---

These questions are the outcome of two widely different but intimately associated states of experience — the one intellectual, the other moral. The first is an inquiry of the mind in the face .of a problem which unassisted it cannot solve; the second is an inquisition of the soul in the presence of a danger from which unaided it cannot flee. An extraordinary event had taken place at which the perplexed beholders exclaimed "What meaneth this?" When the reply came it was found to involve such tremendous issues that they cried in despair "What shall we do?"

I. WHAT MEANETH THIS? The inquiry was —

1. Natural. The mind instinctively rebels against the unexplained. It was made for and is fed by knowledge. Just as the animal instincts are urged by thirst and hunger to search for food and drink, so the intellect is stimulated by a sense of void to inquire for the knowledge that will fill and satisfy it. These men were confronted by a mysterious fact, and were "troubled in mind" until it was accounted for.

2. Right. The liberty to inquire is one of the inalienable, inborn, and crown rights of humanity. That it may exercise this function, God has endowed it with the requisite faculties. The hunger of the mind for knowledge is a stamp of its Divine original, and a prophecy of its immortality. Inquiry makes all the difference between savagedom and civilisation, between weakness and strength. The feeble and superstitious shun it, and perish in darkness; the strong and wise welcome it and are rewarded by the light. We must carefully distinguish, however —

(1) between aimless inquiry, i.e., curiosity, and the search for true wisdom, and(2) between legitimate and illegitimate inquiry. "The secret things belong unto God." The present inquiry was in many respects legitimate and commendable.

3. Was addressed to the wrong persons with unsatisfactory results. Twice, we are told, they questioned one to another. They were prevented by a too hasty generalisation and by prejudice from asking those on whom these wonders were wrought what they meant.

(1) It was enough for "strangers" to know that they were "Galileans," a name which embodied all that was ignorant and vile.

(2) The "dwellers at Jerusalem" would recognise them as the fanatical followers of one who was set down as "a man gluttonous and winebibber." These manifestations, therefore, were treated as the ravings of men excited with enthusiasm or with drink. But Galileans as they were, drunk or mad as they considered, there was the phenomenon. They could not account for it, but they felt it must be accounted for. And instead of asking those from whom only a reply could be obtained, they engaged in a fruitless inquiry among themselves. How like modern scepticism!

4. Suggests an important line of argument in favour of Christianity. There are certain facts equally inexplicable to the human mind to-day. We do not see cloven tongues, etc., but we are witnesses of events even more wonderful.

(1) The conversion of infidels. Lord Lyttleton, Gilbert West, and some within personal knowledge.

(2) The conversion of men immoral and profane. Bunyan and John Newton, etc.

(3) The conversion of men of merely moral habits. John Wesley and William Wilberforce. Each case forces the question upon us. They are not isolated but common occurrences. How are they to be accounted for? On the score of weakness, wrought upon by terror or excitement, or on the score of ignorance? The known character of these men forbid these explanations. These wonders should set us inquiring, and the inquiry is as natural and proper in the one case as in the other, and furthermore by inquiring matters will be disclosed that seriously concern us all.

II. WHAT SHALL WE DO? Although not invited Peter undertook to reply to the first question. The general explanation was vers. 14-21; the particular application vers. 22-36. So with the modern facts adduced. Does this explanation satisfy? Is this explanation taken home? Then both will now as of old lead to the second question. This inquiry —

1. Expressed a sense of utter helplessness. "What shall we do?" These men were convinced of the crime and mistake of a whole life, and of the human impossibility of rectification.

2. Was to the point, "What shall we do? Not like the other question theoretical, but practical. They felt that they were in an unsatisfactory state, and that something must be done. What?

3. Was, like the first inquiry, answered.

(1) Repent. Change your mind, forsake your sins.

(2) Be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; implying faith, union with the Church and public profession. Conclusion: Both inquiries were at length crowned with blessed results. Three thousand received forgiveness for the past, comfort for the present, hope for the future (vers. 38-47).

(J. W. Burn.)

---

---

KJV: Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

WEB: Others, mocking, said, "They are filled with new wine."