__________________________________________________________________

           Title: A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles
      Creator(s): McGarvey, J. W.
          Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible
      LC Call no: BS2625.M3 1872
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   New Testament

   Special parts of the New Testament
     __________________________________________________________________

                                  A COMMENTARY

                                       ON

                               ACTS OF APOSTLES,

                                     WITH A

                          REVISED VERSION OF THE TEXT.

   by
   J. W. McGarvey

   SEVENTH EDITION

   TRANSYLVANIA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.
   LEXINGTON, KY.
   1872.

   Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by

   J. W. McGARVEY,

   In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the U. S. for the
   Southern District of Ohio.

   Transylvania Press
     __________________________________________________________________

                                  Introduction

   It is necessary to the successful study of any literary production,
   that the exact design of the author should be known and kept constantly
   in view. It would be doing great injustice to the author of Acts, to
   suppose that he undertook this work without having before him some one
   leading object, which should serve as the connecting thread of the
   narrative, and according to which all the historic details should take
   place and form.

   The conjecture of commentators as to what this leading object is are
   various and somewhat conflicting. "The writer's object," says Dr.
   Hackett, "if we are to judge of it from what he has performed, must
   have been to furnish a summary of history of the origin, gradual
   increase, and extension of the Christian Church, through the
   instrumentality, chiefly of the Apostles Peter and Paul." [1] This is
   rather a statement of what he has performed than of the object for
   which he performed it. The same defect attaches to Dr. Alexander's
   conjecture. He says: "The book before is a special history of the
   planting and extension of the Church, both among Jews and Gentiles, by
   the gradual establishment of radiating centers, as sources of
   influence, at certain salient points throughout a large part of the
   empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome." [2] That the
   history does exhibit these facts is certainly true, but that there is
   behind this a design for the accomplishment of which these facts are
   stated, must be equally true.

   The author's design is equally misunderstood by Bloomfield, and others
   with him, who say that it was "to give an authentic account of the
   communication of the Holy Spirit, and of the miraculous powers and
   supernatural gifts bestowed by the Spirit," and "to establish the full
   claim of the Gentiles to be admitted into the Church of Christ." [3] It
   is true that the history establishes the claim of the Gentiles to
   admission into the Church, and also contains an account of the descent
   and work of the Holy Spirit, yet neither of these can be regarded as
   the leading thought around which the contents of the volume adjust
   themselves.

   Mr. Barnes, in the midst of some detached statements upon this subject,
   has approached the true idea in the following characteristic remark:
   "This book is an inspired account of the character of true revivals of
   religion." [4] But the true idea is still more nearly approached by a
   writer in Kitto's Encyclopedia who says: "Perhaps we should come still
   closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke, in
   writing Acts, was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an
   illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had
   died to establish." [5]

   It is correctly assumed by Dr. Hackett, in the words above quoted, that
   we are to judge of a writer's design by what he has performed. Bearing
   in mind the distinction between the work done and the design for which
   it is done, a slight glance at the contents of this book will reveal to
   us a design which has escaped the notice of all the above-named
   writers.

   Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history
   of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversion
   of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the
   facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon
   it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative.
   All other matters are merely incidental. The events of the first
   chapter were designed to prepare the apostles for the work of
   converting men; the gift of the Holy Spirit to them and to others was
   to qualify them for it; the admission of the Gentiles was an incident
   connected with the conversion of Cornelius, and others after him; the
   conference, in the fifteenth chapter, grew out of these conversions;
   and the long account of Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and
   Rome, with his sea-voyage and shipwreck, constitute but the connected
   history of his preaching to the mob in Jerusalem, to the Sanhedrim, to
   Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome. The
   episode in the twelfth chapter, concerning the persecutions by Herod,
   and his death, is designed to show that, even under such circumstances,
   "the word of God grew and multiplied." All the remainder of the history
   consists, unmistakably, in detailed accounts of conversions.

   Such being the work performed by the author, we may readily determine
   his design by inquiring, Why should any cases of conversion be put upon
   the record? Evidently, it was that men might know how conversions were
   effected, and in what they consisted. The cases which are recorded
   represent all the different grades of human society; all the different
   degrees of intellectual and religious culture; all the common
   occupations in life, and all the different countries and languages of
   the then known world. The design of this variety is to show the
   adaptation of the one gospel scheme to the conversion of all classes of
   men.

   The history of a case of conversion, necessarily embraces two distinct
   classes of facts: First, the agencies and instrumentalities employed in
   effecting it; second, the changes effected in the individual who is the
   subject of it. In the pursuit of his main design, therefore, the author
   was led to designate specifically all these agencies,
   instrumentalities, and changes. He does so in order that his readers
   may know what agents are employed, and how they work; what
   instrumentalities must be used, and how they are applied; and what
   changes must take place, in order to the Scriptural conversions of a
   sinner.

   The chief agent employed in the conversion of men is the Holy Spirit.
   It is this fact which led the author to detail so minutely the descent
   of the Holy Spirit, and the various gifts and influences by which his
   work was accomplished. He thus teaches the reader what part this divine
   agent performed in the conversion of sinners, and how he performed it.

   Another important agency employed was the personal labor of the
   apostles and inspired evangelists. The manner in which their part of
   the work was performed is carefully described, in order that men of
   every age and country, whose business it is to perform the part
   corresponding to theirs, may learn, from their example, how to perform
   it Scripturally. But Peter and Paul were the chief laborers of that
   generation, and for this reason their names occupy the prominent
   position assigned them.

   It is well known that the recital by men of the process of their
   conversion is well calculated both to teach sinners the process through
   which they must struggle in order to conversion, and to stimulate them
   to undertake it. Men are taught more successfully and influenced more
   powerfully by example than by precept. Many religious teachers of the
   present day, having discovered the practical workings of this principle
   in human nature, depend much more, in their efforts to convert sinners,
   upon well-told experiences than upon the direct preaching of the Word.
   The success which has attended this policy should admonish us that
   these experiences of conversion recorded in Acts are by no means to be
   lightly esteemed as instrumentalities for the conversion of the world.
   They possess, indeed, this advantage: that, in contrast with all the
   conversions of the present day, they were guided by infallible
   teaching, and were selected by infallible wisdom from among thousands
   of others which had occurred, because of their peculiar fitness for a
   place in the inspired record. They have, we may say, twice passed the
   scrutiny of infinite wisdom; for, first all the conversions which
   occurred under the preaching of inspired men were directed by the Holy
   Spirit; and, second, if any difference existed between those put on
   record and the others, the Holy Spirit, by selecting these few, decided
   in their favor as the best models for subsequent generations. If a
   sinner seek salvation according to the model of modern conversions, he
   may be misled; for his model is fallible at best, and may be erroneous;
   but if he imitate these inspired models, it is impossible for him to be
   misled, unless the Holy Spirit itself can mislead him. Moreover, in so
   far as any man's supposed conversion does not accord with these, it
   must be wrong; in so far as it does accord with them, it must be right.

   If it be asked why we may not as well take for our model the cases of
   conversion which occurred under the former dispensation, or during the
   life of Jesus, the answer is obvious. We do not live under the law of
   Moses, or the personal ministry of Jesus, but under the ministry of the
   Holy Spirit. Jesus, just previous to his ascension, committed the
   affairs of his kingdom on earth into the hands of twelve men, to be
   guided by the Holy Spirit, who descended shortly after he ascended; and
   now all that we can know of present terms of pardon must be learned
   through the teaching and example of these men. If, then, the conditions
   of pardon under any preceding dispensation be found to differ from
   those propounded in Acts, in all the points of difference the latter,
   and not the former, must be our guide. These are the last, and
   certainly the most elaborately detailed communications of the Divine
   will upon the subject, and belong peculiarly to the new covenant under
   which we live. If God has made them to differ, in any respect, from
   those under the old covenant, he teaches us, by this very difference,
   that he has thus far set aside the old through preference for the new.
   In the following pages it is made a leading object to ascertain the
   exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and the precise
   elements which constitute real conversion to Christ.

   The present is pre-eminently a missionary period of the Church. None
   has been more so, except the age of the apostles. Especially is it
   distinguished by success in the conversion of sinners in professedly
   Christian lands. Hence, it is a demand of the age that the true method
   of evangelizing the world should be known and read of all men. But the
   true method can be found only in the labors of inspired apostles and
   evangelists, and the record of these labors is found only in the book
   of Acts. A failure to understand and to appreciate this book has been,
   and still is, a most prolific source of confusion and error in the
   popular presentation of the gospel. But failing to discover its chief
   design, sinners are far more frequently directed to the Psalms of David
   for instruction upon the subject of conversion than to this book, which
   was written for this express purpose. There is, therefore, no one book
   in all the Bible to which the present generation of Bible readers so
   much need to have their attention specially directed. We have
   endeavored, in this volume, to set forth the labors of these inspired
   preachers as the true and infallible guide of the modern evangelist.

   Another peculiarity of the present age is, the unlimited range given to
   speculations concerning the agency of the Holy Spirit in human
   redemption. A subject into which investigation should never have been
   pushed beyond the simple facts and statements of revelation, has thus
   become a most fruitful source of philosophical vagaries and of
   unbridled fanaticism. Whatever differences may appear among the many
   erroneous theories upon the subject, they all agree in the conception
   of a direct impact of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man, by
   which the latter is enlightened and sanctified. This conception is not
   only common to them all, but it is the fundamental conception in each
   one of them. Under the influence of it, the more contemplative theorist
   receives new revelations, or "speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost;"
   the more enthusiastic calls for outpourings of the "Holy Spirit and of
   fire," dances, shouts, and falls in spasms; while the
   transcendentalist, receiving still further measures of the Spirit,
   points out mistakes made by the inspired apostles, and exposes defects
   in the character of Jesus.

   Among the prevailing Protestant sects, a common theory of spiritual
   influence serves almost as a bond of union. It sometimes makes them
   almost forget the conflicts of past ages, melts down the cold barrier
   of separating creeds, and brings hereditary enemies together, to
   worship, for a time, at a common shrine. It is made the standard of
   orthodoxy; and to him who devoutly swears by it, it serves, like
   charity, to cover a multitude of sins, while to him who calls it in
   question, and contents himself with the very words of Scripture, it is
   a ban of excommunication. A difference on all other subjects is
   tolerated, if there is agreement on this; an agreement on all other
   subjects can be no bond of union, if there is a difference on this. In
   public discourse all other topics are made subordinate, and even the
   preaching of Christ, which was the work of the apostles, has been
   supplanted by preaching the Holy Spirit.

   Various as are the conclusions of these theorists, they all have a
   common tendency to disparage the Word of God. Precisely as a man learns
   to depend upon internal admonitions for his religious guidance will he
   feel less dependence upon the written Word. Hence it is that the masses
   of the people, who are under the influence of these teachings, are so
   deplorably ignorant of the Bible. To call back the mind of the reader
   from all such vagaries to the revealed facts and simple apostolic
   statements upon this important subject, is another leading object of
   the following work. We will find that the book of Acts presents, in
   living form and unmistakable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit.

   Some sixteen of the twenty-eight chapters of Acts are devoted almost
   exclusively to the labors of the Apostle Paul. Whatever can be known of
   this most heroic and successful of all the apostles must not only be
   interesting to every reader, but also highly instructive, as an example
   of faith in Christ in its higher development. Some of the most
   interesting facts in his history, and those which throw the greatest
   light upon his inner life, are not recorded by Luke, but may be
   gathered from incidental remarks in his own epistles. In this obscure
   position, they must ever escape the notice of ordinary readers. It is
   proposed, in this volume, to give them their chronological place in the
   narrative, thus filling up the blanks which Luke's design caused him to
   leave, and rounding out to some fullness and symmetry the portraiture
   of this noblest of all human subjects of Scripture biography.

   We have already assumed, in accordance with the universal judgment of
   competent critics, that Luke is the author of Acts. For the evidences
   on which this judgment is based, I refer the reader to works devoted to
   this department of Scripture study. It appears, from his being
   distinguished by Paul, in Gal. iv. 11-14, from those "of the
   circumcision," that he was a Gentile, but of what country is not
   certainly known. He was a physician by profession, and is styled by
   Paul "the beloved physician." [6] This encomium, together with the fact
   that he shared with Paul many of the labors of his life, was his
   ever-present companion in his imprisonment, even his only companion in
   the closing scenes of his life; [7] and that we detect his presence or
   absence in the scenes of the narrative only as he used the pronoun we
   or they to describe the party, are circumstances which indicate a
   character marked by great courage and endurance, yet softened by
   extreme modesty and warm affections. That he was a most enthusiastic
   admirer of Paul is evident both from the devotion with which he clung
   to his side, and from the vividness with which every peculiar
   expression of countenance and gesture of the apostle impressed his
   memory. He frequently records the sweeping motion of the hand with
   which Paul arrested the attention of an audience, and the glance with
   which he fixed his eyes upon the enemies of the truth. Yet,
   notwithstanding this personal admiration, so just is his sense of
   propriety that he never pauses for a moment to express his admiration
   for the wonderful developments of character which he portrays. In this,
   however, he but imitates a distinguishing peculiarity of all the
   inspired writers.

   The book of Acts embraces a period of about thirty years--from the
   ascension of Christ, a.d. 33, to the end of the second year of Paul's
   imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 63. In the latter part of the year 63, or
   the beginning of 64, while Luke was still with Paul in Rome, it is most
   likely that the work was published. For the historical connection and
   chronology of particular events described in the work, the reader is
   referred to the body of the Commentary.

   It was no part of my original design to undertake a revision of the
   English text of Acts, but I hoped that, ere this time, an improved
   version of the whole New Testament would be put into the hands of the
   public by the American Bible Union. No final revision of Acts, however,
   having appeared from that Society, or from any other source, up to this
   writing, I am constrained to content myself with such a revision of the
   text as I have been able to prepare during the progress of the work. I
   have aimed to preserve, in general, the language of the common version.
   Where the propriety of a change would be obvious to the reader of the
   Greek, or depends merely upon taste, no notes are given to justify it.
   In cases where a defense seemed to be needed, the reader will find it,
   either in the body of the work or in foot-notes. I beg the critical
   reader, however, to remember that the revision is designed not for
   general adoption, but simply for the purpose to which it is applied in
   this Commentary, and that, even here, it is a secondary part of the
   undertaking.

   In the execution of the work, I have aimed to make not merely a book of
   reference, but a volume to be read consecutively through, with the
   interest which belongs to the narrative. In order to this end, I have
   aimed to make a prominent the author's connection of thought
   throughout; and, in order to render it the more instructive, wherever
   the text presents important issues connected with the great religious
   questions of the day, I have taken time to elaborate the argument as
   freely as the space which I had allotted myself would admit. [8]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Com. on Acts, Int., p. 19.

   [2] Com. on Acts, Int., p. 13.

   [3] Greek Testament, with English notes, Int. to Acts.

   [4] Notes on Acts, Int.

   [5] Article, Acts.

   [6] Col iv. 14.

   [7] 2 Tim. iv. 11.
     __________________________________________________________________

  ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC EDITION.

   This electronic edition of J. W. McGarvey's A Commentary on Acts of
   Apostles has been transcribed from the text of the seventh edition
   (Lexington, KY: Transylvania Printing and Publishing Co., 1872). The
   commentary, without external links to Scripture references, was first
   published online with Dr. Hans Rollmann's Restoration Movement Texts at
   Memorial University of Newfoundland.

   This electronic edition is in the public domain and may be freely
   distributed and used for personal, non-commerical, or commerical
   purposes. Although no permission is required for use of this work, the
   editor does appreciate hearing about how it is being used to promote
   Bible study and to honor our Soon-Coming King.

   Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.
   Ernie Stefanik
   373 Wilson Street
   Derry, PA 15627-9770
   412.694.8602
   stefanik@westol.com
   Created 7 June 1997.
   Updated 16 October 1998

   [The original edition by Ernie Stefanik was converted for use by Logos,
   Inc, and from there converted to ThML for use at the Christian Classics
   Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org, 2003-06.]
     __________________________________________________________________

                                     Acts I

   I: 1, 2. A NARRATIVE of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince men
   that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his birth and
   terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the "former narrative"
   which Luke had addressed to Theophilus, and he alludes to it as such in
   introducing his present work: (1) "The former treatise I composed, O
   Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
   (2) until the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy
   Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up."

   This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its
   place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon it.
   The specific reference to "the day in which, having given commandment
   through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was
   taken up" is still more in point, from the fact that all the authority
   which the apostles had for the labors Luke is about to narrate was
   derived from the commandment given on that day. The history of that day
   furnishes but one commandment then given, which was the apostolic
   commission. In this commission, then, Luke locates the starting point
   of his present narrative.

   If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to us, we
   must begin with the author, by a proper understanding of this
   commission.

   During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human being to
   announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he discovered a
   disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not only to
   various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles
   themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, "Thou art the
   Christ, the Son of the living God," we are told that, at the close of
   the conversation, "he charged his disciples that they should tell no
   man that he was Jesus the Christ." [8] Such was his uniform injunction
   on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John had witnessed
   his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim him his Son, as
   they came down from the mount, "Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the
   vision to no man, until the Son of man is risen from the dead." [9]

   This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the New
   Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid that
   political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public mind,
   might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews that he was
   their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative reason for it, found
   in the mental and moral condition of the disciples themselves. Their
   crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their gross misconception of the
   nature of the expected Kingdom, their misunderstanding of much that he
   had taught them, and their imperfect remembrance of that which they had
   understood, rendered them incapable of presenting his claims
   truthfully, not to say infallibly, to the world. Moreover, their faith
   had not, as yet, acquired the strength necessary to the endurance of
   privations and persecutions. While laboring under these defects, they
   were most wisely prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ.

   During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed them
   that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should receive
   the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says, "The
   Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he
   shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
   whatsoever I have said to you." [10] "I have many things to say to you,
   but you can not bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is
   come, he will guide you into all the truth." [11] "He shall testify of
   me: and you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the
   beginning." [12] In these words they have a promise that they shall
   testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit for their guide; but the promise
   looks to the future for its fulfillment.

   Finally, "in the day in which he was taken up," he gives them the
   commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them to
   preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this commandment,
   they could not have dared to tell any many that he was the Christ; with
   it, they are authorized to begin the labors which our historian is
   about to narrate. But even yet there is one restriction laid upon them;
   for they have not yet received the promised qualifications. "He
   commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but await
   the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me." [13]

   Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for the
   limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it is
   composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but must
   be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
   Matthew presents three of them, as follows: "Go, disciple all nations,
   immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
   Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever I have
   commanded you." [14] Mark presents five items in these words: "Go
   preach the gospel to every creature; he who believes and is immersed
   shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned." [15] Luke
   simply states that Jesus said, "Thus it behoved the Christ to suffer,
   and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and
   remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,
   beginning at Jerusalem." [16] If we combine these items, by arranging
   them in their natural order of succession, we will have the commission
   fully stated.

   The command quoted by Mark, "Preach the gospel to every creature,"
   necessarily comes first. The command, "Disciple all nations," is next
   in order; for it is by means of preaching that they were to make
   disciples. But when a man is made a disciple he becomes a believer; and
   Matthew and Mark agree in the statement that he who believes, or in
   Matthew's style, he who is discipled, is then to be immersed. Luke,
   however, says that repentance must be preached, and as repentance
   precedes obedience, we are compelled to unite it with faith, as
   antecedent to immersion. Next after immersion comes Mark's statement,
   "he shall be saved." But salvation may be either that which the
   pardoned sinner now enjoys, or that to be enjoyed after the
   resurrection from the dead: hence this term would be ambiguous but for
   Luke's version of it, who quotes that "remission of sins" is to be
   preached. This limits the meaning of the promise to that salvation
   which consists in remission of sins. Next after this comes the command,
   "teaching them to observe and do" what I have commanded you. Finally,
   they were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently,
   complied not with the terms of the commission, should be condemned. In
   brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, and make disciples
   of all nations by preaching the gospel to every creature; to immerse
   all penitent believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
   of the Holy Spirit, promising such the remission of their sins; then
   teaching them all their duties and privileges, as disciples of Jesus.
   In the mean time, all were to be assured that he who believed not
   should be condemned.

   Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke
   proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the
   manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole
   narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its guidance.
   Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the items of their
   commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. For the strongest
   confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we refer to the course
   of the narrative as set forth in the following pages.

   3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the
   resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state
   briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does
   this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted
   a part: (3) "To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his
   suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty
   days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." From
   the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more
   particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These,
   having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here repeated.
   We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from
   the resurrection to the ascension was forty days.

