of the night which was now over, and the day fully come.

The dependence of Pentecost upon this day of waving the first-fruit sheaf, was upon this reason; because on this second day of the Passover, barley harvest began; and from thence forward they might eat parched corn, or corn in the ear; but by Pentecost their corn was inned and seasoned, and ready to make bread, and now they offered the first of their bread. This relation had this Festival in the common practice, but something more did it bear in it as a memorial; for it recorded the delivering of the Law at Mount Sinai, which was given at the very same time: And thus the giving of the Law at Sinai, for the bringing of the Jews into a Church, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at Zion for the like of the Gentiles, did so nearly agree in the manner of their giving, both in fire, and in the time, both at Pentecost. Only, as the Christian Sabbath was one day in the week, beyond the Jewish Sabbath; so this Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given, was one in the month beyond the Pentecost at the giving of the Law, that being on the sixth day of the month Sivan, and this on the seventh.

§. 2. The Pentecost on which the Holy Ghost was given, was the first day of the week, namely, Sunday, or the Lord's day.

As our Savior by rising on the first day of the week had honored and sealed that day for the Christian Sabbath, instead of the Jewish, which was the day before; and as is said by the Psalmist, that was the day which the Lord had made, when the stone refused, was become the head of the corner; so did he again augment the honor, and set home the authority and dignity of that day, in pouring out the Holy Ghost upon the Disciples, and performing the great promise of the Father on it. Which that it may be the more clearly seen, it will not be amiss to lay down the time from our Savior's passion, to this time, in manner of a Calendar, that the readers eye may be his Judge in this matter.

And let it not be tedious to take in the account of five or six days before his passion: which though it may be a little Parergon, or besides this purpose, yet may it not be useless or unprofitable: nay, in some respect it is almost necessary, since we cannot in reason but begin our Kalendar from the beginning of the month Nisan, though our Savior suffered not till the fifteenth day of it.

§. 3. That many, if not all of the 120 received the Holy Ghost, and the gift of Tongues on Pentecost day; and not the twelve only.

For first, divers, if not all of them, were appointed by Christ to be Ministers of the Gospel, as well as the Apostles, Luke 10. and for this purpose had received the power of miracles, as well as they, verse. 17. they had received the Holy Ghost on the resurrection day, as well as they, Joh. 20. 22. compared with Luke 24. 33, 36. had conversed with Christ both before and after his resurrection as well as they; had received the promise of the Father as well as they: Nay, they were to preach to people of strange languages as well as they: and then what possible reason can be given, that they should be denied this qualification of the gift of Tongues, sitting them for that purpose, anymore than the twelve?

That divers of them were Ministers, if not all, there can be no scruple, what else was become of the seventy Disciples? And that, if they must preach, they must preach to some of strange Tongues, there can be as little, since experience showeth, Jerusalem itself so full of this variety; and since a few years will let all the Preachers loose to preach to the Gentiles as they met with occasion. Nay, we shall find this justified by the practice of certain of them, as we go along.

Secondly, It is true indeed, which is objected by some, that these words, They were all together, do come so near to the last verse of the former Chapter, which mentioneth only the twelve, that it may seem to speak of them only together at this time: yet doth both that verse and this as fully refer to the 120 in the 15 verse.

For, 1. The Evangelist doth lay that number from the very first, as the subject of his History, though his aim be more especially at the twelve Apostles: as in his history of the twelve Apostles, his History fixeth chiefly on Peter and John.

2. What should keep and separate the 108 from the company of the Apostles at this time above all others? The Text tells us they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , abiding and continuing together, in one place, and in one Society, Chap. 1. 13, 14. and so the progress of the story giveth us assurance they were till persecution parted them, Chap. 8. and it is very strange, that on this day, above all days, the high day of Pentecost, the holy day of the Christian Sabbath, the likeliest day of expecting the promise of the Father, that on this day they should be parted from their Society.

Thirdly, Look but upon the qualifications of the seven Deacons, how they were full of the Holy Ghost, Acts 6. 3. how Stephen was full of power, and miracles, and wisdom, and an irresistible spirit, verse. 8, 10. and how Philip was of the like qualifications, Acts 8. 6. and when, and where, and how can it be supposed that these men came by these gifts, if not upon Pentecost day, and jointly with the twelve Apostles? If it shall be answered, that it may be they received them from Christ, when he sent them to preach before his passion, as Luke 10. 17. then let it be shown how Barnabas came by his variety of Languages, to be able to preach intelligibly wheresoever he came, if not on this day?

It being therefore not to be denied, that there were divers others besides the twelve, if not the whole hundred and twenty (which I rather think) that received the Holy Ghost in the gift of Tongues at this time, and that they were Ministers as well as the Apostles: it argueth, first, that there were divers Congregations in Jerusalem from hence forward, or else how should so many Ministers there have employment in their calling? And secondly, that those that went up and down preaching upon the dispersion by persecution, Acts 8. 4. & 11. 19. were not ordinary members of the Church, or as we have used to call them, mere lay-men, but these men of the Ministerial function, and of Christ's own designation for that calling.

§. 4. The reason of the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so often in this Story.

The intent of this word is the rather to be looked after, by how much the less it is used in all the New Testament beside, and by how the more frequently in this Story. It is used in reference to the twelve Apostles alone, Chap. 1. 15. it is used here in reference to the whole hundred and twenty; and to the whole number of believers, Chap. 2. 46.

Now the reason why the Evangelist doth so often harp upon this string and circumstance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or of their conversing together with one accord, may be either in respect of the twelve, and one hundred and twenty, or in respect of all the believers.

First, The Apostles had been exceedingly subject in the lifetime of Christ, to quarelsomness and contention about priority, and who should be the chiefest, as Mark 9. 34. Mark 20. 24. Yea, even at the very Table of the Lord's last Passover and Supper, Luke 22. 24. And therefore it hath its singular weight and significancy, and showeth a peculiar fruit of Christ's breathing the Holy Ghost upon them, Joh. 20. 22. when it is related that they now so sweetly and unanimously converse together without emulation, discord, or comparisons.

Secondly, The 108 Disciples were in a subordinate or lower form, in regard of some particulars, to the twelve Apostles; and yet was there no heart-burning, scorning, or envying, no disdaining, defying, or controlling of any one towards another; but all their demeanor carried in the unity of the Spirit, and the bond of Peace.

Thirdly, If those two places in Chap. 2. 46. & 5. 12. be to be applied to the whole multitude of believers (of the latter there may be some scruple) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there doth singularly set out the sweet union that the Gospel had made among them, though they were of several Countries, several conditions, and several Sects; yet in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in singleness of heart, as they did convenire in the tertio of the Gospel, so did they convenire affectionately inter se. And this began to be the accomplishment of those prophesies that had foretold the peacemaking of the Gospel, as Esa. 11. 6. & 60. 18. & 65. 25. & 66. 42. Zeph. 3. 9. &c. and it was an eminent fruit of Christ's doctrine, Joh. 15. 12. of his prayer, Joh. 12. 17. and of his legacy, Joh. 14. 27.