   4, 5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after
   receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of
   the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the
   conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: (4)
   "And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from
   Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard
   from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be
   immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence." The command not to
   depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the
   commandment mentioned above, as being given on the day he was taken up.
   But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that
   commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in
   reference to the time and place of beginning. The "promise of the
   Father" which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit,
   which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which
   they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit.
   On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, ii. 16-18.

   6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by
   announcing, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me." It
   was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke
   next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him,
   the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they
   had long anticipated. (6) "Now when they were come together, they asked
   him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to
   Israel? (7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or
   seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority. (8) But
   you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you
   shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria,
   and to the uttermost part of the earth."

   The question, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to
   Israel?" indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles
   still misconceived the nature of Christ's kingdom; second, that the
   kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some
   attention at our hands, especially the latter.

   Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would
   re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its
   ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior
   does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a
   part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy
   Spirit.

   The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of
   transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which
   were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is
   to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course
   of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what
   laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation.
   All things enjoined subsequent to this period are binding upon us as
   citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or
   granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to
   us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less
   divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions
   of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This
   proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this
   period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all
   the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined
   by positive Scripture statements.

   The expression "kingdom of heaven" is used only by Matthew. In the
   connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians
   uniformly say "kingdom of God." This fact shows that the two
   expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we
   conclude that the "kingdom of heaven" is not heaven, but simply a
   kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called
   by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, "There are some
   standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man
   coming in his kingdom." [17] The Apostle Paul also speaks of the
   "kingdom of God's dear Son," [18] and says "He must reign till he has
   put all enemies under his feet." [19]

   Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which
   he became a king is the time at which "the kingdom of Christ and of
   God" [20] began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was
   made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced
   till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes
   the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of
   Abraham.

   But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was
   made king. "We see Jesus," says Paul, "who was made a little lower than
   the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory
   and honor." [21] It was after his death, and not during his natural
   life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject
   the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the
   days of John the Immerser.

   Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that
   he was made a king. For Paul says, "Being found in fashion as a man, he
   humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
   cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
   that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should
   bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
   earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father." [22] It is here we are to locate that
   glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to
   him, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy
   footstool." [23] He "sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,"
   [24] and the Father said, "Let all the angels of God worship him." [25]
   At this word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every
   knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is "Lord of lord
   and King of kings." It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated
   in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things
   in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was
   about to ascend on high, "All authority, in heaven and on earth is
   given to me."

   Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in
   heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on
   earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth,
   and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the
   day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, "This Jesus has God
   raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand
   of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the
   Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear."
   "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has
   made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
   [26] This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the
   history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which
   took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other
   conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on
   the first Pentecost after his ascension.

   We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss
   the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to
   favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, "The law and the
   prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is
   preached, and every man presses into it." [27] Again: "Woe unto you,
   Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of
   heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you
   suffer those who are entering, to go in." [28] And again: "If I cast
   out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to
   you." [29] It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law
   and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John's
   ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing
   into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from
   entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution,
   in the remark, "Then is the kingdom of God come to you."

   But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict
   with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant
   preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, "The kingdom of
   heaven is at hand;" eggike, "is near." Jesus exclaims, "Among them who
   are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the
   Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater
   than he." [30] Again: "There are some standing here who shall not taste
   of death till they see the kingdom of God." [31] And, finally, the
   question we are now considering, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore
   the kingdom to Israel?" It is evident, from these passages, first, that
   John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom
   could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living
   were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples
   themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in
   reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which
   John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the
   assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: "From the
   days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers
   violence, and the violent take it by force." [32] Whatever may be the
   true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can
   refer to the kingdom of glory.

   Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not
   provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting
   passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated
   by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John
   himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should
   constantly preach, "The kingdom of heaven is near." Again: if it was
   inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable
   that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present
   with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should
   be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable
   of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for
   this reason, be dismissed.

   On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of
   the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was
   inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be
   formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there
   is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It
   was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that
   the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly
   subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his
   subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that
   they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation
   could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to
   adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the
   right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of
   John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their
   teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of
   speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed
   them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both
   parties it could be said, "The kingdom of God is come to you." It had
   come to them in the influence of its principles. "From the days of John
   the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached," not as an existing
   institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the
   pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various
   statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the
   only way of which they are capable, lead us back to our former
   conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness.

   We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining
   when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they
   both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal
   existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not
   begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until
   John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no
   longer. On the contrary, he was himself "a minister of the
   circumcision," [33] and kept the law till his death. The law and the
   prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the
   gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was
   designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people
   for a "better covenant." Even the sacrifices of the altar, however,
   continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he
   expired on the cross. Then "the vail of the temple was rent in two from
   the top to the bottom," indicating the end of that dispensation. All
   the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way
   being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had
   gone, but through the vail--that is to say, his flesh [34] --he put an
   end to the priesthood of Aaron, [35] and took out of the way the
   handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. [36] At the death
   of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the
   next Pentecost the new kingdom began.

   Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider,
   briefly, the Savior's answer to the question which has detained us so
   long. He said to them, "It is not for you to know the times or the
   seasons which God has appointed in his own authority." By the
   expression "in his own authority," I suppose Jesus intended to indicate
   that the times and seasons of God's purposes are reserved more
   specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully
   from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is
   characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the
   succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles
   were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper
   preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the
   time, it was not important to reveal it to them.

   But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power:
   hence Jesus adds, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit
   comes upon you." The power here promised is not authority, for this he
   had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to
   know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which
   he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It
   is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom,
   but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy
   Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was
   inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.

   While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion to mark
   out their successive fields of labor: first "in Jerusalem," next, "in
   all Judea," then "in Samaria," and finally, "to the uttermost part of
   the earth." It is not to be imagined that this arrangement of their
   labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was merely designed
   to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through the prophets,
   because there were good reasons why it should be so. One reason,
   suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning in Jerusalem,
   was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of Jesus in the same
   city in which he was condemned. But the controlling reason was
   doubtless this: the most devout portion of the Jewish people, that
   portion who had been most influenced by the preparatory preaching of
   John and of Jesus, were always collected at the great annual festivals,
   and hence the most successful beginning could there be made. Next to
   these, the inhabitants of the rural districts of Judea were best
   prepared, by the same influences, for the gospel; then the Samaritans,
   who had seen some of the miracles of Jesus; and, last of all, the
   Gentiles. Thus the rule of success was made their guide from place to
   place, and it became the custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands,
   to preach the gospel "first to the Jew" and "then to the Gentile." The
   result fully justified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the
   gospel was in Judea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles
   of every region was through the Jewish synagogue.

   9. Having completed his brief notice of the last interview between
   Jesus and the disciples, Luke says, (9) "And when he had spoken these
   things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a cloud
   received him out of their sight." We learn from Luke's former
   narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them,
   with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft into
   heaven. [37] The cloud which floated above formed a background, to
   render the outline of the person more distinct while in view, and to
   suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its bosom. Thus all the
   circumstances of this most fitting departure were calculated to
   preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical illusion.

   It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of
   Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye-witnesses
   of the scene, if it really occurred, while is mentioned only by Luke
   and Mark, who were not present, is ground of suspicion that the latter
   derived their information from impure sources. Even Olshausen
   acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted on this point,
   because he could not account for this peculiar difference in the course
   of the four historians. [38] That the testimony of Mark and Luke,
   however, is credible, is made apparent to all who believe in the
   resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became of his body
   after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal and
   incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distinguish it
   from that of Lazarus, or the widow's son of Nain, so that he should be
   called "the first fruits of them who slept," [39] but the fact that he
   rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave the earth, there
   was only this alternative, that his body should return again to the
   grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, therefore, is the account of
   the ascension from being incredible, that even if none of the
   historians had mentioned it, we would still be constrained to conclude
   that, at some time, and in some manner, it did take place.

   We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not mention the
   ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary the Magdalene at
   the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated that it would take
   place. He said to her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my
   Father." [40] And that his ascension would be visible, he had intimated
   to the disciples, when he said, "Doth this offend you? What if you
   shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" [41]

   But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit an
   account of this remarkable event, and why should Like and Mark, who
   were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it? It would be sufficient to
   answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that which led each of these
   writers to omit some interesting facts which are mentioned by others.

   But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the last
   chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that John saw
   fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which occurred on the
   shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the last day's interview.
   Of course, it would have required a departure from, this plan to have
   mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings his narrative to a close with a
   scene on a mountain in Galilee, whereas the ascension took place from
   Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem. There was nothing in his closing remarks
   to suggest mention of the ascension, unless it be his account of the
   commission; but the commission was really first given to them at that
   time, [42] though finally repeated on the day of the ascension. [43] On
   the other hand, Mark and Luke both chose, for their concluding
   paragraphs, such a series of events as leads them to speak of the last
   day's interview; and as the ascension was the closing event of the day,
   it would have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still
   further, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events of
   which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified
   Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal account
   of the ascension.

   10, 11. Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future
   coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming narrative,
   hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even Luke had
   mentioned before. (10) "And while they were gazing into heaven, as he
   went away, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, (11) who
   also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This
   same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in
   the same manner that you have seen him going into heaven." These "two
   men in white apparel" were, undoubtedly, angels in human form. This is
   the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and is confirmed by
   the fact that two others who appeared at the sepulcher, and are called
   "men in shining garments" by Luke, [44] are called "two angels in
   white" by John. [45] Luke speaks of them according to their appearance;
   John, according to the reality.

   It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus
   would come again, but that he would come in like manner as they had
   seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It is a
   positive announcement of a literal and visible second coming.

   12. At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their longing
   gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and cheered by the
   promise of his return, (12) "Then they returned into Jerusalem from the
   Mount called Olivet, which was near Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day's
   journey." The ascension took place near Bethany, [46] which was nearly
   two miles from Jerusalem, [47] and on the further side of Mount Olivet.
   It was the nearer side of the Mount, which was distant a Sabbath-day's
   journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. We learn, from Luke's former
   narrative, that they returned to Jerusalem "with great joy." [48] Their
   sorrow at parting from the Lord was turned into joy at the hope of
   seeing him again.

   13. "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where
   were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
   Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and
   Judas brother of James." This enumeration of the apostles very
   appropriately finds place here, showing that all of those to whom the
   commission was given were at their post, ready to begin work, and
   waiting for the promised power from on high.

   14. The manner in which these men spent the time of their waiting,
   which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would expect: (14)
   "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with
   the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." The
   chief scene of this worship was not the upper room where the eleven
   were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, from Luke's former
   narrative, that they "were continually in the temple, praising and
   blessing God." [49]

   The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New
   Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disciples,
   instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faithful to
   the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his own
   mother. [50] Though the prominence here given to her name shows that
   she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the manner in
   which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed of the worship
   which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous church.

   Whether those here called the "brothers" of Jesus were the sons of
   Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined,
   from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic dogma of
   the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the solution of this
   question, but it properly belongs to commentaries on the gospels, and
   to these the reader is referred for the arguments, pro and con.

   15-18. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle to fill
   the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had authorized
   this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed that, as he
   himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in like manner,
   fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. Neither had
   the apostles yet received that power from on high which would enable
   them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. From these
   considerations, it has been supposed by some that the whole procedure
   was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact that Matthias was
   afterward "numbered with the eleven apostles," [51] and that the whole
   body were from that time called "the twelve," [52] shows that the
   transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after they were fully
   inspired. This gave it the sanction of inspired authority, whatever may
   have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had promised them that they
   should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,
   [53] and the fulfillment of this promise required that the number
   should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not reckoned among "the
   twelve." He distinguishes himself from them in 1 Cor. xv. 5, 8. "He was
   seen by Cephas, then by the twelve," and "he was seen by me also, as by
   one born out of due time."

   The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection was
   made, is not designated. The incident is introduced in these terms:
   (15) "And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples,
   and said, (the number of the names together was about one hundred and
   twenty,) (16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled
   which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke before
   concerning Judas, who was guide to them that seized Jesus. (17) For he
   was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Now
   this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling
   headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed
   out."

   The parenthetical statement that the number of names together were
   about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as including all
   who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were then and there
   assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after his resurrection, by
   "above five hundred brethren at once." [54] The hundred and twenty
   were, perhaps, all who were then in the city of Jerusalem.

   The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed by most
   commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by Luke, though some
   contend that it is part of Peter's speech. [55] If the latter
   supposition is true, there is no ambiguity in it to the original
   hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was
   purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon them, and
   which was invested in this way because they could find no other
   suitable use for it. [56] Knowing this, they could but understand Peter
   as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field to be purchased.
   But whether the words are Peter's or Luke's, it must be admitted that a
   reader unacquainted with the facts in the case would be misled by them.
   Luke, however, presumed upon the information of his first readers, and
   that knowledge of the facts which they possessed has been transmitted
   to us by Matthew, so that we have as little difficulty as they did in
   discovering the true meaning of the remark.

   As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method of
   reconciling Luke's account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly correct.
   We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the separate
   statements. The whole affair stands thus: "He went out and hanged
   himself;" [57] and, by the breaking of either the limb on which he
   hung, or the cord, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst,
   and all his bowels gushed out."

   19. The next statement, (19) "And it was known to all the dwellers in
   Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue,
   Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood," is undoubtedly a
   parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose
   proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course,
   translate it to them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him.
   But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew
   words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done
   here prove the words to be his.

   20. The historian now resumes the report of Peter's speech, which he
   had interrupted by the parenthesis. In the remarks already quoted,
   Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any commandment of
   Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. He also states, as the
   ground for the application of that prophesy which he is about to make,
   the fact that Judas had been numbered with them, and had "obtained part
   of this ministry." He now quotes the prophesy alluded to: (20) "For it
   is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and
   let no man dwell therein. [58] His office let another take." [59]

   These two passages from the Psalms, when read in their original
   context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the
   slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when he
   uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular
   application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that the
   habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that whatever
   office he held should be given to another, then it was pre-eminently
   proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be thus punished, and
   that so important an office as that of Judas should be filled by a
   worthy successor.

   21, 22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which
   Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of
   an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The
   qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must
   always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an
   apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence: (21)
   "Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the
   Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning from the immersion
   of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness
   with us of his resurrection." There being no other instance in the New
   Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our
   only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is
   unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a
   companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for
   confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the
   beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his
   identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person
   would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition.
   Peter here, like Paul in 1 Cor. xv, makes the whole value of apostolic
   testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus.

   23-26. "Then they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was
   surnamed Justus and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou
   Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two
   thou hast chosen (25) to receive the lot of this ministry and
   apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go
   to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell
   upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles."

   It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select
   Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom the
   choice should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which one he had
   chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one upon whom the
   lot fell was the Lord's choice. The reason that they did not make the
   selection themselves was evidently because they thought proper that the
   Lord, who had chosen Judas, should also choose his successor. If it be
   inquired why, then, they ventured to confine the Lord's choice to these
   two, the most plausible answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander,
   that, after careful examination of the parties present, they were the
   only two who possessed the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the
   selection of these two was made by the body of disciples, or by the
   apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, as
   many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of popular
   election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons
   between whom an election was to be made, was not the election itself;
   and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, and not by
   the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew the lots, but
   the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall.

   The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of its
   kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord,
   and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They
   do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one beyond
   the point perspicuity. The question having reference to the spiritual
   as well as the historical characteristics of the two individuals, most
   appropriately do they address the Lord as kardiognosta, the
   heart-knower. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt chose, or dost
   choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord before the
   choice; but, "show which one of these two thou hast chosen." They
   describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as the "ministry and
   apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go
   to his own place." He had been in a place of which he proved himself
   unworthy, and they have no hesitation in referring to the fact that he
   had now gone to his own place. That place is, of course, the place to
   which hypocrites go after death. Here is a simple address to the Lord,
   beautifully appropriate to the petition they are about to present; then
   the petition itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded.
   So brief a prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely
   be recognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that
   they will be heard for their much speaking.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [8] Matt. xvi. 20.

   [9] Matt. xvii. 9.

   [10] John xiv. 26.

   [11] John xvi. 12, 13.

   [12] John xv. 26, 27.

   [13] Verse 4, below.

   [14] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

   [15] Mark xvi. 15, 16.

   [16] Luke xxiv. 46, 47.

   [17] Matt. xvi. 28.

   [18] Col. i. 13.

   [19] 1 Cor. xv. 25.

   [20] Eph. v. 5.

   [21] Heb. ii. 9.

   [22] Phil. ii. 8, 11.

   [23] Ps. cx. 1; Heb. 1:13.

   [24] Heb. xii. 2.

   [25] Heb. i. 6.

   [26] Acts ii. 32-36.

   [27] Luke xvi. 16.

   [28] Matt. xxiii. 13.

   [29] Matt. xii. 28.

   [30] Matt. xi. 11.

   [31] Luke ix. 27.

   [32] Matt. xi. 12.

   [33] Rom. xv. 8.

   [34] Heb. x. 20.

   [35] Heb. vii. 11, 12.

   [36] Col. ii. 14.

   [37] Luke xxiv. 50, 51.

   [38] Com. in loco.

   [39] 1 Cor. xv. 20.

   [40] John xx. 17.

   [41] John vi. 62.

   [42] Matt. xxviii. 16-18.

   [43] Mark xvi. 14-19.

   [44] Luke xxiv. 4.

   [45] John xx. 12.

   [46] Luke xxiv. 50.

   [47] John xi. 18.

   [48] Luke xxiv. 52.

   [49] Luke xxiv. 53.

   [50] John xix. 26, 27.

   [51] Acts i. 26.

   [52] Acts vi. 2.

   [53] Matt. xix. 28.

   [54] 1 Cor. xv. 6.

   [55] Alexander in loco.

   [56] Matt. xxvii. 3-8.

   [57] Matt. xxvii. 5.

   [58] Ps. lxix. 26.

   [59] Ps. cix. 8.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts II

   II: 1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements,
   which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He
   has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of
   the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the
   resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an
   upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and
   waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of
   Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy
   Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative, (1) "When the
   day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one
   place."

   The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was
   celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits
   of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour.
   [60] On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the
   Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, "the feast of weeks." But
   the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages,
   under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost,
   which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.

   This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required
   every male Jew of the whole nation to be present. [61] The condemnation
   and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now,
   the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen
   as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning
   of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount
   Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law,
   founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the
   law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the
   Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that
   event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit
   descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no
   formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The
   absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in
   doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred
   on that day--the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy
   Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once
   agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the
   celebration of the day.

   That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first
   day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett
   advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was
   crucified on Friday, he says, "The fiftieth day, or Pentecost
   (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of
   the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath." He seems to have
   forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was "preparation day," [62] and
   that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread. [63]
   According to the law, the count began on "the morrow after" this day,
   which was Sunday. [64] Counting seven full weeks and one day from that
   time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning
   at six o'clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday
   evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and
   as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so
   certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday.

   Why Luke uses the expression, "When the day of Pentecost was fully
   come," is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and
   the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of
   these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.

   It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be
   "all with one accord in one place;" for upon this depends the question
   whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve
   apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost
   uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who
   will read the first four verses of this chapter, noticing the
   connection of the pronoun "they," which occurs in each of them, will
   see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and,
   therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be together in
   one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the Holy Spirit,
   and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with
   the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the
   statement, "They were all together in one place." Those who suppose
   that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to
   the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent.
   But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and
   second chapters, and take the last verse of the former into its
   connection with the latter, we will find the true and obvious
   antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: "The lot fell upon
   Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And
   when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord
   in one place." It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the
   term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters,
   severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid
   this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles
   alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit.
   This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is
   required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit.
   It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus
   had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had
   said, on the day of ascension, "You shall be immersed in the Holy
   Spirit." It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception
   of the design of the event, [65] to suppose that the immersion in the
   Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty.

   2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled
   together: (2) "And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a
   rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
   sitting." What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the
   supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms
   around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi,
   houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd
   described below gathered about them, and this required more space than
   any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the
   apostles had been lodging.

   3, 4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) "There appeared to them tongues,
   distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they
   were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other
   tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." This is the immersion in
   the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the
   apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important
   that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for
   its occurrence.

   There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in
   the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living
   instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of
   men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to
   understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We
   see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that
   one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, "it sat upon
   each of them," the singular pronoun it is used after the plural
   tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon
   each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the
   contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at
   once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power
   present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these
   tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon
   their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous
   knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion,
   therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to
   be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a
   miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment
   conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we
   have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages
   is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of
   the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of
   the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral
   endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of
   God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for
   some time "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God," [66]
   and "continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication," [67]
   would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all.

   We have already said something of the necessity of this event; [68]
   but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject
   again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was
   not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already
   recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now
   boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole
   time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage
   or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted--power to
   remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning
   of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the
   heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there;
   and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of
   men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived,
   and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, "You shall receive
   power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." [69] This power
   they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire
   authority of apostolic teaching.

   But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved
   not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named,
   but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best
   be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by
   merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the
   purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which
   you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they
   gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they
   possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done
   this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them
   their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed
   itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the
   prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of
   which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some
   considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the
   purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method
   conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate
   conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this
   occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
   If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some
   other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but
   this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If
   wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would
   have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring
   the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before
   reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an
   exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then,
   of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became
   possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an
   indisputable exercise of it.

   It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its
   purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages
   spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of
   the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this
   circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power
   of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not
   often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost
   uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous
   physical power.

   5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to
   this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never
   been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus.
   (5) "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every
   nation under heaven." The native tongues of these Jews were those of
   the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed
   by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to
   understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test
   the reality of the miracle.

   6-12. "And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and
   were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own
   dialect." The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms
   to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene.
   Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) "And all
   were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all
   these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our
   own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and
   Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
   Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of
   Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11)
   Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the
   wonderful works of God." Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express
   their feelings, Luke adds, (12) "And they were all amazed, and
   perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?"

   13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of
   the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after
   saying that "all were amazed," etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) "But
   others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine." The wine was
   not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not
   intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a
   peculiar process it had been kept sweet. [70]

   In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of
   this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far
   produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the
   greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any
   of them, without an explanation, could understand the phenomenon; and
   without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect
   upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to
   whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish,
   and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the
   matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of
   the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral
   power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds
   and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this
   explanation our attention is now directed.

   14, 15. "Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice
   and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be
   this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not
   drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
   After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of
   drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men
   might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day
   or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early
   in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the
   present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity,
   while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect
   refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of
   which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a
   sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of
   drunkenness.

   16-18. Peter continues: (16) "But this is that which was spoken through
   the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says
   God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and
   your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
   and your old men shall dream dreams: (18) And on my men-servants and on
   my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and
   they shall prophesy."

   From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the
   outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are
   mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a
   miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the
   mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be
   experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by
   an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of
   the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect
   immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that
   neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing
   it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary,
   the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and
   prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species
   of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to
   note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in
   order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found
   the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy
   Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving
   the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the ideas revealed,
   in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were
   affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips. [71]

   It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make use of
   the expression, "I will pour out my Spirit," to prove that pouring may
   be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by
   Dr. Alexander, [72] as follows: "The extraordinary influences of the
   Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the
   types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This
   effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told
   to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever
   may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its
   Christian sense to be compatible with such an application." That the
   apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of
   the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is
   undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized
   in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts
   clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st.
   The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The
   effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which
   of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who
   argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, "This
   effusion is the very thing," which they had "heard called a baptism."
   If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism
   consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour:
   otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word
   pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of
   pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was
   the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not
   the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was
   baptized.

   The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the
   baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring
   itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably
   requires; for he says, "You shall be baptized." These words express an
   effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be
   expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be
   poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus
   explains the promise, "You shall be baptized in the Spirit," by saying,
   "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." This is
   still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the
   Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at
   any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that
   this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different
   things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.

   We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for
   the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The
   term pour, here, is used metaphorically. In our vague conception of the
   nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and a subtle
   fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, is
   called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style of
   the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. The
   analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is not
   that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between a subtle
   fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit.

   We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in
   question an immersion. When Jesus said, "John baptized in water, but
   you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," his words suggested an
   analogy between John's baptism and that of the Spirit. But they could
   not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that their bodies
   were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is forbidden by the
   very nature of the case. But they would naturally expect that their
   spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the Spirit, as their
   bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event corresponded to this
   expectation; for they were "filled with the Holy Spirit;" he pervaded
   and possessed all their mental powers, so that, as Jesus had promised,
   it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of their Father that spoke
   in them. [73] Their spirits were as literally and completely immersed
   in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been in the waters of Jordan.

   19-21. So much of Peter's quotation from Joel as we have now considered
   was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speaking, and is of
   quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remaining portion: (19)
   "And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below,
   blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The sun shall be turned into
   darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and illustrious
   day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to pass that every one who
   will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

   It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time of
   Peter's speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfillment of
   these words; hence the remark with which he introduces the quotation,
   "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," is to be
   understood only of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The remainder
   of the prediction must have still looked to the future for its
   fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, expect that the
   events mentioned were to take place, "before that great and illustrious
   day of the Lord." This day of the Lord is certainly spoken of as a day
   of terror and danger; and no doubt the salvation contemplated in the
   words, "every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be
   saved," is salvation from the dangers of "that great and illustrious
   day." The interpretation of the whole passage, therefore, depends upon
   determining what is meant by that day. Is it the day of destruction of
   Jerusalem, or of the final judgment? The best way to settle this
   question is to examine the use of the phrase, "day of the Lord," in
   both Old Testament and New.

   In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of Joel, the phrase
   "day of the Lord" occurs three times, and designates a time when the
   land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But with the
   passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the same
   chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks of some
   other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies of Joel, and of
   all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used invariably to
   designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in which Babylon was
   to be destroyed, "the day of the Lord," and says of it, "The stars of
   heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the
   sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause
   her light to shine." [74] Ezekiel, in like manner, foretelling the
   desolation of Egypt, says, "The day of the Lord is near; a cloudy day;
   it shall be the time of the heathen." [75] Obadiah uses the same phrase
   in reference to the destruction of Edom; [76] Amos, in reference to the
   captivity of Israel; [77] and Zechariah, in reference to the final
   siege of Jerusalem. [78] And induction of these passages establishes
   the conclusion that "the day of the Lord," with the prophets, is always
   a day of calamity, the precise nature of which is to be determined in
   each case by the context. In some cases the context is so obscure as
   not to determine the reference with certainty. The text before us
   possesses some of this obscurity, yet with the aid of the above
   remarks, and the use made of the passage by Peter, we may determine the
   reference with no small degree of certainty.

   It is evident from Peter's application of the first part of the
   quotation to the the advent of the Spirit, that the latter part, which
   is contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene
   then transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the
   words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there would be
   good ground to suppose that reference was had to the destruction of
   Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the prophesy are "all
   flesh;" therefore, all classes of men are embraced in the prophetic
   view, and the "day of the Lord" must, according to Old Testament usage,
   be a day of terror in which all are interested. But in the destruction
   of Jerusalem the Jews alone had any thing to dread; hence this can not
   be the reference. It must, then, be the day of judgment; for this is
   the only day of pre-eminent terror yet awaiting all mankind.

   This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New Testament
   writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground indeed for the
   prominence that has been given to commentators to the destruction of
   Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. There was another and
   far different day, in their future, to which they gave the appellation,
   "the day of the Lord." Paul says, "Deliver such a one to Satan for the
   destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of
   the Lord Jesus." [79] "We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours,
   in the day of the Lord Jesus." [80] "Yourselves know perfectly that the
   day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." [81] "But the day of
   the Lord will comes as a thief in the night." [82] These are all the
   occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, and they show
   conclusively that "the day of the Lord," with the apostles, was the day
   of judgment.

   The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the "signs
   and wonders" mentioned by the prophet; for these are to occur before
   that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic meaning of the "blood and
   fire, and smoky vapor," and the darkening of the sun and moon, they
   represent events which are to take place before the day of judgment.

   Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we can at
   once decide what salvation is contemplated in the declaration, "Every
   one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The only
   salvation connected with the day of judgment is the salvation from sin
   and death. The reference, therefore, is to this, and not to salvation
   from the destruction of Jerusalem.

   This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the Lord,
   an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable prayer
   which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of that
   disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Certainly no
   one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting in disobedience
   can be included in this promise.

   Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the
   single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates.
   This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single word
   by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argument. The
   amazement of the people, upon beholding the miraculous scene, was a
   tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account for it. They were
   well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter's explanation. But if even he
   had attributed the effects which they witnessed to any less than divine
   power, they must have rejected his explanation as unsatisfactory. The
   question with them, indeed, was not, whether this was a divine or human
   manifestation, but, admitting its divinity, they asked one another,
   "What does this mean?" When, therefore, Peter simply declares, that
   this is a fulfillment of Joel's prophesy concerning the outpouring of
   the Spirit of God, they had no alternative but to receive his
   explanation, while the fact that it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave
   to it additional solemnity.

   If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude would
   have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one of them would
   have been converted. All this has yet been said and done is
   preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. We are yet
   to search for the exact influence which turned their minds and hearts
   toward Jesus Christ.

   22-24. It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to
   realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon the minds so wrought
   up and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next made
   by Peter. (22) "Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a
   man approved by God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which
   God did by him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know; (23) him,
   delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have
   taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; (24) whom God has
   raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not
   possible that he should be held under it." Filled with amazement, as
   they were already, by a visible and audible manifestation of the Spirit
   of God, they now see that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is
   subservient to the name of the Nazarene whom they had despised and
   crucified. This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence
   so replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger
   under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath
   they have just heard no less than seven startling propositions: 1st.
   That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders
   and signs which God had done by him. 2d. That they, themselves, knew
   this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in
   accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was
   yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to
   death, by the torture of crucifixion. 5th. That they had done this with
   wicked hands. 6th. That God had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it
   was not possible that death should hold him.

   Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into one
   short sentence. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" brought vividly before
   their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious history
   flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning him is an
   appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was from God. There
   is no need of argument to make this demonstration clear; nor of
   evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; for they were done "in
   your midst, as you yourselves also know." The fearfulness of the murder
   is magnified by the thought, that he had been voluntarily delivered to
   them, in accordance with a deliberate purpose of God long ago declared
   by the prophets. The manner of his death makes it more fearful still.
   They had nailed him to the cross, and compelled him to die like a
   felon. These things being so, how penetrating the appeal to their
   consciences, "with wicked hands you have crucified and slain him!" This
   was no time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and
   what he does by another. The "wicked hands" are not, as some suppose,
   the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual work of his
   execution, but the hands of wicked Jews. Here, before him, were the
   very persons who had been assembled but fifty days before at the
   Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of that awful day. He
   appeals to their individual consciousness of guilt; and this gives an
   intensity to the effect of his discourse upon their hearts, which it
   could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious of fearful guilt in
   having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant of God; and suddenly
   revealed to themselves as actors in the darkest scene of prophetic
   vision, how shall they endure the additional thought, that God has
   raised the crucified from the dead? Never did mortal lips pronounce, in
   so brief a space, so many thoughts of so terrific import to the
   hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the
   speeches of all her orators, or the songs of all her poets. There is
   not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the burdens of all the prophets of
   Israel, nor among the mighty voices which echo through the pages of the
   Apocalypse. It is the first announcement to the world of a risen and
   glorified Redeemer.

   25-28. There are two points in this announcement which required proof,
   and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. Having
   stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined purpose of
   God, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David in the 16th
   Psalm. (25) "For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always
   before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.
   (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad. Moreover,
   my flesh shall rest in hope; (27) because thou wilt not leave my soul
   in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (28)
   Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of
   joy with thy countenance." Only so much of this quotation as refers to
   the resurrection suits the special purpose of the speaker, the
   preceding portion serving only to connectedly introduce it.

   The words, "Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life," constitute
   the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had been
   negatively expressed, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither
   wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption" The words "Thou wilt
   make me full of joy with thy countenance," no doubt refer to that joy
   set before Jesus, for which "he endured the cross, despising the shame,
   and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God." [83]

   It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, "Thou
   wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One
   to see corruption," there is no distinction intended between the
   condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the whole is
   merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me among the
   dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion advanced, but not
   defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does intend to fix our
   attention upon the body and soul of Jesus separately. The most obvious
   reason for this opinion is the fact that his body and soul are spoken
   of separately, and with separate reference to their respective places
   of abode during the period of death. The soul can not see corruption,
   neither can the body go into hades; but when men die, ordinarily, their
   bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, not the grave, but hades.
   The words in question declare, in reference to both the body and soul
   of Jesus, that which must have occurred in his resurrection, that the
   one was not left in hades, neither did the other see corruption. The
   apostle, in commenting upon them, makes the distinction still more
   marked, by saying, (verse 31, below), "He spoke of the resurrection of
   Christ, that his soul should not be left in hades, nor his flesh see
   corruption." Why do both the prophet and the apostle so carefully make
   the distinction, unless they wish to fix attention upon it?

   The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, as
   its etymology indicates, (a, privative; idein, to see) the unseen. The
   Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched a friend
   sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the motion of the
   frame and the light of the eye, the continued presence of the soul,
   until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the eye fixed and
   leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had been deposited
   in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. But where is the
   soul? You see it no longer. There are no signs of its presence. It is
   gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the unseen. That the
   soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That it returned again to
   the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter; and it is this
   return which was predicted by the prophet, and which caused the
   exultation both of himself and the apostle.

   The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world
   now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from
   hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred
   purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the
   Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and
   either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or
   deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness
   during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to
   absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that
   they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body
   of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the
   resurrection of their own bodies. As long as men entertain the idea
   that their spirits enter into final bliss and glory immediately after
   death, they can never be made to regard the resurrection of the body as
   a matter of importance. This idea has been produced a general
   skepticism among the masses, in reference to a resurrection of the
   body; for men are very apt to doubt the certainty of future events for
   which they see no necessity. As respects the resurrection of the body
   of Jesus, the most popular conception of its necessity is no doubt
   this, that it was merely to comply with the predictions of the prophets
   and of Jesus himself. It would be far more rational to suppose that it
   was made a subject of prophesy, because there was some grand necessity
   that it should occur.

   It would occupy too much space, in a work of this kind, to fully
   develop this subject, we must, therefore, content ourselves with only a
   few observations, the complete vindication of the correctness of which
   we must forego.

   When the eternal Word became flesh, he assumed all the limitations and
   dependencies which belong to men; "for it behooved him to be made in
   all things like his brethren." [84] One of these limitations was the
   inability to work without a body; hence, to him, as well as to his
   brethren, there was a night coming in which he could not work. He says,
   "I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; the night is
   coming when no man can work." [85] This night can not be the period
   after the resurrection, for then he did work. It must, then, be the
   period of death, while his soul was absent from his body. During this
   period, he himself asserts, he could do no work, and certainly neither
   history nor prophesy refer to any work which he then did. It was the
   Jewish Sabbath among the living, and he observed it with absolute
   stillness in hades. If he had appeared to his disciples, as angels
   appear to men, convincing them that he was still alive, and could then
   have gone to heaven in his mere spiritual nature, who could say there
   was any necessity for a resurrection of that body in which all his
   sufferings were endured, and through which all temptations had reached
   him? But he could not be. Hades was to him a night of inactivity, as it
   is to all his disciples, though to neither is it a state of
   unconsciousness. If it had continued forever, then the further work of
   redemption, which could only be effected by a mediator in heaven, a
   Christ on the throne, sending down the Holy Spirit, directing the
   labors of men and angels, and finally raising the dead to judgment,
   would have remained undone forever. It was this thought which caused
   the exultation of the apostles, in view of the recovery of his soul
   from the inactivity of hades, and its reunion with the uncorrupted and
   now incorruptible body. "He was delivered for our offenses," but "was
   raised again for our justification." [86] His death was the atonement,
   enabling God to be just in justifying those who believe on Jesus; but
   his resurrection enabled him to enter heaven with his own blood,
   securing eternal redemption for us. The resurrection was, therefore, an
   imperious necessity in his case, and it will be in ours; for not till
   he comes again will we enter the mansions he is preparing for us, and
   receive the crown of righteousness which he will give to all them, who
   love his appearing. [87]

   29-31. Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, "the determined
   purpose, and foreknowledge of God," in reference to the resurrection of
   Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical necessities of his
   argument, next considers the only objection which his hearers would
   likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the words quoted, David
   speaks in the first person, and this might lead some to object, that he
   was speaking of himself, and not of the Messiah. If, however, it be
   proved that he did not speak of himself, they would readily admit that
   he spoke in the name of the Christ. Peter proves this, in these words:
   (29) "Brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that
   he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us to this day.
   (30) Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God had sworn to him, that
   from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ, according to
   the flesh, to sit on his throne; (31) foreseeing this, he spoke of the
   resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades,
   neither did his flesh see corruption." David's own flesh having seen
   corruption, as they themselves admitted, and his soul being still in
   hades, there was no alternative but to admit that he spoke of the
   Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted the supposed objection,
   but opened the minds of his hearers, to an entirely new conception of
   the prophetic throne of David, and of the Messiah, who was to occupy
   it; showing, that instead of being the ruler of an earthly kingdom,
   however, glorious, he was to sit upon the throne of the whole universe.

   32, 33. Thus far in his argument, the speaker has proved that the
   Messiah must rise from the dead to ascend his throne; but he has yet to
   prove that Jesus was thus raised, and was, therefore, the Messiah of
   whom David had spoken. He proves the resurrection by the testimony of
   himself and the eleven other witnesses standing with him: (32) "This
   Jesus has God raised up, of which we are all witnesses." Here the
   twelve unimpeached witnesses testifying to a sensible fact, and
   presenting their testimony with all the authority belonging to
   miraculously attested messengers from God. This was sufficient, as to
   the resurrection. But it must also be proved that after he arose he
   ascended to heaven and sat down upon his throne. It would be
   unavailing, for this purpose, to urge the fact that the twelve had seen
   him ascend; for their eyes had followed him no further than the cloud
   which received him out of sight. But he presents, in proof, this
   immersion in the Holy Spirit, which the multitude were witnessing, and
   which could be effected by no one beneath the throne of God. (33)
   "Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received
   from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this
   which you now see and hear." What they then saw and heard was both the
   proof that he who sent it down had ascended the throne of heaven, and
   the assurance that Peter spoke by divine authority in declaring this
   fact.

   34, 35. One more point established, not so much in proof of the
   exaltation of Christ, as to show that it also was a subject of
   prophesy, and this inimitable argument will be complete. (34) "For
   David has not ascended into the heavens, but he himself says, The Lord
   said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, (35) until I make thy foes
   thy footstool." The Pharisees themselves admitted that in this passage
   David referred to the Messiah, and had been much puzzled by the
   admission in a memorable conversation with Jesus; [88] but Peter,
   unwilling to take any thing as granted, which might afterward be made a
   ground of objection, carefully guards the application, as he had done
   that of the previous quotation by David, by the remark that David
   himself had not ascended to heaven; hence, he could not, in these
   words, be speaking of himself. This admitted, it must be granted that
   he spoke of the Messiah, for certainly David would call no other his
   Lord.

   36. The progressive advances of his argument being now complete, those
   of them which needed proof being sustained by conclusive evidence, and
   the remainder consisting in facts well known to his audience, he
   announces his final conclusion in these bold and confident terms: (36)
   "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has
   made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ."

   37. It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which Peter
   arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the Holy
   Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by the
   people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to Jesus
   Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confusion and
   amazement at a phenomenon which they could not comprehend. This fact
   proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the miraculous
   manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnesses, in itself alone, to
   produce in them the desired change. All the power which belonged to
   this event must have come short of the desired effect, but for a medium
   distinct from itself, through which it reached the minds and hearts of
   the people. The medium was the words of Peter. He spoke; and when he
   had announced the conclusion of his argument, Luke says: (37) "Now when
   they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and
   the other apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?" In this exclamation
   there is a manifest confession that they believe what Peter has
   preached to them; and Luke's declaration that they were pierced to the
   heart shows that they felt intensely the power of the facts which they
   now believed. Since Peter began to speak, therefore, a change has taken
   place both in their convictions and their feelings. They are convinced
   that Jesus is the Christ, and they are pierced to the heart with
   anguish at the thought of having murdered him. In the mean time, not a
   word is said of any influence at work upon them, except that of the
   words spoken by Peter; hence we conclude that the change in their minds
   and hearts has been effected through those words. This conclusion was
   also drawn by Luke himself; for in saying, "when they heard this, they
   were pierced to the heart, and cried out," he evidently attributes
   their emotion and their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of
   both.

   If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be produced
   only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not have
   expressed himself in these words, for his language not only entirely
   ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a different
   instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the whole
   change thus far effected in these men was produced through the word of
   truth which they heard from Peter.

   Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning
   Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for,
   previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demonstrated
   the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being
   established beyond the possibility of rational doubt, from the moment
   that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as an
   inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe to the
   words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke through
   them; hence this audience realized that all the power to convince and
   to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to words,
   belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, they must
   believe the oracles of God which find utterance through Peter's lips.
   They do believe, and they believe because the words they hear are
   recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hearing the word
   of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, must believe, or
   deny that God speaks the truth. This is true, whether the word is heard
   from the lips of the inspired men who originally gave it utterance, or
   is received through other authentic channels. The power by which the
   word of God produces faith is all derived from the fact that it is the
   word of God.

   No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in the
   feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when
   believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce
   such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed the
   hearers in the awful attitude of the murderers of the Son of God, who
   was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with all
   power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of these
   facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization of
   guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The former of
   these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, "They were pierced to
   the heart;" the latter, in their own words, "Brethren, what shall we
   do?" They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, speak of a
   possible salvation; and the question, What shall we do? unquestionably
   means, What shall we do to be saved?

   38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this
   most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first
   time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the
   true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in
   the world's history, the answer given by Peter on this day of
   Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and
   infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all
   subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it
   announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the
   same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows:
   (38) "Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of
   you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you
   shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

   That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is
   conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this
   point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the
   conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions
   of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one.

   Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable
   earthly circumstances. The rebel against God's government, though he
   lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of
   happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent,
   humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of
   shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless
   pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of
   pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having
   reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who
   may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the
   question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under
   consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present
   remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the
   light of the passage before us.

   If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply
   a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special
   reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were
   two things for them to do--Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had
   stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory,
   in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of
   the world, that the duty of a sinner, "pierced to the heart" by a sense
   of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.

   But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the
   salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21,) and their
   meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally
   definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be
   saved, is to repent and be immersed.

   From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the
   conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the
   sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer,
   taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the
   controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been
   Peter's design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without
   explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for
   they contain the only commands which he gives.

   But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable
   explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause,
   "in the name of Jesus Christ," to show that it is under his authority
   that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father,
   whose authority alone was recognized in John's immersion. That we are
   right in referring to this limiting clause, "in the name of Jesus
   Christ," to the command to be immersed, and not to the command repent,
   is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, "Repent
   in the name of Jesus Christ."

   Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific
   design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be
   expected as the consequence of obedience. It is "for the remission of
   sins." To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both
   the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be
   necessary to repeat the words, "Repent and be immersed in the name of
   Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." But, inasmuch as it has suited
   the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we
   here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who
   can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.

   Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, "The whole phrase, to (or toward)
   remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had
   reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer."
   Again: "The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of
   sins."

   Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: "eis
   aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matt. 26:28
   Luke iii. 3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs.
   This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to
   repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one
   part of it to the exclusion of the other."

   The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument;
   it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived
   by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in
   reference to the connection of the clause with the term repent, but one
   would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could
   not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed,
   some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the
   last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, "for the remission
   of sins" depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection
   of thought is this: "Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed
   in the name of Jesus Christ." It is a sufficient refutation of this
   assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would
   most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely
   different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different.
   If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the
   sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word
   of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption
   with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of
   any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it
   would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in
   the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the
   pages of partisan tracts.

   The dependence of the clause, "for the remission of sins," upon both
   the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem
   undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the
   enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This
   is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by
   many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the
   proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by
   the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins
   precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only
   proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already
   pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means "on account of" or
   "because of." Hence, Peter is understood to command, "Repent and be
   immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed." But this
   interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To
   command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already
   remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account,
   but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no
   possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d.
   It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the
   inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted,
   whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet
   remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a
   sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how
   they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes
   that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a
   position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious
   fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory
   which could not be otherwise sustained.

   We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if
   we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase
   on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for which it
   is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object
   is past or future. "On account of" some past event may mean because it
   has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would,
   in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The
   same is true of the equivalent phrase, "because of." If, then, the
   parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, "on account of the
   remission of sins" would mean, because their sins had been remitted.
   But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet
   unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of
   sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a
   rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the
   passage less perspicuous than it already is.

   It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for,
   designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which
   it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its
   author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed "to
   (or toward) remission of sins," we still have remission both beyond
   repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory
   conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether
   repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only
   toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.

   If, with others still--for every effort that ingenuity could suggest
   has been made to find another meaning for this passage--we render it,
   Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is
   fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or
   into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.

   Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened
   by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to
   raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the
   remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command,
   "be immersed for the remission of sins." If this were true, it would be
   no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small,
   has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the
   contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, "for the
   remission of sins," erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter's
   answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection
   would then read thus: "Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to
   them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord
   Jesus." Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart
   with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do
   to be saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer
   to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore,
   to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in
   order to be saved from their sins.

   The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners
   of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and
   so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts,
   that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading term, the
   meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this
   term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still
   stares you in the face. The fact is suggestive of more than human
   wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were
   moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a
   record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future
   controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in
   the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will
   still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his
   beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may
   be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those
   who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide
   the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace.

   If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation
   and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission
   of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer
   would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek
   thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in
   connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could
   more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus
   says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the
   remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt
   that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this
   case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the
   passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something
   is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is
   the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men
   are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same
   blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation
   through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance
   and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the
   attainment of pardon.

   The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of
   remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about the
   necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted for by
   the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be
   immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for
   the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. But the
   fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of their
   faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What
   shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but
   little less than mockery to command them to believe. It will be
   observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, that they never
   commanded men to do what they had already done, but took them as they
   found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of
   complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a
   complete formula for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing
   the parties before him what they must do in order to the remission of
   their sins. Being believers already, they must add to their faith
   repentance and immersion.

   Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of
   immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion is
   the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three
   conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith
   and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely
   worthless, but intensely sinful.

   The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, under
   iii. 19.

   After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the
   remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, "and you shall receive the
   gift of the Holy Spirit." The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be
   confounded with the Holy Spirit's gifts, nor with the fruits of the
   Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of
   character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter
   expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the
   expression, "promise of the Holy Spirit" in verse 33, above, where
   Peter says, "having received from the Father the promise of the Holy
   Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." The gifts
   of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and
   physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the
   gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed.

   39. Peter does not limit the promise of the Holy Spirit to his present
   audience; but adds, (39) "For the promise is to you and to your
   children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our
   God shall call." That we are right in referring the word promise, in
   this sentence, to the promise of the Holy Spirit just made by Peter, is
   evident from the fact that this is the only promise made in the
   immediate context.

   Some pedobaptist commentators have affected to find in the words, "The
   promise is to you and your children," a show of authority for infant
   membership in the Church of Christ. [89] But Mr. Barnes, though of that
   school himself, has the candor to say of this expression, "It does not
   refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish
   the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to
   infants. It is a promise, indeed, to parents, that the blessings of
   salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also
   to their posterity." That this is the true conception of the apostle's
   meaning is demonstrated by the fact that the promise in question is
   based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, with which
   infants could not possibly comply.

   The extension of this promise "to all who are afar off," is not to be
   limited to all the Jews who were afar off; but it is properly qualified
   by the additional words, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
   It included, therefore, every individual who should, at any future
   time, be a subject of the gospel call, and guarantees to us, of the
   present generation, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the same terms on
   which it was offered to Peter's hearers on the day of Pentecost.

   40. The historian had now concluded his report of Peter's discourse,
   but informs us that he has given only an epitome of it. (40) "And with
   many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves
   from this untoward generation." The term testify refers to the
   argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to the
   horatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed his
   statement of the conditions of pardon, and the substance of it is
   compressed by Luke into the words, "Save yourselves from this untoward
   generation." The command to save themselves must sound quite strange in
   the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men have no ability to
   do, or say, or think any thing tending to their own salvation. But this
   only shows how far they have departed from apostolic speech and
   thought. Peter had proposed conditions of pardon which they could
   comply with, and now their salvation depended upon their compliance
   with these conditions. When they complied with them, they saved
   themselves. To be saved from that untoward generation was not, as the
   conceit of Universalists would have it, to escape the siege of
   Jerusalem; for the great mass of them escaped that, by dying a natural
   death before it took place. It was to escape the fate which the mass of
   that generation were destined to meet in eternity, on account of their
   sins. We will more fully discuss the exact import of their term saved
   in this and similar connections under verse 47, below.

   41. The multitude, who had been so pierced to the heart by Peter's
   discourse, as to cry out, "Brethren, what shall we do?" were happily
   surprised to find the terms of pardon so easy. (41) "Then they gladly
   received his word, and were immersed; and the same day there were added
   about three thousand souls." The pronoun they identifies the parties
   immersed with those who had cried out, What shall we do? It shows that
   they promptly complied with the command which Peter had given them. The
   word which they gladly received can not be the main part of Peter's
   speech, for this had pierced them to the heart; but it is the word of
   his answer, which gave their feelings great relief by opening to them
   so easy a method of escape from the doom which they dreaded, and which
   they so richly deserved.

   Times without number the objection has been urged, and as often
   refuted, that three thousand men could not have been immersed in so
   short a time, and with the inadequate supply of water afforded in
   Jerusalem. As to the quantity of available water, Dr. J. T. Barclay, in
   his work entitled "The City of the Great King," written during a
   residence of three years and a half in Jerusalem, as a missionary,
   shows that Jerusalem was anciently better supplied with water than any
   other city known to history not permeated by living streams. Even to
   the present day, though most of the public reservoirs are now dry, such
   as the supposed pool of Bethesda, 365 feet long by 131 in breadth, and
   the lower pool of Gihon, 600 long by 260 in breadth, there are still in
   existence bodies of water, such as the pool of Siloam, and the pool of
   Hezekiah, affording most ample facilities for immersing any number of
   persons.

   As to the want of time for the immersion of so many, any one who will
   make the mathematical calculation, without which it is folly to offer
   the objection, will find that there was the greatest abundance of time.
   Allowing that Peter's speech commenced at nine o'clock, as he himself
   states in verse 15, and that the exercises at the temple closed at
   noon, we have left six hours till sunset. To immerse sixty men in an
   hour would be very deliberate work for one administrator. But there
   were twelve administrators, hence, each hour there were not less than
   seven hundred and twenty persons immersed. At this rate, in less than
   four and one-fourth hours the whole multitude would be immersed,
   leaving the sun nearly two hours high when the last candidate emerged
   from the water. In view of this simple calculation, which a child could
   make, it is truly astonishing that so many grave critics and preachers
   should urge this objection. It strikingly illustrates the blinding
   effects of partisan zeal.

   Now that the three thousand are added to the Church, we may glance back
   over the history of the day, and learn upon what preparation they were
   received to the fellowship of the disciples. To accomplish this, we
   must first consider their state of mind before Peter spoke to them, and
   then observe the changes through which they passed. Being Jews, then,
   they were already believers in the true God, and in the inspiration of
   the Old Testament scriptures. Luke declares, also, that they were
   "devout men." [90] They were, however, unbelievers in reference to
   Jesus Christ, and they were guilty of participating in his crucifixion.
   [91] At the moment that Peter arose to speak, they were full of
   amazement at witnessing the immersion of the twelve in the Holy Spirit,
   but their religious character remained unchanged. Peter speaks; and, at
   the conclusion of his argument, there is an evident change in their
   convictions. But they believe now nothing additional to what they did
   at first, except what Peter has proved to them. He has attempted to
   prove, however, only two propositions: first, That he and the eleven
   were inspired; second, That Jesus of Nazareth was now both Lord and
   Christ. The first, moreover, was established only as a means of proving
   the second. Several other subordinate facts were also proved for the
   same purpose, so that the whole speech is properly resolved into an
   attempt to prove the single proposition with which it concludes, that
   "God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and
   Christ." This, then, is what the three thousand believed, and this is
   all that distinguished their faith when immersed, from what it was
   before they heard the gospel from Peter's lips.

   But another change had occurred within them. Under the influence of
   their new faith, they were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt.
   This is the "godly sorrow" which "works repentance," [92] and it
   prepared them to promptly obey Peter's command, "Repent, and be
   immersed." They repented, and were immersed. Their conversion,
   therefore, consisted in believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting
   of their sins, and being immersed. This entitled them to membership in
   the Church, and so it does every human being who does likewise.

   42. Having been immersed simply upon their faith in Jesus Christ, these
   young disciples had many subordinate objects of faith to become
   acquainted with, and many duties yet unknown, in which to be
   instructed. In giving an account of these matters, Luke is far more
   brief, adhering strictly to the chief purpose of his narrative, which
   is to give the process and means of conversion, rather than a history
   of the edification and instruction of the converted. He closes this
   section of the history with a brief notice of the order established in
   the new Church, first describing their order of worship. (42) "And they
   continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and
   in breaking the loaf, and in prayers."

   The apostles were as yet the only teachers of the Church, and in this
   work they were executing the second part of their commission, which
   required them to teach those whom they immersed all things that Jesus
   had commanded. The same command which made it their duty to teach, made
   it also the duty of the disciples to learn from them, and to abide by
   their instruction. This duty the first disciples faithfully complied
   with, though it has been grievously neglected by their brethren of
   later ages.

   For the purpose of being taught by the apostles, they must have
   assembled together, and this was the occasion for manifesting their
   fellowship, which term expresses their common participation in
   religious privileges. It has been urged by some writers, that the term
   koinonia should here be rendered contribution, instead of fellowship,
   and that it refers to contributions which were regularly made in the
   public assemblies, for the poor. That the term is used in this limited
   sense in at least two places in the New Testament, must be admitted,
   viz.: in Rom. xv. 26, "It hath pleased them of Macedonia to make a
   certain contribution for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem;" and in 2
   Cor. ix. 13, where Paul says the saints "glorify God for your liberal
   contribution to them and to all men." But such is not, by any means,
   its common usage. It usually occurs in such connections as the
   following: "You were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus
   Christ." [93] "The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and
   the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you." [94] "And truly our
   fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." [95] "We
   have fellowship with one another." [96]

   The radical idea in this term is that of participation in common. We
   have fellowship with God, because we are made partakers of the divine
   nature, as we escape the corruption which is in the world through lust.
   We have fellowship with the Son, because of the common sympathies which
   his life and sufferings have established between himself and us; and
   with the Spirit, because we partake of the strengthening and
   enlightening influences of his teachings, and because he dwells in us.
   We have fellowship with one another, because of the mutual
   participation in each other's affection and good offices. The term is
   also used in reference to the Lord's supper. "The cup of blessing which
   we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The loaf
   which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" [97]
   We partake in common of the benefits of his broken body and shed blood,
   which are symbolized in the cup and the loaf.

   From the meaning of the term, as thus exemplified, originates its use
   in the sense of contribution; for in the act of contributing to the
   necessities of others, we allow them to participate in the blessings
   which we enjoy. We are not authorized, however, by the rules of
   criticism, to give it this limited signification, except where the
   context clearly requires it. Seeing that Christians enjoy fellowship
   with so many sources of happiness, the term unrestricted must embrace
   them all. In the present instance the context imposes no limitation
   upon its meaning, and it would be quite arbitrary to restrict it to the
   sense of contribution. The use of the article before koinonia can not
   be pleaded as a ground for such restriction; for it only indicates the
   notoriety of that which the term designates. Still, the idea of
   contributing to the wants of poor brethren is involved in the
   fellowship of Christians, and by the statement that they continued
   steadfastly in the fellowship, we understand that they continued in the
   common participation of religious enjoyments, including contributions
   for the poor. Whether these contributions were made at every meeting or
   not, we are not informed; but they were certainly made when
   circumstances required.

   Together with the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, Luke
   enumerates "breaking the loaf and prayers," as part of the exercises in
   which the disciples continued. The frequency with which the loaf was
   broken is not intimated here. It will be discussed under [1]chapter xx.
   7. This brief statement shows merely that this institution, according
   to the Savior's command, was observed from the very beginning of the
   Church.

   The prayers mentioned are those there were offered in public. The
   number of prayers offered on any occasion, or the order in which the
   prayers, the instruction, breaking the loaf, and the other acts of
   fellowship followed each other, is not intimated. Luke's silence in
   reference to these particulars may have arisen from the fact that there
   was no invariable order of exercises; or may have been intended to
   prevent the order in the Jerusalem Church from being regarded as an
   authoritative precedent. It shows clearly the intention of the Holy
   Spirit that the assemblies of the saints should be left to the exercise
   of their own discretion in matters of this kind, and furnishes a most
   singular rebuke to the hundreds of party leaders who have since
   attempted to impose authoritative rituals upon the congregations. If
   the example of the Church in Jerusalem, in this respect, though its
   exercises were directed by the whole body of the apostles, was not
   binding upon other Churches, what body of uninspired men shall have the
   presumption to bind what God has purposely left free?

   43. Next to this brief notice of the exercises of the Church, we have a
   glance at the effect of the scenes just described, upon the surrounding
   community. (43) "And fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and
   signs were done by the apostles." This fear was not that which partakes
   of aversion, for we learn below, (47) that many were daily added to the
   Church; but it was that silent awe which miracles naturally inspired,
   mingled with respectful deference to a people of such holiness.

   44, 45. We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellowship
   previously mentioned. (44) "Now all who believed were together, and had
   all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and
   distributed them to all, as any one had need." This was not a community
   of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; for
   distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only such
   liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations of the
   Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be allowed to
   suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to divide with
   them the last loaf in our possession. "He who has this world's goods
   and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his compassion from him,
   how dwells the love of God in him?" [98] We will, hereafter, see that
   the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one which engaged in this
   species of benevolence. [99] This conduct was in marked contrast with
   the neglect of the poor which was then common among the Jews, even in
   violation of their own law, and which was universal among the Gentiles.
   Nothing of this kind had ever been seen on earth before. We will refer
   to the subject again, under iv. 32, below.

   46, 47. The further history of the Church, for a short time, is
   condensed into this brief statement: (46) "And they, continuing daily
   with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,
   received their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47)
   praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added
   those saved every day to the Church."

   Whether the disciples continued to offer sacrifices or not--on which
   question see Com. xxi. 18-26--that they should "continue daily with one
   accord in the temple," was most natural. The temple had been, to them
   and their fathers, for many generations, the house of God and the place
   of prayer. The apostles had been led to its sacred precincts by the
   Savior himself, and here it was that the Holy Spirit had come upon
   them. Their most holy associations were connected with it, and it would
   have been doing great violence to their feelings to require them at
   once to abandon it. This natural reverence for the place continued till
   its destruction by Titus; and even to this day, the hill where the
   temple once stood has a peculiarly sacred place in the hearts of
   Christians. The "breaking bread," klontes arton, mentioned in this
   sentence, is not the "breaking of the loaf," e klasis touartou of verse
   42; but refers to common meals of which they partook "from house to
   house." This is evident from the connection: "breaking bread from house
   to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of
   heart." It was that breaking of bread in which they "received their
   food," which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf. There is
   no evidence that the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social
   gatherings. It belongs exclusively to the Lord's day. [100]

   By the expression "singleness of heart" is meant the concentration of
   their affections and desires upon a single subject. This devotion and
   concentration of thought could but result, as it did, in giving the
   disciples "favor with all the people," and causing daily additions to
   the Church.

   Those added to the Church daily were not "such as should be saved," as
   rendered in the common version, but tous sozomenous, the saved. In what
   sense they were saved, is a question of some importance. Dr. Hackett
   says: "The doctrine is that those who embrace the gospel adopt the
   infallible means of being saved." This is, undoubtedly, true doctrine;
   but it is not what is taught in the passage; for Luke speaks not of
   those who daily embraced the means of salvation, but of those who were
   saved. The view expressed by Alexander, that "men are said to be saved,
   not only in reference to the final consummation, but to the inception
   of the saving work," is a nearer approach to the true conception, but
   still falls short of it. It is not an inception of the saving work, of
   which Luke speaks, but the salvation referred to is complete; the
   parties spoken of being called "the saved." Both these learned
   commentators, by keeping their minds fixed upon a future state as
   offering the only fulfillment of the word "saved," have failed to
   discover the exact sense in which it is here used by the historian.
   Primarily, the term save means simply to make safe. In the religious
   sense, it means to make safe from the consequences of sin. If men had
   never sinned, they could not be saved, seeing they would be already
   safe. But having sinned, they are saved when they are made safe from
   the consequences of their sins. This is done when their sins are
   forgiven. At the moment a penitent sinner obtains pardon, he is, so far
   as the past is concerned, completely saved. It is in this sense that
   the parties in this case added to the Church are called "the saved."
   Paul uses the term in the same sense when he says of God, "According to
   his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and the renewing
   of the Holy Spirit." [101]

   The fact that the Lord added the saved, or pardoned, to the Church,
   justifies two conclusions: first, That men are entitled to membership
   in the Church the moment they are pardoned; second, That men should
   join the Church, not as a means of obtaining pardon, but because they
   have already obtained it. The former conclusion shows that it is
   unscriptural to admit, as some parties do, that certain persons are
   pardoned, and yet refuse them Church-fellowship. The latter condemns
   the practice observed by others, of received persons to membership "as
   a means of grace;" i. e., as a means of obtaining pardon.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [60] Lev. xxiii. 15-17.

   [61] Ex. xxiii. 14-17.

   [62] John xix. 31.

   [63] Lev. xxiii. 5-7.

   [64] Lev. xxiii. 15.

   [65] See below, on verses 3, 4.

   [66] Luke xxiv. 53.

   [67] Acts i. 14.

   [68] Com. i. 2.

   [69] Acts i. 8.

   [70] See Hackett.

   [71] See further on this subject, Com. x. 9, 16.

   [72] Com. i. 5.

   [73] Matt. x. 20.

   [74] Isa. xiii. 9-11.

   [75] Ezek. xxx. 3.

   [76] Ob. 15.

   [77] Amos v. 18.

   [78] Zech. xiv. 1.

   [79] 1 Cor. v. 5.

   [80] 2 Cor. i. 14.

   [81] 1 Thess. v. 2.

   [82] 2 Peter iii. 10.

   [83] Heb. xii. 2.

   [84] Heb. ii. 17.

   [85] John ix. 4.

   [86] Rom. iv. 25.

   [87] John xiv. 2, 3; 2 Tim. iv. 8.

   [88] Matt. xxii. 42-46.

   [89] Alex.

   [90] Verse 5.

   [91] Verse 23.

   [92] 2 Cor. vii. 10.

   [93] 1 Cor. i. 9.

   [94] 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

   [95] 1 John i. 3.

   [96] 1 John i. 7.

   [97] 1 Cor. x. 16.

   [98] 1 John iii. 17.

   [99] See Com. xi. 27-30. xx. 2-3.

   [100] See xx. 7.

   [101] Tit. iii. 5. See also 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Cor. i. 18.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts III

   III. 1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with
   uninterrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to
   introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary
   defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church.

   (1) "Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at the
   hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from his
   birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of the
   temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into
   the temple: (3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple,
   asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said,
   Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive
   something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not;
   but what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of
   Nazareth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he
   lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength;
   (8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into
   the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the
   people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, that
   it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And
   they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened
   unto him."

   This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by the
   apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in chapter ii.
   43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which the people
   were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending this miracle were
   calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement. The Beautiful
   gate of the temple, so called because of its magnificent folding doors,
   fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with gold and Corinthian
   brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. The subject of this
   cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, was well known to all
   who frequented the temple. From the natural curiosity of the benevolent
   in reference to the afflictions of those to whom they minister, it was
   probably known to all that he had been a cripple from his birth.
   Besides this, the time of the cure was when a multitude of pious people
   were entering the temple for evening prayer; and their attention was
   unexpectedly arrested by the leaping and shouting of the man who was
   healed. As they witnessed his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and
   John, no one asked the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that
   the cripple had been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in
   amazement upon Peter and John.

   11-15. The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades which
   faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon's Portico. (11)
   "And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast Peter and John,
   all the people ran together to them on the portico called Solomon's,
   greatly wondering." The admiration of the multitude was directed toward
   Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to indicate that they
   attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness of himself and
   John, than to the power of their master. He determined to take
   advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited thoughts into
   the proper channel. (12) "Then Peter, seeing this, answered to the
   people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you look
   earnestly on us, as though by our own power or piety we have caused
   this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,
   the God of our fathers, has glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered
   up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to
   let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy and just, and desired a
   murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you killed the author of life,
   whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses."

   In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance,
   with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. The
   antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force scarcely
   excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more penetrating to
   the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God of their fathers
   had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they had
   delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with the
   cruel Pilate's determination to let him go; their rejection of one holy
   and just, with their demand that a murder should be released to them;
   and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. These four
   points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. Whom the
   God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to die. Your
   criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a heathen judge
   declared him innocent, and desired to release him to you, you rejected
   him. Even this does not express the enormity of your guilt, for you
   yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be holy and just, and
   preferred the release of one whom you knew to be a murderer. But above
   all, in murdering him, you put to death the author of life, who has
   arisen from the dead. We might challenge the pages of all the classics
   for a climax more thrilling in its effect upon the audience, or for a
   happier combination of climax and antithesis. The effect upon the
   multitude was overwhelming. [102] The facts declared were undeniable,
   except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the
   cripple were the witnesses.

   16. But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the
   resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power and
   glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement. (16)
   "And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong,
   whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him, has given
   him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all." In this verse,
   there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous speakers,
   and designed to express more guardedly a thought already uttered.
   Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act of healing, "In the
   name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk," suggested to him the
   phraseology, "his name, through faith in his name, has made this man
   strong." But lest the superstitious audience might imagine that there
   was some charm in the mere name of Jesus, a mistake which was
   afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephesus, [103] he adds, "The faith
   which is through him has given him this perfect soundness." The faith
   was not that of the cripple; for it is clear, from the description,
   that he had no faith. When Peter said to him, "Look on us," the man
   looked up, expecting to receive alms. And even when Peter told him, in
   the name of Jesus, to rise up and walk, he did not attempt to move till
   Peter "took him by the right hand, and lifted him up." He exhibited no
   faith, either in Jesus, or in Peter's healing power, till after he
   found himself able to stand and walk. We must locate the faith,
   therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact
   that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of
   spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was
   empowered to walk upon water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to
   sink, and Jesus said, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou
   doubt?" Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon,
   asked Jesus, "Why could we not cast him out?" He replied, "Because of
   your unbelief." [104] In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles
   were wrought, but it was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal
   the sick. [105]

   It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise of
   spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong,
   ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore,
   which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the
   apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could
   work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in
   experiment.

   17, 18. At this point in the discourse there is a marked change in
   Peter's tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else than
   some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what he had
   already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon them, and
   exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now, induced by some
   perceptible change in their countenances, he softens his style, and
   extenuates their fault. (17) "And now, brethren, I know that you did it
   in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those things which God
   had before announced through the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ
   should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled." That they acted in ignorance of
   the real character of Jesus was an extenuation of their crime, but it
   did not render them innocent; for the preceding remarks were intended
   to convict them of crime, and in his preceding discourse he charged
   that with wicked hands they had crucified and slain him. Peter assumes,
   what none of them could honestly deny, that it was by wicked motives
   they were impelled to the fatal deed.

   In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states
   another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man,
   that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had
   declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking
   of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting
   facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, into
   juxtaposition, when he said, "Him, being delivered by the determined
   purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands
   have crucified and slain." That God had predetermined the death of
   Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both the prophets and the
   apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing what God had determined
   should be done, Peter affirms, and three thousand of them on Pentecost,
   with many more on this occasion, admitted it. If any man can frame a
   theory by which to philosophically reconcile these two facts, we will
   assent to it, if we can understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered
   have a place in the theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who
   denies either of the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not
   dispute with him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile
   them. This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and
   brotherly kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the mean time,
   it is better to follow Peter's example. He lays the two facts side by
   side, appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the
   consciences of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves
   them, seeming not to realize that he had involved himself in the
   slightest difficulty. It is folly to attempt to climb where we are
   certain of a fall.

   19-21. Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus, and
   exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the apostle
   next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) "Repent,
   therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that
   seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and
   he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you, (21) whom
   heaven must retain [106] until the time of the restoration of all
   things which God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy
   prophets, since the world began."

   Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the
   apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the
   beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily
   understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had said,
   implied the assumption that they believed it. A command based upon an
   argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency of the
   proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover, Peter knew
   very well that none would repent at his command who did not believe
   what he had said; hence, in every view of the case, he proceeded,
   naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith.

   In the command, "Repent and turn," the word "turn" expresses something
   to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way to avoid this
   conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to repent; but
   this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety in adding the
   command turn, if what it means had been already expressed in the
   command repent. We may observe, that the term reform, which some
   critics would employ instead of repent, would involve the passage in a
   repetition not less objectionable. To reform and to turn to the Lord
   are equivalent expressions, hence it would be a useless repetition to
   command men, Reform, and turn.

   In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary to
   determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The most
   popular conception of its meaning is "godly sorrow for sin." But,
   according to Paul, "godly sorrow works repentance in order to
   salvation." [107] Instead of being identical with repentance,
   therefore, it is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul
   says to the Corinthians, in the same connection, "Now I rejoice, not
   that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance." This
   remark shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also
   implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That there
   is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow for
   sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding those
   on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, to repent. It is
   also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced the most intense
   sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance. His feeling is
   expressed by a different term in the original, which is never used to
   express the change which the gospel requires, and is equivalent to
   regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses the idea of
   remorse.

   In thus tracing the distinction between "godly sorrow" and
   "repentance," we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced
   by sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the
   definition of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for
   sin. Is it not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by
   sorrow for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is
   equivalent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from
   repenting. The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the
   Immerser, in requiring the people to "bring forth fruits meet for
   repentance," clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds
   of a reformed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With
   him, reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The
   distinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When
   Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day, [108] he certainly means
   something different from reformation; for that would require more time.
   Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent and be
   immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he would certainly
   have given them time to reform before they were immersed, instead of
   immersing them immediately. Finally, the original term is sometimes
   used in connection with such prepositions as are not suitable to the
   idea of reformation. As a general rule it is followed by apo, or ek,
   which are suitable to either idea; but in 2 Cor. xii. 21, it is
   followed by epi with the dative: "Many have not repented, epi, of the
   uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have
   committed." Now men do not reform of their evil deeds, neither will the
   preposition, in this case, bear a rendering which would suit the term
   reform. [109] Reform, then, does not express the same idea as repent,
   but, as we have seen above, reformation is the fruit or result of
   repentance.

   Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results
   in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining
   exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads
   to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The
   etymological meaning of metanoia is a change of mind; but the
   particular element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will.
   Strictly defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will,
   produced by sorrow for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change
   of will is not produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the
   religious sense, though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus,
   Esau "found no place for metanoias, a change of mind, though he sought
   it carefully with tears." [110] Here the word designates a change in
   the mind of Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already
   given to Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin,
   hence it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if
   the change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which
   does not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a
   change in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did
   not repent. The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation;
   it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by metamelomai. Our
   definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy. [111]

   We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the
   command, "Repent and turn," the terms repent, and turn, express two
   distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. Their
   relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says that the
   former denotes "a change of mind," the latter "a change of conduct."
   Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: "This expression ('be
   converted,') conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It
   conveys the idea of passivity--BE converted, as if they were to yield
   to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of
   being passive in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word
   properly means to turn--to return to a path from which one has gone
   astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them." That
   turn, rather than be converted, is the correct rendering of the term,
   is not disputed by any competent authority; we shall assume, therefore,
   that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what Peter intended to
   designate by this term.

   As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A change of
   conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, have a
   beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the better
   life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is performed.
   Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it he has
   turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning to the
   Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that the
   penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate
   any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance of either. But the
   fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined upon the penitent,
   as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and that was to be
   immersed. This Peter's present hearers understood. They had heard him
   say to parties like themselves, "Repent and be immersed;" and the first
   act they saw performed by those who signified their repentance, was to
   be immersed. When, now, he commands them to repent and turn, they could
   but understand that they were to turn as their predecessors had done,
   by being immersed. The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent,
   not because the words have the same meaning, but because the command,
   "Turn to the Lord" was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being
   immersed. Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after
   immersion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act.

   We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. The
   command Turn occupies the same position between repentance and the
   remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be immersed had
   occupied in Peter's former discourse. He then said, "Repent and be
   immersed for the remission of sins;" now he says, "Repent and turn that
   your sins may be blotted out." Now, when his present hearers heard him
   command them to turn in order to the same blessing for which he had
   formerly commanded them to be immersed, they could but understand that
   the generic word turn was used with specific reference to immersion,
   and the the substitution is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner
   turns to God by being immersed.

   This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander
   Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him then an
   opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition is not
   the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word conversion
   being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change of heart,
   when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly rendered in this
   passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by immersion, the
   conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected all change of
   heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has reiterated, again
   and again, the sense in which he employed the term convert, and that
   the heart must be changed by faith and repentance previous to the
   conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet those who are
   determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the wicked and
   senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum, like the
   scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. There are always
   those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful.

   There are several facts connected with the use of the original term,
   epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs
   thirty-nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere
   physical act of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a
   change from evil to good, and twice [112] from good to evil. The term
   convert, therefore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the
   scriptural sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be
   converted can never truly represent the original, though it is so
   rendered six times in the common version. The original is invariably in
   the active voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on
   the English reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it
   truthfully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these:
   "Repent and convert;" "lest they should see with their eyes, and hear
   with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert,
   and I should heal them," &c. In a correct version of the New Testament,
   the expression be converted could not possibly occur; for there is
   nothing in the original to justify it.

   Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change
   called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the
   only power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less
   than blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting
   himself, yet the original word never does refer either to God, or
   Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of
   its nineteen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it
   is employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some
   brother in the Church; [113] and in the remaining fourteen instances,
   the agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may
   be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act
   are never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term
   invariably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These
   observations show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in
   popular usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely
   represents, and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our
   English Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning,
   in usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every
   instance. [114]

   Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three
   distinct objects: first, "That your sins may be blotted out;" second,
   "That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;"
   third, "That he may send Jesus Christ who was before preached to you."
   It is supposed, by the commentators generally, that the last two events
   are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous, so that the "seasons of
   refreshing" spoken of are those which will take place at the second
   coming of Christ. That there will be seasons of refreshing then, is
   true; but there are others more immediately dependent upon the
   obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which the reference is more
   natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were
   immediately consequent upon repentance and immersion, certainly bring
   "seasons of refreshing," which might well be made the subject of
   promise to hearers supposed to be trembling with guilty apprehension.
   The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit;
   for they occupy the same place here that the gift of the Spirit did in
   the former discourse. Then, after repentance, immersion, and the
   remission of sins, came the promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the
   same three, somewhat differently expressed--i. e., repentance, turning
   to the Lord, and blotting out of sins--comes the promise of "seasons of
   refreshing from the presence of the Lord." They are, then, the fresh
   and cheering enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is
   taught to believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is
   with him.

   The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before
   preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as
   they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to
   raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are his. It is
   qualified by the remark, "whom heaven must retain until the times of
   the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of
   all his holy prophets since the world began." It is difficult to
   determine the exact force of the term restoration in this connection.
   It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, purity, and
   happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous to the
   second coming of Christ. [115] But the apostle speaks of a restoration
   of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy
   prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside
   those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are
   included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist,
   individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction. Still, the
   prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken,
   even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to
   finally restore that moral saw which God originally exercised over the
   whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term
   restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the
   prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are
   fulfilled will Christ come again.

   22, 23. For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims of
   Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting him,
   the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. [116] (22)
   "For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your
   God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him shall ye
   hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it shall
   come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be
   destroyed from among the people." Whether Peter was right in applying
   this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between him and
   Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate incidents of his
   history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes both Moses and
   Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer of his people, and
   an original lawgiver. No prophet had been like him in these two
   particulars. The chief mission of the other prophets, so far as their
   cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce the law of Moses. But
   Christ had now come, speaking by his our authority, offering a more
   glorious deliverance to the people than that from Egypt, and issuing
   new laws for the government of men. This proved that he, and he alone,
   was the prophet spoken of by Moses, and Peter's hearers now perceive
   that the authority of Moses himself binds them to the authority of
   Jesus, and that they must hear him, on the penalty of destruction if
   they refuse.

   24. Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, Peter
   adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) "And, indeed,
   all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as many as
   have spoken, have also foretold these days." This declaration is to be
   understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded in the
   Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in proof of his
   proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the prophets had
   spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already proved, by
   Peter's preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; hence the
   argument is now complete.

   25, 26. Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship of
   Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, and
   by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel down to
   Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, based upon
   their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the covenant
   which God had made with them. (25) "You are the sons of the prophets,
   and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham,
   And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. (26)
   Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has sent him to
   bless you, in turning away each one of you from his iniquities." This
   was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made more effective
   by the statement that to them first because of their relation to the
   prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son to bless them,
   before visiting the rest of the world.

   The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true
   interpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in
   turning living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore,
   who, under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their
   iniquities, can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this
   promise. That all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not
   affect this conclusion, except to extend its application to those of
   all nations who should, at any period of time, turn from their
   iniquities. The Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by
   all the apostolic comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the
   blessing to any but those who in this life believe and turn to the
   Lord. [117]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [102] See below, on verse 17.

   [103] Acts xix. 13.

   [104] Matt. xvii. 19, 20.

   [105] James v. 15.

   [106] Receive (common version) is the literal meaning of the original
   dekasthai, but it is certainly used here in the sense of retain. Heaven
   had already received him; it was yet to retain him.

   [107] 2 Cor. vii. 10.

   [108] Luke xvii. 4.

   [109] For the suggestion of this criticism, I am indebted to my friend
   and brother, H. T. Anderson.

   [110] Heb. xii. 17.

   [111] In perfecting this definition, I am indebted to Prof. W. K.
   Pendleton, of Bethany College, for valuable suggestions.

   [112] Gal. iv. 9; 2 Peter ii. 21.

   [113] Luke i. 16, 17; Acts xxvi. 18; James v. 19, 20.

   [114] It is gratifying to observe that the incipient version of the
   American Bible Union corresponds to the views here expressed.

   [115] Hackett.

   [116] Deut. xviii. 15-19.

   [117] See Gal. iii. 7-9, et al.)
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts IV

   IV: 1-3. Just at this point in Peter's discourse: (1) "And while they
   were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the
   temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that
   they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection
   from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold
   unto the next day; for it was already evening." This sudden disturbance
   of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through
   their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of
   persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the
   first peaceful triumphs of the apostles.

   We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to
   this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus,
   supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him
   would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his
   most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to
   his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack
   upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees
   interfering to save them from threatened death. [118] In order to
   appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must
   note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case.

   The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men
   simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and
   holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature
   of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of
   his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but
   chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the
   people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard
   him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were
   most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most.
   Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for
   they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If
   he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching
   righteousness, "letting other people alone," he might have passed his
   days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty. He knew that his
   teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of
   the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were
   dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had
   secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He
   undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets
   and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew
   contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is
   not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such
   denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part
   of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit
   of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however,
   they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the
   denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the
   Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their
   hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree,
   his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some
   friendly sympathy.

   With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally
   reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any
   party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning
   the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief
   distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection,
   and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the
   whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity
   in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party
   to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested
   Peter and John, "being indignant that they taught the people, and
   preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead." They were
   seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time
   officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the
   Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of
   the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their
   services. The "captain of the temple," with his guard, was doubtless
   subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and
   executed the arrest.

   4. The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown
   into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them,
   doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and
   John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their
   master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter
   were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion
   of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) "But many of those who were hearing
   the word believed, and the number of the men became about five
   thousand." Whether this number includes the three thousand who were
   added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is
   generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the
   present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the
   number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand.

   5, 6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all
   further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and
   John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual
   encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) "And it came to pass
   on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas
   the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as
   were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in
   Jerusalem." This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the
   parties here named are the different officials who constituted that
   tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and
   Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the
   trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between
   the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to
   their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high
   priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to
   Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate,
   had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed
   and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas,
   finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate.
   [119] The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to
   Annas. [120] According to the law of Moses the high priest held office
   during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the
   Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still
   high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke.
   The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for
   trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to
   Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as
   being high priests at the same time. [121] This is best explained by
   the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other
   was exercising it by illegal appointment.

   The "kindred of the high priest" embraced not only the chief members of
   his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who
   were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly
   family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim.

   7. When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the
   cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side.
   (7) "And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by
   what name, have you done this?"

   This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the
   presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment,
   and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to
   remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds,
   and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant
   part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of
   Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them
   both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of
   Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. "Beware of
   men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will
   scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before
   governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the
   Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you
   shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall
   say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that
   speaks in you." [122] Cheered by this promise, they now stand before
   their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter.

   The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred
   against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be
   extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question
   propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or,
   in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the
   answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question
   specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on
   which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question,
   in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say
   something on which they might condemn him.

   8-10. They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter
   any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as
   the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed,
   which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear
   mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to
   the other terms of their question, than they either desired or
   anticipated. (8) "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to
   them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are
   examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by
   what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all
   the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
   whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man
   stand before you sound." This statement needed no proof, for the
   Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the
   miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute
   the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny
   that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of
   all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject
   the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would
   have been still more absurd.

   11, 12. Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes
   his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) "This is
   the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head
   of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there
   is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be
   saved." In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous
   attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the
   foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without
   which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language
   of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man
   except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This
   proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by
   Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved.

   13, 14. Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of
   men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the
   apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday's
   proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in
   the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) "Now, seeing the
   freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were
   illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them,
   that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was
   healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it." There
   was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in
   the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter's brief speech. He
   had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been
   instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his
   words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was
   painful and embarrassing.

   15, 16. Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the
   prisoners be withdrawn. (15) "And having commanded them to go aside out
   of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What
   shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been
   wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can
   not deny it." This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the
   utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is
   astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in
   such a course.

   17. The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of
   which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire
   to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in
   the conclusion to which they came. (17) "But, that it may be spread no
   further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they
   speak, henceforth, to no man in this name." The man who made this
   proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a
   difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some
   means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very
   shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a
   safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in
   the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it.

   18. The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) "And they
   called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the
   name of Jesus." How Luke learned the particulars of the secret
   consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed,
   though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul's teacher, and
   perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a
   great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to
   the faith. [123] These and other conversions from the ranks of the
   enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance.

   19, 20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal
   safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired
   respectfully from the assembly. (19) "But, Peter and John answered and
   said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to
   you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the
   things which we have seen and heard." This was an open defiance of
   their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a
   vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence
   should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a
   command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly
   understood.

   21, 22. It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to
   brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no
   doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men
   who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) "And when
   they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how
   they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God
   for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was
   wrought was more than forty years of age."

   23-30. The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and
   went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by
   their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent
   danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which
   enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of
   life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and
   of all imitation. (23) "And being let go, they went to their own
   company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to
   them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God
   with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the
   heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who
   through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles
   rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth
   stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and
   against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus
   whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the
   Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do
   what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And
   now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that
   with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy
   hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name
   of thy holy son Jesus." This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren,
   and the expression, "they lifted up their voice with one accord,"
   indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the
   words of the leader.

   In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness,
   in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable
   simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the
   occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two
   men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they
   addressed him as the "heart-knower;" now they desire his protecting
   power, and they style him the "Sovereign God who made heaven and earth,
   and the sea, and all that is in them." They remind him that, according
   to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod
   and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the
   Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to "behold the
   threatening," and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in
   defiance of all opposition.

   In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to
   be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and
   sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war
   against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone
   of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some
   mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most
   indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were
   threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their
   prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in
   reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their
   threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that
   unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for
   the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and
   destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even
   within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in
   every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than
   themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can
   not be said here.

   In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner
   in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some
   direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of
   his continued presence and favor: "by stretching out his hand to heal,
   and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus."

   31. The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they
   had requested. (31) "And when they had prayed, the place in which they
   were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the
   Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness." The shaking of
   the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of
   the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because
   it assured them that God was still with them.

   32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young
   congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal
   condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully
   developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second
   chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) "Now the multitude
   of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one
   of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own,
   but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the
   apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
   and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among
   them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses,
   sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35)
   and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to
   each, as any one had need."

   Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they
   were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is
   certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that
   they were "of one heart and of one mind." But the most signal proof of
   the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of
   selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic
   provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the
   Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many
   respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage
   to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to
   see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of
   the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by
   the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his
   statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that "With great
   power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the
   Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all." This remark does not mean
   that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or
   that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither
   of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power
   with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within
   the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined
   to give them "great favor" with the people.

   The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that
   it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no
   equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the
   proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law
   of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias,
   below: "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold,
   was it not in your own control?" [124]

   36, 37. After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and
   gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this
   liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent
   celebrity of the individual. (36) "Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas
   by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a
   Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the
   money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles." This surname was given
   to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on
   account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The
   original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version,
   is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein
   and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to
   represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act,
   and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times
   in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent,
   [125] but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As
   Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be
   exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the
   history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a
   congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who
   "exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to
   the Lord." [126] This exhorting being the object for which he was sent,
   his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of
   talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul
   was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this
   apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has
   always been highly prized by the Churches.

   It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his
   whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his
   life to unrequited missionary labor. [127]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [118] v. 34, below.

   [119] Jos. Ant. B. xviii, chap. 2.

   [120] John xviii. 13-24.

   [121] Luke iii. 2.

   [122] Matt. x. 17-20.

   [123] Chap. vi. 7, below.

   [124] See also vi. 1.

   [125] Acts xiii. 15; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 3; 1 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim.
   iv. 13; Heb. xii. 5; xiii. 22; 2 Cor. viii. 17.

   [126] Acts xi. 23.

   [127] 1 Cor. ix. 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                     Acts V

   V: 1, 2. In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of the
   brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corruption, of
   which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on disinterested
   benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make a pretense of
   liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable of subduing
   selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is itself a
   species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barnabas, we are
   told: (1) "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife,
   sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife being
   also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet of
   the apostles." This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by the
   wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of the
   possession.

   3, 4. "But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to lie
   to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4)
   While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it
   not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart?
   Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Here Peter brings together the
   influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, just as he had,
   in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the purposes of God.
   [128] He demands of Ananias, "Why has Satan filled thy heart to lie to
   the Holy Spirit," and, in the same breath, "Why hast thou put this
   thing in thy heart?" The existence and agency of the tempter are
   distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ananias who is rebuked;
   and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that Satan had done, showing
   that he is as guilty as though Satan had no existence. Indeed, he is
   rebuked for what Satan had done. The justice of this is manifest from
   the fact that Satan had no power to fill his heart with evil, without
   his co-operation. That he had rendered this co-operation, threw the
   responsibility upon himself.

   Peter's knowledge of the deception was the result not of human
   information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit.
   This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well
   as to the purport of Peter's own words.

   5. The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the
   audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which
   immediately followed. (5) "And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down
   and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these things."
   There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own in this matter;
   but it was an act of divine power exerted independent of the apostolic
   agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to Peter as an
   officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor of the world.
   The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by supposing that
   Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His success would not only
   have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a
   source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would have brought discredit
   upon the inspiration of the apostles, by showing that the Spirit within
   them could be deceived. Thus the whole fabric of apostolic authority,
   which was based upon their inspiration, would have fallen, and
   precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. The attempt,
   therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some
   such vindication of their inspiration as could neither be mistaken nor
   forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was just the effect
   desired: "great fear came upon all who heard these things."

   6. The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral
   services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the
   tabernacle with strange fire in their censers, [129] there was no
   weeping nor delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse
   of God fall upon the wretch. (6) "And the young men arose, wound him
   up, and carried him out, and buried him."

   7. Sapphira was not present. (7) "And it was about the space of three
   hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in." How
   she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we are not
   informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. He had died
   suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; had been buried; and
   three hours had passed; yet his wife, who must have been in the
   vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the very assembly
   where it had occurred, without a word reaching her ear upon the
   subject. There is no way to account for this, but by the supposition
   that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole
   multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural
   determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further
   supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their
   natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready
   to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually
   expose her.

   8-10. She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had
   agreed upon with her husband. (8) "Then Peter answered her, Tell me
   whether you sold the land for so much? She said, Yes; for so much. (9)
   Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to put
   to proof the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have
   buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10)
   Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired: and the young men
   coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by her
   husband." In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, and
   declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own will or
   miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, like that of
   Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power lodged in the
   apostles.

   In the question, "Why have you agreed together to put to proof the
   Spirit of the Lord?" Peter expresses the result of their agreement,
   though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put the
   Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the
   test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been
   disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindicated
   the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such
   another attempt could be made.

   11. The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of truth
   as its success would have been disastrous. (11) "And great fear came
   upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these things." This
   fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the guilty
   pair, but also by the fearful nature of that spirit-searching knowledge
   imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled with more just
   conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, and the
   unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into respect and
   reverence.

   12, 13. Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office
   was still further magnified. (12) "And through the hands of the
   apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they
   were all, with one accord, in Solomon's Portico, (13) and of the rest
   no man dare join himself to them, but all people magnified them." It
   was the apostles alone who were in Solomon's Portico, as is evident
   from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the 12th
   verse, furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the
   statement, "they were all, with one accord," etc. This being so, "the
   rest," who dared not join themselves to them, must include other
   disciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be
   concluded, from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful
   distance with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the
   exhibition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they
   dare not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked
   their former intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at first
   experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, and
   was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made the first
   miraculous draught of fishes: falling down at the knees of Jesus, he
   exclaimed, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." [130] That
   such a feeling was also experienced by the whole Church, at this time,
   has just been stated by the historian, in verse 11, where he says,
   "Great fear came upon all the Church."

   14. The statement just made, that "of the rest no man dared to join
   himself to them," can not mean that persons dared not join the Church,
   for the reverse is now stated. (14) "And believers were the more added
   to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." The increased awe in
   the presence of the apostles, with which the people were inspired, made
   them listen with increased respect to their testimony concerning Jesus,
   and brought them in greater numbers to obedience.

   15, 16. The connection of Luke's next statement, introduced by the
   adverb so that, is somewhat obscure: but I presume he intends to state
   a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders were done
   by the apostles; the people magnified them, and believers were the more
   added to the Lord. (15) "So that they brought forth the sick into the
   streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of
   Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (16) There came also a
   multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bringing the sick
   and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed."

   17, 18. The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the
   neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic
   praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the
   dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in
   the name of Jesus. (17) "Then the high priest rose up, and all who were
   with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal,
   (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public
   prison." Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and
   threatened Peter and John. They were "filled with zeal;" but it was a
   zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that
   which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally
   appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is
   merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth
   begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was
   fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to
   execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the
   apostles, making all the twelve their present victims.

   19-21. When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the
   apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of
   the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) "But an angel of
   the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and
   said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the
   words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered into the
   temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and
   those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, and all the
   eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison to have
   them brought." The apostles were already in the temple, teaching the
   early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, when the Sanhedrim
   met and sent to the prison for them.

   22, 23. After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of
   the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) "But when the officers
   arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and
   announced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and
   the guards standing before the doors; but when we opened them, we found
   no one within." This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient,
   with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even to
   disperse the court who had assembled for the trial for the apostles.

   24-26. The startling announcement was not without serious effect even
   upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at
   first what to do or think. (24) "Now when the high priest and the
   captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they
   were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to. (25) But some
   one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison
   are standing in the temple and teaching the people." This announcement
   relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed
   with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of
   dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable
   guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of
   the temple himself takes command. (26) "Then the captain went with the
   officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the
   people, lest they should be stoned." The clause, "lest they should be
   stone," is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding
   statements, that they "feared the people," and that they "brought them
   without violence." The enthusiasm of the people had been much
   increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time
   well known about the temple.

   27, 28. We have now a very lively and graphic description of the
   arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) "And having brought them,
   they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28)
   saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And
   behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to
   bring this man's blood upon us." These words contain two specific
   charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an
   effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus.

   29-32. To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond.
   (29) "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to
   obey God rather than men." This answers the first charge. They plead
   guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John
   had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, "Whether it is right in
   the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge."
   Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, "We ought to obey
   God rather than men." They then answer the second charge by a
   restatement of the facts: (30) "The God of our fathers had raised up
   Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree. (31) This man has God
   exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant
   repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are his
   witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given
   to those who obey him." This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the
   very thing which was charged against them as a crime.

   In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior,
   "to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins," it is implied
   that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted
   to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men
   without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon
   men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a
   duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily
   perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is
   produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men
   with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men
   would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance;
   but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief
   of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance.

   33. The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John
   on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe
   threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been
   despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they
   lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the
   fear of the multitude. (33) "Now when they heard this, they were
   exasperated, and determined to slay them."

   34-39. At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked
   by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were
   less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the
   apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to
   involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party;
   therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) "But a certain Pharisee
   in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all
   the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little
   while." This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John
   before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any
   admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They
   were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) "And he said to them, Men of Israel,
   take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men;
   (36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be
   somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached
   themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were
   scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After this man, Judas the
   Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many
   people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him,
   were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and
   let them alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will
   be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy
   it; lest you even be found to fight against God."

   A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an
   anachronism in this report of Gamaliel's speech, by making him refer to
   a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished many years
   later, under the reign of Claudius Caesar. Such a reference could not
   possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not
   only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a
   false report of Gamaliel's speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis
   involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached
   veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did
   flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is
   also mentioned by Josephus, whose account of him agrees with this given
   by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke
   ii. 1.

   Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the
   Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this
   advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view
   from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of
   procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a
   mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a
   movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in
   reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and
   decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard
   Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause
   which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious
   advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason
   for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence,
   well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without
   any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with
   violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we
   fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown.

   The last clause in Gamaliel's speech, "Lest you be found even to fight
   against God," indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result
   was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been
   wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison
   the very night before, it is strange that something more than a
   suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of
   all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on
   this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice
   from the opposite party.

   40. There was no opposition to Gamaliel's advice. (40) "And they obeyed
   him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded
   them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go." Scourging was
   so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and
   was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that
   he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time,
   however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably,
   harder to endure than it ever was afterward.

   41, 42. However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any
   resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it
   cheerfully. (41) "Then they departed from the presence of the
   Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for
   his name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house,
   they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." The Sanhedrim had
   now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking
   their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but
   death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished
   for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the
   apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to
   abandon the field.

   The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but
   "from house to house." In this they give an example to the ministry of
   all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and
   admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and
   secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly.
   It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it
   most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies
   most successfully.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [128] See Com. iii. 17-18.

   [129] Lev. x. 1-7.

   [130] Luke v. 8.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts VI

   VI: 1. From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles
   and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal
   condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the
   disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character,
   they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices
   of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened
   serious consequences. (1) "Now, in those days, the disciples having
   multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the
   Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily
   ministration." The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over
   five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to
   look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional
   oversight must unavoidably occur. The "daily ministration" is
   undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the
   brethren, which was made "to every one according as he had need." That
   it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no
   general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy.
   The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were
   so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes,
   as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent
   residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on
   account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more
   likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles
   and their assistants.

   2-4. This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the
   propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy
   Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional
   instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not
   theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to
   which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they
   allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to
   dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the
   provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the
   Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles;
   for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi
   neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed
   officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and
   unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem
   existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows
   that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the
   same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required
   it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among
   whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All
   Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the
   New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without
   unnecessary delay.

   When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted
   promptly. (2) "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to
   them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and
   serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of
   good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint
   over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and
   the ministry of the word." The alternative with the apostles was to
   "leave," in some degree, "the word of God," and serve the tables
   satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and
   "continue in prayer and the ministry of the word" as uninterruptedly as
   before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by
   choosing the latter course.

   It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole
   "multitude of the disciples" should take part in the selection of these
   officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this
   gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of
   officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by
   apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description.
   They must be men of "good repute;" not merely good men, but men whose
   goodness was accredited among the brethren.

   They must also be men who were "full of the Holy Spirit." Whether this
   means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that
   they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult
   to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had
   been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that,
   immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears "doing
   great wonders and miracles among the people," seem to indicate that
   they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but
   received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid
   upon them. On the other hand, the expression, "full of the Holy
   Spirit," generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the
   Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain
   that when a disciple was "full of the Spirit" in either sense, the
   religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can
   be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.

   The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily
   identified with that of the deacon as described in the third chapter of
   First Timothy. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they
   were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (verse 1) and their
   service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (verse 2) the same which
   expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Tim. iii. 10-13. The chief duty for
   which they were appointed, was "to serve tables," diakonein trapezais;
   yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other
   functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find
   time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to
   us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the
   humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon
   after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another,
   after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses
   both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to
   deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction
   which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title
   evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the "Commentary on Acts,"
   xxi. 8.

   5, 6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious
   want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with
   it, (5) "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose
   Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and
   Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a
   proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And
   having prayed, they laid their hands on them." It is a remarkable proof
   of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek
   names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence
   the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the
   Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy
   toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your
   hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So
   generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.

   All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their
   appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the
   New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were
   subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for
   his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors.

   Of Nicolas, it is said that he was "a proselyte of Antioch," which
   means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before
   he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early
   period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles,
   provided they had been circumcised.

   Stephen is specially described as "a man full of faith and of the Holy
   Spirit," not because the others were destitute of these excellencies;
   for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they
   should be men "full of the Holy Spirit." But if the seven were
   distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been
   distinguished in the same way among the seven.

   The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a
   subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart
   miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of
   their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by
   the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the
   least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context
   forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony.
   The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they
   themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to "look out" the
   men, "whom," say the apostles, "we may appoint over this business." The
   part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all
   the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was
   the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a
   precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that
   men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not
   relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of
   appointment to office.

   The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no
   trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church
   were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent,
   should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order,
   should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances
   not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according
   to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the
   precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all
   cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the
   early Churches.

   7. The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration
   to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the
   organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave
   greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) "And the word of God
   increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly
   multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the
   faith." This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the
   priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved
   by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested
   in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The
   peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of
   religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete
   forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new
   truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is
   ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the
   effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.

   The expression used concerning these priests, that they became
   "obedient to the faith," is worthy of notice as implying that there is
   something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in
   the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey
   it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as
   Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith.
   It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious
   life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship
   conferred upon him was "for obedience to the faith among all nations."
   [131] Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who "obey not
   the gospel," whatever may be their faith, will be "destroyed from the
   presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." [132]

   There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of
   its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It
   is said, "The word of God increased," and the specifications are, that
   the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great
   multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such
   incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: "There was a
   precious season of grace;" "The Lord was present in his saving power;"
   "A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit," etc. So great a departure
   from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from
   scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that
   conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are
   likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who
   had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an
   increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the
   quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable
   circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of
   recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave
   greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was
   the consequence.

   8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and
   death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus
   briefly sketched: (8) "Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did
   great wonders and signs among the people." The power by which he
   wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was "full of
   faith." This accords with the fact already observed, (iii. 16,) that
   the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual
   gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.

   9, 10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that
   of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more
   especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one
   who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the
   gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution
   occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon's
   Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of
   Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance
   of new advocates of the faith. (9) "Then there arose certain persons
   from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians,
   and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they
   were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he
   spoke."

   The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by
   fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks,
   from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and
   scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by
   superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into
   silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all
   foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from
   Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of
   Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the
   last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.

   The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun [133]
   identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the
   son of a Pharisee, and "brought up in this city, at the feet of
   Gamaliel." [134] The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been
   checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel--the great teacher of the
   Pharisees--the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely
   proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part
   of their commission, "teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever
   Christ had commanded." This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the
   brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions
   were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The
   consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested
   before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and
   talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary
   culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great
   confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners,
   were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born
   disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon
   found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.

   This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their
   cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no
   opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced
   with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But
   now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with
   the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of
   their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very
   vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the
   disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were
   realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and
   the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that "they were not able
   to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke." By the "spirit
   by which he spoke," I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who
   supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.

   In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance
   with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their
   example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the
   necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the
   truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with
   a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to
   resist him.

   11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they
   always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against
   Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their
   subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued
   in the case of Jesus. (11) "Then they suborned men, who said, We have
   heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God." This was
   the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it
   was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) "And they stirred
   up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and
   seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false
   witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words
   against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying,
   that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the
   customs which Moses delivered to us."

   This is the first time that "the people" are represented as taking part
   against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the "fear of
   the people" had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which
   renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the
   Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular
   influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the
   authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy.
   The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in
   circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a
   single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them
   to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong
   popular feeling in their own favor.

   The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy "against
   Moses and God," otherwise expressed, "against this holy place, and the
   law." The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple
   and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The
   specifications under this charge were these: "We have heard him saying
   that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which
   Moses delivered to us." It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of
   the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of
   blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was
   really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which
   Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by
   receiving him whom God had sent.

   15. As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and
   hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn
   him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the
   similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the
   apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being
   identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his
   persecutors--who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were
   violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of
   the only men who believed his words--must have filled him with
   indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for
   the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the
   power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage.
   Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance
   which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) "And all who
   sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it
   were the face of an angel." There is no need to suppose anything
   supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his
   countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit
   up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have
   swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a
   comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful
   delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of
   the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments,
   how intense must have been their agitation! The trial proceeds:
     __________________________________________________________________

   [131] Rom. i. 5.

   [132] 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9.

   [133] See vii. 58 below.

   [134] xxii. 3; xxiii. 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts VII

   VII: 1. "Then said the high priest, Are these things so?" Stephen
   responds in a long and powerful discourse.

   There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the
   logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally
   expect to find in it--if we regard it as properly a defense--a formal
   response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no
   direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor
   denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple
   by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his
   silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken
   the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the
   charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy
   temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an
   indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts
   contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some
   commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses
   inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if
   such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued
   so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he
   intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the
   introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various
   individuals.

   The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The
   charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no
   intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for
   his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him
   somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the
   people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless
   to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He
   sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by
   their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of
   their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the
   people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he
   selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his
   accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself
   are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus
   he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge
   which they had falsely preferred against him.

   2-4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse,
   treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his
   main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated
   by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on
   which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the
   outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must
   begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his
   reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his
   main theme. (2) "And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The
   God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in
   Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee
   out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which
   I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans,
   and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into
   this land in which you now dwell."

   5-8. Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the land of
   Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the fulfillment of
   which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) "And he gave
   him no inheritance in it, not a footprint: and he promised to give it
   for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he had
   no child. (6) But God spoke thus: That his seed should sojourn in a
   strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them
   four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in
   bondage, I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come
   forth, and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of
   circumcision; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth
   day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs."

   The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Genesis xv.
   13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period which was,
   more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we find in Exodus
   xii. 40, 41. This was not the period of their actual sojourn in Egypt;
   but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians iii. 17,) and from the
   genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from the call of
   Abraham to the departure from Egypt.

   9-16. The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which
   brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of
   Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, might
   stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final
   conclusion. (9) "And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into
   Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his
   afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh,
   king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.
   (11) Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and
   great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob,
   having heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the
   first time. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his
   brothers, and Joseph's kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then
   Joseph sent and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred,
   seventy-five souls. (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he
   and our fathers, (16) and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in
   the sepulcher which Jacob bought for a sum of money from the sons of
   Emmor, the father of Sychem."

   There is a numerical discrepancy between moses and Stephen, in
   reference to the number of Jacob's family when they went into Egypt.
   Stephen makes then seventy-five, while Moses states them at seventy,
   including Joseph's family and himself. [135] The Septuagint translation
   of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods of reconciling these
   statements are proposed, of which the only satisfactory one is this.
   The number given by Moses includes all "who came out of his loins,
   besides Jacob's sons' wives." [136] The number given by Stephen must,
   then, include five of their wives, who were, probably, all that were
   then living. The translators of the Septuagint, having some historical
   evidence, now lost to us, that five of their wives went with them, saw
   fit to fill up the number in their translation, and Stephen followed
   their enumeration.

   It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from the
   sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Genesis xxxiii.
   19, 20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common version, and
   most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, however, that the
   manuscripts should err, in a case of this kind, than that the error
   should have been committed by Stephen or by Luke. I have, therefore,
   not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of Abraham, in the
   text. Dr. Bloomfield says, "The best critics are of the opinion that
   Abraham is spurious."

   17-29. From this glance at the leading points in the history of Joseph,
   Stephen advances to the case of Moses, showing that his brethren
   rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered by him.
   (17) "But when the time of the promise of which God had sworn to
   Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were multiplied in
   Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. (19) The same
   dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so that
   they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live.
   (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He
   was nourished in his his father's house three months. (21) And when he
   was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her
   own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the
   Egyptians, and was powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was
   full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his
   brethren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer
   wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the
   Egyptian. (25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that
   God would, by his hand, give them salvation; but they did not
   understand. (26) The next day he appeared to them as they were
   fighting, and would have brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are
   brethren; why do you wrong one another? (27) But he who was wronging
   his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge
   over us? (28) Do you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian
   yesterday? (29) Then Moses fled at this word, and became a sojourner in
   the land of Midian where he begot two sons."

   In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking to
   deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, Stephen has
   before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing upon his final
   conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not anticipate the use
   he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his design awakened
   their curiosity, and rendered their mortification the more intense when
   at last it was suddenly developed. If they could have anticipated it,
   they would have stopped his mouth at the beginning.

   30-37. There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as much to
   his purpose as this; and to these he proceeds to advert. (30) "And when
   forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in the wilderness of
   Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31)
   When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to
   observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I am the God of
   your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
   Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe it. (33) And
   the Lord said to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place on
   which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely seen the
   affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their
   groaning, and have come down to deliver them; and now, come, I will
   send thee into Egypt. (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying,
   Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler
   and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the
   bush. (36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land
   of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37)
   This is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet
   shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him
   shall ye hear." In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in
   a most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses by
   his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of ruler
   and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a further
   advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy uttered
   by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy was still more
   apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had spoken blasphemy
   against Moses, in saying that Christ would change the customs appointed
   by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming of a successor who should
   supersede him, he alone pays proper respect to Moses who submits to his
   successor.

   38-40. To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at the
   hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in the
   wilderness. (38) "This is he that was in the congregation in the
   wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with
   our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom
   our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in
   their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods
   who shall go before us; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of
   Egypt, we know not what is become of him." This instance of their
   rejection of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that
   it occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of God's
   presence with him; and that, in the very words which they addressed to
   Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out of
   Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy which
   Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus; for he also had been
   rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that he had
   wrought miracles.

   41-43. Stephen next shows that the same people who so often rejected
   the servants of God, likewise rejected God himself. (41) "They made a
   calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in
   the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them up to
   serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the
   prophets, O house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and
   sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness? (43) You have even
   taken up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan,
   figures which you made, to worship them; and I will carry you away
   beyond Babylon." With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the
   people who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of
   many centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon,
   Stephen concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final
   application, which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a
   few words in reference to the temple.

   44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy
   against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of
   that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and
   perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and
   then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not
   limited to temples made with hands. (44) "Our fathers had the
   tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to
   Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had
   seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with
   Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before
   the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor
   before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47)
   But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in
   temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne,
   and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the
   Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these
   things?" By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind
   undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own
   prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon
   them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the
   life of Moses and of Joseph.

   51-53. As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had
   been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely
   selected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them
   to become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of
   their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding
   the most indisputable manifestations of God's presence with him; and as
   all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final
   prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been
   rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The
   combined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in
   the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific
   words: (51) "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are
   always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52)
   Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They murdered
   those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of
   whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers; (53) who received
   the law through the ranks of angels, and have not kept it."

   The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen from
   the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an angelic
   glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been carefully
   smothered and controlled during the progress of his argument; but now
   that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, they had burst
   forth in these scorching and blazing words.

   54-60. The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, from the
   fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sudden burst of
   passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement of a just
   judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the wisdom and
   the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to convict him of
   crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. They had no course
   now left them, but the usual resort of unprincipled partisans when
   totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with fearful rapidity.
   (54) "When they heard these things, they were exasperated, and gnashed
   their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit,
   looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus
   standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the
   heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.
   (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and
   rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and
   stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a
   young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the
   Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled
   down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their
   charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was
   consenting to his death."

   This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of
   seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the
   faithful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and
   rushing with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage,
   to the sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and
   uncondemned. But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are
   witnessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposition
   to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in history,
   that, at the present day, when such opposition is to be sustained,
   whether on great or insignificant occasion, no well-informed man
   expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and
   propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under such
   circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatically
   represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The
   Madman's Drama.

   The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the Jews were gnashing their
   teeth upon him, need not be understood as the real opening of the
   heavens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye,
   but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John in
   the isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encouragement in
   the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in which he
   described it, and the hue of countenance with which he gazed upon it,
   might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of those who were
   present. There was at least one in the audience upon whom, we have
   reason to believe, this impression was deep and lasting. The young man
   Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when bending under the
   weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the part he took in these
   dreadful proceedings. [137]

   The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the
   young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the
   historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both
   temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved
   himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone away
   beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal converse with
   them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid many tears,
   some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a deep
   satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that their
   faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but it
   was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. No
   one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man can now
   tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the prospect, and
   inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrustful of the
   new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, and how sweet
   the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first who died was so
   triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing the scene, they
   could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffering, without one
   fear or care for that within the grace, or beyond it. At the late day
   in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy death of
   millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply glad by
   their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appreciate the
   eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consolations of
   this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting preparation
   for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were immediately
   afterward called to pass.

   We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking tragedy
   till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his career becomes
   the leading theme of the historian. [87]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [135] See Gen. xlvi. 26, 27.

   [136] Gen. xlvi. 26.

   [137] 1 Tim. i. 12, 13.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                   Acts VIII

   VIII: 1-4. The enemies of the disciples had now tried and exhausted all
   the ordinary methods of opposing the truth. Under the leadership of the
   Sadducees they had tried, first threatening, then imprisonment, and
   then stripes. They were about to follow this with the death of the
   twelve, when the milder counsels of the yet unexasperated Pharisees had
   prevailed, and resort was had to discussion. But the cause which had
   prospered under the imprisonment and scourging of its chief advocates
   bounded forward with astonishing rapidity when the strength of its plea
   was brought before the people in open discussion. Its learned opponents
   were completely discomfited. Foiled in their efforts, the Pharisees
   were now ready to unite with the Sadducees in a common persecution.
   They selected Stephen as the first victim, because he had been their
   most formidable opponent in the discussion. They had determined to
   proceed in their bloody purpose with the forms of law; but, in a moment
   of frenzy, they had broken loose from all restraint, and dispatched
   their victim with the violence of a mob. Once embarked in this mad
   career, nothing less than the utter extermination of the Church could
   satisfy them. Hence the historian proceeds to inform us that, (1) "On
   that day there arose a great persecution against the Church in
   Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of
   Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (2) Yet devout men carried
   Stephen to burial, and made great lamentation over him. (3) But Saul
   wasted the Church; entering into the houses, and dragging forth both
   men and women, he committed them to prison. (4) Nevertheless, they who
   were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word."

   The grief of a community at the loss of a good man is more intense when
   he falls in the performance of some part characteristic of his life.
   But it is most intense when death, at such a moment, is precipitated by
   injustice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
   burial of Stephen should have been attended with "great lamentation."
   The perilous condition of the congregation--some of whom were being
   hourly cast into prison, and most of whom were contemplating
   flight--could but deepen their grief. The funeral services were soon
   followed by a general dispersion of the disciples. With much bitterness
   of heart, they left behind them their native city and their individual
   homes, to seek refuge among strangers. But the bitterness of their
   temporal loss must have been slight, to the truly devoted among them,
   compared with the disappointment of their brightening hopes concerning
   the speedy triumph of the gospel. How bitter, too, must have been the
   disappointment of the twelve, at suddenly finding themselves left alone
   in the great city, the congregation of many thousand disciples whom
   they had collected--all scattered and gone! While the thought of the
   brethren and sisters fleeing for life, and of the many already
   languishing in prison, they could have but regarded their own lives as
   in imminent danger. But, supposing that the time for which Jesus had
   limited their stay in Jerusalem had not yet expired, they courageously
   stood at their post, regardless of consequences.

   The present distress and flight of the disciples had resulted, not from
   the mere fact that they believed in Jesus, but more especially from the
   zeal and persistency with which they pushed his claims upon the
   attention of others. Seeing that they had now lost everything, by this
   course, a worldly prudence would have taught them to be, thenceforward,
   more quiet and unobtrusive in the propagation of their faith. Even the
   interests of the cause itself, which had been jeopardized by the
   boldness with which Stephen had attacked the prevailing iniquity, might
   have been urged in favor of a change of policy. But this time-serving
   expediency was reserved for the disgrace of a later age. It never took
   large possession of the heroic hearts of the early disciples. On the
   contrary, the scattered disciples "went everywhere preaching the word."
   The result was the rapid spread of the gospel into the cities of Judea,
   and even into Samaria. Thus, the apparent ruin of the single Church in
   Jerusalem resulted in the springing up of many Churches throughout the
   province--proving, for the thousandth time in the world's history, how
   impotent is the hand of man when fighting against God. As the blows of
   the blacksmith's hammer upon the heated iron scatter the scintillations
   in every direction, so the effort of wicked Jews to crush the Church of
   Christ only scattered its light more widely abroad.

   5. Among the many who now went everywhere preaching the word, the
   historian chooses to relate here the labors of only one. (5) "Then
   Philip went down into the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them."
   This Philip was one of the seven, and his name stands in the list next
   to that of Stephen. [138] The reason why Luke selects his labors for
   this place in the history, is because he was the first to preach the
   gospel in Samaria. Jesus had commanded them to testify first in
   Jerusalem; then in Judea; then in Samaria; and then to the uttermost
   part of the earth. Luke follows them in the regular prosecution of this
   programme.

   6-11. When Philip first entered the city of Samaria, the public mind
   was in a condition most unfavorable to the reception of the gospel. The
   practice of magical arts was quite common among the Jews and Samaritans
   of that age; and the masses of the people of all nations were very
   superstitious in reference to them. At the time now referred to, the
   people of Samaria were so completely under the influence of a magician,
   that one less bold than Philip would have had no hope of success in
   preaching the gospel to them. But he had confidence in the power of the
   gospel, and commenced his labors with a firm purpose. His success was
   far beyond what could have been anticipated. (6) "And the multitudes,
   with one accord, attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing
   and seeing the miracles which he wrought. (7) For unclean spirits,
   crying with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many,
   paralyzed and lame, were healed. (8) And there was great joy in that
   city. (9) But a certain man named Simon was in that city before,
   practicing magic and astonishing the people of Samaria, saying that he
   himself was some great one: (10) to whom they all gave attention, from
   the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
   (11) And they gave attention to him because he had astonished them with
   magic arts for a long time."

   We are here introduced to another case of conversion, with a very brief
   account of the means and influences by which it was effected. These
   demand careful consideration. It is in order that the perfect
   adaptation of the gospel means employed by Philip may the more
   strikingly appear, that Luke is particular to state the previous mental
   condition of the people. They had been so much astonished by the magic
   arts of Simon, that the prevailing conviction was, "This man is the
   great power of God." The dreamy genius of Neander has caught up some
   vague tradition of the fathers concerning a supposed theosophy involved
   in this expression; and, by a common sympathy in mysticism, rather than
   by the force of his reasoning, has transmitted it to many recent
   commentators. But the sober judgment, content with more natural
   conclusions, finds in it only the impression which such arts as Simon
   practiced usually make upon a superstitious multitude. The tricks of
   his legerdemain they supposed to be exhibitions of divine power. The
   first work for Philip to do was to prostrate the influence of Simon by
   undeceiving the people.

   To accomplish this object, he has recourse to the power of the Holy
   Spirit. This power, addressed to the eye in the healing of lameness and
   paralysis, and the casting out of demons; and to the ear, in preaching
   Christ to them, soon arrested the attention of the multitude. There was
   a prompt and universal decision in the public mind in favor of the
   miracles wrought by Philip, and against the pretensions of Simon. What
   the distinction between these miracles and Simon's astonishing tricks,
   which led to so prompt a decision, we are not able to say, because we
   know not what these tricks were. Suffice it to say, that this single
   incident should put to silence forever that species of skepticism which
   resolves all the miracles of Christ and the apostles into occult art
   and optical illusions; for here are these arts, in their most delusive
   form, brought into direct conflict with apostolic miracles; and so
   palpable is the distinction, that it is at once discovered and
   acknowledged by the whole multitude.

   12. The unmistakable reality of the miracles wrought by Philip
   convinced the people that he was attended by the power of God; and that
   was enough to make them acknowledge the authority of God in what he
   communicated to them. In order that men may believe the Gospel, it is
   only necessary that they believe it to be, in reality, the word of God.
   But the Holy Spirit convinced them that what they heard was the word of
   God, by attending it with a sensible demonstration of the power of God.
   That they believed was but the natural result of what they saw and
   heard. (12) "But when they believed Philip preaching the things
   concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
   immersed, both men and women." Being convinced that they heard the word
   of God, they believed it because it was the word; and, for the same
   reason, they yielded to its authority. Their obedience was not the
   result of any inherent power in the word, apart from its authorship;
   for if it were believed to be the word of man, it would have no
   authority and no power. All the authority and power which are in it,
   therefore, result from the belief that God is its author. This belief
   was effected, in the present instance, by the Holy Spirit, through
   miraculous attestations; hence, the whole change wrought in the parties
   may be styled the work of the Holy Spirit. The simple facts of the
   kingdom over which Christ was reigning, thus attested, were set forth
   before the people, and, upon belief of these, attended by a willingness
   to comply with their requirements, they were immersed without delay.
   This was but a faithful execution of the commission, which says, "He
   that believeth and is immersed shall be saved."

   13. The most signal triumph achieved on this occasion was that over
   Simon himself. Luke gives it the prominence of a separate statement, in
   these words: (13) "And Simon himself also believed, and when he was
   immersed he continued with Philip, and beholding the signs and great
   miracles which were done, he was astonished." The commentators nearly
   all agree that Simon's faith was not real, but feigned; and that the
   statement that he believed is made according to the appearance, and not
   according to the reality. They urge that subsequent developments prove
   the insincerity of his professions, and compel us to adopt this
   conclusion. It must be confessed, that at the time Philip might have
   been deceived by him; but this could not be said of Luke, who wrote
   subsequent to all the developments in the case. If his object was to
   describe the events as it appeared to Philip, he might retain, in the
   first instance, the mistake of Philip; but we would expect, on this
   supposition, a subsequent correction. No such correction, however, is
   given; neither is there any evidence that Luke intended to represent
   the case as it appeared to Philip. On the contrary, he speaks from his
   own stand-point, and had all the facts before him which we have before
   us. His statement, therefore, should control our judgment, and he says,
   not that Simon feigned belief, but that he believed. We conclude, then,
   that he did, in the true and proper sense of the word, believe.

   Some commentators, disposed to admit the statement that Simon believed,
   still deny the sufficiency of his faith, and urge that it was deficient
   in its object. [139] But the historian makes no distinction between
   what Simon believed, and what was believed by the Samaritans. They
   "believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
   and the name of Jesus Christ;" and Luke adds, without qualification,
   that "Simon himself also believed." He believed, then, what Philip
   preached; be believed the gospel. This conclusion is based upon
   statements too positive and unambiguous to be set aside because of any
   difficulty in reconciling them with facts subsequently developed.

   14-17. Before recording the sequel of Simon's case, Luke introduces an
   incident, which, on account of its singularity in New Testament
   history, demands very careful consideration. (14) "Now when the
   apostles, who were in Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the
   word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; (15) who, when they were
   come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
   (16) For as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were
   immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then they laid hands on
   them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

   It would be useless to incumber these pages with the many
   unsatisfactory explanations of this procedure with which commentaries
   abound. We will be content with a simple effort to learn what it
   teaches, by a careful consideration of the facts. We notice, then,
   first, That the Samaritans had believed the gospel, and been immersed.
   They were, then, according to the commission, and according to Peter's
   answer on Pentecost, pardoned, and in possession of that "gift of the
   Holy Spirit," which was promised on condition of repentance and
   immersion. [140] Second, After they had been in possession of this
   gift, for a period sufficient for the news to reach Jerusalem, the
   whole body of the apostles united in sending to them Peter and John.
   Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had
   received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. Fourth, Upon the imposition
   of hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the Holy Spirit
   fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts. From these facts we may
   draw several conclusions. 1st. Whatever other objects may have been
   contemplated in the mission of the two apostles, such as confirming the
   faith of the disciples, and assisting Philip in his labors, it is quite
   certain that the chief object was the impartation of the Holy Spirit.
   What they did when they arrived in Samaria was certainly the object for
   which they went. But the chief thing which they did was to confer the
   Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief object of their visit. If,
   however, Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission, so far as
   the chief object of it is concerned, would have been useless. This
   affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Spirit was
   bestowed by no human hands except those of the apostles. That such was
   the conclusion of Simon, who was an interested witness of this
   proceeding, is evident from the proposition he made to Peter, to
   purchase from him this power. If all who had the Spirit could impart it
   to others, he need only to have sought the gift himself, knowing that
   this would include the power to impart it. But his offer to buy this
   power, and that from an apostle, shows that the apostles alone
   possessed the power of imparting the Spirit. This conclusion is
   confirmed by the fact that in the only other instance of the kind
   recorded in Acts, that of the twelve disciples in Ephesus, the same
   gift was bestowed by the hands of an apostle. [141]

   The case of Timothy is no exception, as has been supposed, to this
   conclusion; for, although Paul states that the gift which was in him
   was given him through prophesy and "the laying on of the hands of the
   eldership;" [142] yet he exhorts him, in the second epistle, "Stir up
   the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands."
   [143] These two statements can be reconciled either by supposing that
   Paul refers to the gift of office in the former, and the gift of the
   Spirit in the latter; or, that the eldership united with Paul in laying
   on hands, while it was the apostolic part of the service which imparted
   the Spirit, the eldership participating, because at the same time he
   was ordained to the work of an evangelist.

   2d. From the fact that these disciples enjoyed pardon and membership in
   the Church before receiving the miraculous gift, it is evident that
   this gift was not necessary to the enjoyment of either of these
   blessings. Yet, strange to say, the mystic power of an ultra
   spiritualism has thrown these plain facts into the utmost confusion in
   the minds of some great men. Witness the following from Neander, in
   reference to the condition of the Samaritans previous to the visit of
   Peter and John. "They had not yet attained the consciousness of a vital
   communion with the Christ whom Philip preached, nor yet to the
   consciousness of a personal divine life. The indwelling of the Spirit
   was as yet something foreign to them, known only by the wonderful
   operation which they saw taking place around them." [144] This
   assertion is evidently in direct conflict with the commission, and with
   the promise of Peter, that those who would repent and be immersed
   should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul also teaches that the
   indwelling of the Spirit is characteristic of all who are Christ's;
   [145] and certainly all are Christ's who have been immersed into the
   name of Christ, [146] as had been these Samaritans.

   3d. The statement that "as yet he had fallen on none of them, only they
   were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus," thrown in
   parenthetically in explanation of the mission of Peter and John,
   necessarily implies that there was no such connection between immersion
   into Christ and the miraculous gift of the Spirit, as that the latter
   might be inferred from the former. This gift, then, was not common to
   the disciples, but was enjoyed only by those to whom it was
   specifically imparted.

   Seeing that this extraordinary gift of the Spirit was not necessary to
   the conversion and pardon of these parties, nor to the indwelling of
   the Spirit, it is proper to inquire for what purpose it was bestowed.
   We have already observed, in commenting on Acts i. 8, that the design
   of bestowing it upon the apostles was to endow them, intellectually,
   with power to establish the kingdom, and to furnish miraculous
   attestation of their mission. In general, miracles were designed to
   indicate the divine sanction of the procedure with which they were
   connected; but when the miracle assumed a mental form, it was designed
   to qualify the party for some mental labor. The young Church in Samaria
   had hitherto been guided by the infallible teaching of Philip, and more
   recently, by that of Peter and John. But these brethren must, in
   executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields of labor.
   If, in doing so, they should leave the Church in the condition in which
   Peter and John found it, there would be no means left them of
   increasing their knowledge of the new institution, and none but their
   uncertain memories of retaining with accuracy what they had already
   learned. To supply this defect, chiefly, and secondarily, to leave
   among them the means of convincing unbelievers, the gift of inspiration
   was bestowed--not upon all the disciples, for this is not necessarily
   implied in the text, but upon a sufficient number of chosen
   individuals. For further information upon the design of such gifts, I
   refer the reader to the twelfth and fourteenth chapters of First
   Corinthians. A complete discussion of the subject would belong to a
   commentary on that epistle, rather than to one on Acts. Suffice it here
   to add, that these gifts, served as a temporary provision, until the
   facts, doctrine, commandments, and promises of the new covenant were
   committed to writing by inspired men, when the prophesies, tongues, and
   miraculous knowledge of individual teachers gave place to the written
   record. [147]

   18, 19. In the above remarks upon the incident before us, we have
   assumed that the gift imparted was miraculous. This assumption is
   justified by the fact that it was a matter of observation by those who
   were not recipients of it, as is evident from the next statement of the
   text. (18) "And when Simon saw, that through the laying on of the
   apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, (19)
   saying, Give me also this authority, that on whomsoever I lay hands he
   may receive the Holy Spirit." The form of this proposition shows that
   the Holy Spirit did not come upon these persons directly from heaven,
   as upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, but that it was imparted
   through imposition of hands. This marks the difference between the
   immersion in the Holy Spirit, to which the event on Pentecost belongs,
   and the impartation of the Holy Spirit, to which we refer the present
   case. The latter was effected through human agency; the former without
   it.

   In order to account for the impious proposition of Simon, we must
   remember his former mode of life, and consider the mental habits which
   must have been cultivated. Having been accustomed to the performance of
   astonishing tricks as a means of making money, and to the increase of
   his stock in trade by purchasing the secret of every new trick which he
   met with among his brother magicians, he had acquired the habit of
   looking upon every thing of an astonishing character with reference to
   the money which might be in it. When, now he saw that by imposition of
   the apostles' hands the miraculous power of the Spirit was imparted,
   and remembered that there were many even among the disciples, who had
   not yet received the coveted gift, he at once perceived that the power
   to impart it could be made a source of great profit. His overruling
   avarice, mingled with intense fondness for popular influence, prompted
   him to seek this power. The blinding influence of these passions
   prevented him from seeing the impropriety either of offering to buy it,
   or of intending to sell it; for certainly, if he had realized the light
   in which his proposition should be regarded, he would not have ventured
   to make it.

   20-23. Nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of an apostle
   than such a proposition. It was well calculated to arouse the impulsive
   spirit of Peter, and his response is marked by his characteristic
   vehemence. (20) "But Peter said to him, Your silver go with you to
   perdition, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God with
   money. (21) You have no part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is
   not right in the sight of God. (22) Repent, therefore, of this your
   wickedness, and pray God, if, perhaps, the purpose of your heart may be
   forgiven you. (23) For I perceive that you are in the gall of
   bitterness, and the bond of iniquity." This description of Simon's
   spiritual condition shows clearly that he was not, at that time, in a
   state of mind acceptable to God. "The gall of bitterness" is a forcible
   expression of the wretchedness of his condition; and "the bond of
   iniquity," of the dominion which sin exercised over him. His heart was
   not right in the sight of God, and he was in the way to perdition. The
   declaration that he had "no part nor lot in this matter" depends, for
   its interpretation, upon the meaning of the expression "this matter."
   Whether it refers to the gospel, or to the impartation of the Spirit,
   is not altogether certain. In either case, the declaration is true; for
   it is certain that he had no part in the impartation of the Spirit; and
   equally certain that he was then under the condemnation of God.

   Whether we are to suppose that Simon's destitute and miserable
   condition was the result of having forfeited the favor of God by
   falling into sin after his immersion, or that his confession and
   immersion had been insincere, so that he had never been pardoned, is
   not to be determined, as many suppose, by the grossness of his present
   conception concerning the Holy Spirit. The question resolves itself
   into this: whether the discovery that a man is under the control of
   some wicked passion soon after his immersion is proof that he had not
   been a proper subject for immersion. If conversion involves so complete
   a renovation, that old mental habits are entirely eradicated, never to
   exert their influence again, then Simon was not a genuine convert. But
   if, as both Scripture and experience teach, the turning of a sinner to
   God is simply the triumph of conscience and the better feelings over
   the passions, while the latter still exist in a latent state, ready to
   spring into activity on the approach of temptation, we must admit that
   Simon may have been a penitent believer at the time of his immersion.
   That he was a believer is asserted by Luke; but whether he was to such
   a degree penitent as to receive pardon when he was immersed, is not
   certainly determined by the text. For aught that is affirmed of him, he
   may either have been influence by sinister motives in confessing his
   faith, or have been truly penitent at the time, and afterward, under
   the spur of temptation which the splendid gifts bestowed by Peter were
   the occasion of, have yielded to the sudden impulse of his ruling
   passion.

   Whichever of these hypotheses we adopt, the case affords no objection
   to the immediate immersion of all who confess faith in Christ, and
   indicate a desire to obey him, no evidence of their insincerity being
   apparent. The inspired example of Philip is an authoritative guide for
   us, and if it appear that he occasionally immersed an unprepared
   subject, modern evangelists can not be censured for following his
   example, though they should occasionally meet with the same misfortune.

   The supposition that Philip and Peter both, by the power of discerning
   spirits, knew from the beginning that Simon's heart was not right, but,
   for wise reasons, withheld the announcement until his wickedness was
   developed before the people is entirely gratuitous. The gift of
   "discerning spirit," mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 10, was the power of
   testing the claims of those who professed to be inspired. There is no
   evidence that it was ever used by the apostles or others to detect the
   concealed thoughts and emotions of the soul. The detection of Ananias
   and Sapphira is not a case in point, for it was effected not by
   discerning their thoughts, but by a direct revelation to Peter that the
   story which they told was a lie.

   24. The conclusion of the conversation between Peter and Simon leaves
   us in doubt as to the final fate of the latter. Peter had exhorted him
   to repent, and pray to God for pardon. (24) "Then Simon answered and
   said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye
   have spoken come upon me." This response indicates very clearly that
   the scathing speech of Peter had a good effect. It doubtless awoke
   Simon to a clearer perception of his own character, filled him with
   more becoming awe of the Holy Spirit, and aroused some fear of the
   terrible consequences of his sin. As the curtain of history here falls
   upon him, he disappears in a more promising state of feeling, but
   without leaving us fully assured that he recovered from the dominion of
   his unholy passions. Many things are said of his subsequent career, in
   ancient and modern commentaries, but nothing that is sufficiently
   authenticated to deserve our serious attention.

   25. In connection with the prime object of their visit to Samaria,
   Peter and John also furthered the efforts of Philip in preaching and
   teaching. This we learn from an incidental remark in connection with
   the statement of their departure for Jerusalem. (25) "Now they, having
   testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned into Jerusalem and
   preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans." This labor in
   the Samaritan villages was performed on their journey toward Jerusalem,
   which may have been somewhat circuitous, according to the situation of
   the villages which they desired to visit. Thus these primitive
   preachers of the gospel made all the stations of their journeys through
   the country successive points for disseminating the truth.

   26. When the congregation in Samaria had been supplied with spiritual
   gifts, and sufficiently instructed to justify leaving them to their own
   resources for edification, Philip was called away to other fields of
   labor.

   We are now introduced to another of those minutely detailed cases of
   conversion which are recorded for the purpose of instruction in
   reference to the means of turning men to God, and inducing them into
   the kingdom. The purpose of bringing him to a knowledge of salvation
   was formed in the divine mind, and specific means of accomplishing it
   put into operation, ere the man himself was aware of it. The narrative
   traces the steps by which this purpose of God was accomplished, and
   enables us to know, when God determines upon the conversion of an
   individual, how he proceeds to effect it.

   The first step taken in the case was to send an angel from heaven. But
   where does the angel make his appearance? To the man for whose benefit
   he came? So it must be, if he is to hold any direct communication with
   him. But, strange to say, while the man was south of Jerusalem,
   traveling toward Gaza, the angel descends into Samaria, to the north of
   Jerusalem, and appears to Philip. (26) "And an angel of the Lord spoke
   to Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south, into the road which
   goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert." This is all that
   the angel has to say; and now his part of the work, which was simply to
   start the evangelist in the direction of the person to be converted, is
   accomplished. He retires from the scene.

   The statement "this is a desert" is correctly supposed, by the best
   commentators, to be no part of the angel's speech to Philip, but to
   have been added by Luke to note the singularity of a preacher being
   thus peremptorily sent away from a populous country into a desert. The
   term desert is not here to be understood in its stricter sense of a
   barren waste, but in its more general acceptation, of a place thinly
   inhabited. Such an interpretation is required by the geography of the
   country, and by the fact that water was found for the immersion of the
   eunuch. The only road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passed through a
   level district suitable for wheeled vehicles, was that by Bethlehem to
   Hebron, and thence across a plain to Gaza. According to Dr. Hackett,
   this is "the desert" of Luke i. 80, in which John the Immerser grew up.
   Dr. S. T. Barclay, who traversed this entire route in May, 1853, says
   that he traveled, after leaving "the immediate vicinity of Hebron, over
   one of the very best roads (with slight exceptions) and one of the most
   fertile countries that I ever beheld." [148]

   27, 28. Philip promptly obeyed the command of the angel, and was soon
   in close proximity to the intended convert, though, as yet, he knew
   nothing of him. (27) "He arose and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia,
   an eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians,
   who had charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to
   worship, (28) was returning, and sitting in his chariot, was reading
   the Prophet Isaiah."

   29. Just as Philip entered the road to which he had been directed by
   the angel, and saw the chariot before him, the Holy Spirit began to
   work for the conversion of the treasurer. And where does he begin his
   work? In the heart of the sinner, by direct communication? No. Like the
   angel, he begins with the preacher. (29) "Then the Spirit said to
   Philip, Go near, and join yourself to this chariot." This was a
   miraculous communication from the Spirit, such as frequently directed
   the labors of inspired men. The object of it was the same as that of
   the angel's visit, to bring the preacher and the subject for conversion
   face to face.

   30. The purpose of the angel's visit and the Spirit's miraculous
   communication was now accomplished. (30) "Then Philip ran to him, and
   heard him reading the Prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you understand what
   you are reading?" Considering the relative position of the parties, one
   an humble footman, and the other a chief officer of a powerful kingdom,
   sitting in his chariot, this question appears rather an abrupt and
   inappropriate introduction to the conversation. But it was, in reality,
   the most natural and appropriate question that Philip could ask.
   Hearing the man reading aloud, in what we call the fifty-third chapter
   of Isaiah, that touching description of the sufferings of Christ, he
   knew that it was unintelligible to him if he was not acquainted with
   the gospel; whereas, if he had learned the story of the cross, he could
   not fail to understand it. The question, "Do you understand what you
   are reading?" was, then, the very question to determine where he stood,
   and how to approach him.

   31-35. The man's response was definite and satisfactory. (31) "And he
   said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he invited Philip
   to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the place of the Scripture which
   he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and as a
   lamb silent before his shearer, so he opens not his mouth. (33) In his
   humiliation, his condemnation was extorted, and who shall fully
   describe his generation? For his life is violently taken from the
   earth. (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of
   whom does the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
   (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at the same Scripture,
   preached to him Jesus."

   We have now before us all the influences and agencies employed in this
   man's conversion, and may restate them, as follows: He was reading a
   remarkable prophesy concerning Christ, and had paused upon it, with the
   inquiry, Of whom is this written? He could recollect nothing in the
   history of the prophet himself, or of any other man, to which it would
   apply. He was, therefore, unable to understand it; and if he learned to
   pray as David did, the prompt impulse of his heart was, "Open thou mine
   eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." In this frame
   of mind he was best prepared for the influences which God, who knows
   the secrets of all hearts, was preparing for him. If his eyes can be
   made to penetrate the darkness of that prophesy, and his heart to feel
   the power of the truth which lies there hid from his gaze, all will be
   well. But there is no human being being present to teach him, nor does
   any friend of Jesus know even of his existence. What, then, will be
   done? God employs his Spirit to open the eyes and touch the hearts of
   men; will he not, then, immediately distill a heavenly influence upon
   man's soul, to enlighten him and save him? He does not do it. And if
   not in this case, where no human agent is at hand, who shall say that
   he does in any other? The word of God is silent in reference to any
   such abstract influence, and he who assumes its existence gets behind
   the curtain of revelation.

   But God employs angels in ministering to those who shall be heirs of
   salvation. In the absence of human agency, will not some angel be
   dispatched to the aid of this waiting subject for salvation? An angel
   is truly sent; but his mission is, to start a man in the direction of
   the chariot. When the man gets within sight of the chariot, the Holy
   Spirit begins to work; but he works by first bringing the man to the
   side of the chariot, and next, through his lips, speaking to the man in
   the chariot. Thus we see, that, though an angel from heaven has
   appeared, and the Holy Spirit has operated miraculously for the
   conversion of the sinner, there is still an insuperable necessity for
   the co-operation of a man, Unless that man does his part of the work,
   all that has been done by both the angel and the Spirit will prove
   unavailing. Not the slightest influence from either of the heavenly
   messengers reaches the sinner's mind or heart, until the preacher
   begins to speak, and then it reaches him through the words which are
   spoken.

   The further process is easily traced. As Philip opens up item after
   item of the prophesy, and shows its fulfillment in Jesus, the eyes of
   the eunuch begin to penetrate the Scripture, until, at last, he sees a
   flood of heavenly light where all was darkness before. His eyes are
   opened, and he sees the wondrous glory of the suffering Savior beaming
   from the inspired page which lies before him. This is effected, not by
   an abstract influence of the Spirit, enabling him to understand what
   was before obscure, but by the aid of a fellow-man providentially sent
   to him for the purpose.

   The treasurer may have heard of Jesus, in Jerusalem; but, if so, he
   heard of him through those with whom he had been up to worship, the
   bitter enemies of the cross; and knew him only as an impostor who had
   been deservedly crucified, though now worshiped by a few deluded Jews
   as their Messiah. But now, with a prophesy before him which he had
   tried in vain to find fulfilled in the history of any other man, but
   which finds its complement in the life and death of Jesus; and
   informed, by a man whose astonishing knowledge of the word of God is a
   guarantee of his honesty, that Jesus is risen from the dead, his honest
   heart interposes no wicked obstacles to his faith, and he believes. The
   demonstration strikes him with the greater force, because it is so
   unexpected. The Jews could not explain that prophesy, for they could
   not find its facts in the life of any of their great heroes; and though
   the reference to the Messiah was so palpable as to at once suggest
   itself to every reader, they would not apply it to him, because their
   conception of his earthly glory conflicted with the humiliation and
   suffering described by the prophet. Until now, this very difficulty had
   been puzzling the mind of the treasurer. But he now sees the prophesy
   fulfilled; and while the demonstration compels him to believe, the true
   conception of a bleeding Messiah touches his heart. And this is
   effected by the Holy Spirit in Philip, through the words which Philip
   spoke.

   36. "And as they went along the road, they came to certain water. And
   the eunuch said, What hinders me to be immersed?" The appearance of the
   water to which they had come suggested this question, but it could not
   have been done so unless the eunuch had been taught something
   concerning immersion as a religious ordinance. But he had enjoyed no
   opportunity for instruction on this subject, except through the
   teaching of Philip. Had Philip, then, preached him a sermon on
   immersion? No. Luke says Philip "preached to him Jesus." How, then, had
   he, while hearing Jesus preached, obtained instruction in reference to
   immersion? There is only one answer to this question. It is, that to
   preach Jesus, after the apostolic method, involves full instruction
   upon the subject of immersion. The prejudice, therefore, which exists
   at the present day against frequent introduction of this subject in
   discourses addressed to sinners, is altogether unscriptural; and those
   only preach Jesus correctly who give to it the same prominence which
   belongs to it in apostolic discourses. It was a part of Peter's sermon
   on Pentecost, of Philip's preaching to the Samaritans, and of his
   present discourse to the Ethiopian; and we will yet see, in the course
   of this commentary, that it always occupied a place in the preaching of
   inspired men on such occasions. Indeed, it would be impossible to
   preach Jesus fully without it. For the beginning of the gospel,
   historically, according to Mark, [149] is the immersion of John, to
   which Jesus submitted, and near the conclusion of it is the commission
   given in the last words of Jesus on earth, commanding every believer to
   be immersed. [150] Thus he who preaches Jesus has immersion in the
   beginning and in the end of his sermon.

   37. By almost universal consent of recent critics, the whole of this
   verse is excluded from the original text, and should be from all
   versions. For the reasons on which this decision is based, we refer the
   reader to "Bloomfield's Commentary" on the passage, "Tregelles' History
   of the Printed Text," and other critical works.

   This verse has been used chiefly for the purpose of determining the
   confession which was made originally by candidates for immersion. The
   fact that this is an interpolation must modify the argument on this
   subject, but does not invalidate it. The fact that such a confession as
   is here put in the mouth of the eunuch was uniformly required by the
   apostles, is evident from other passages of Scripture. It is quite
   certain that it was confessed by Timothy. Paul says to him: "Fight the
   good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, into which you were
   called, and did confess the good confession before many witnesses."
   [151] This confession was made at the beginning of his religious
   career; for it is connected with his call to eternal life. It is the
   same confession which is attributed to the eunuch; for Paul immediately
   adds: "I charge thee before God, who gives life to all things, and
   Jesus Christ, who bore testimony under Pontius Pilate, to the good
   confession," etc. Now, what is here called "the good confession" is
   certainly the confession that he was the Christ, made before the
   Sanhedrim, under Pontius Pilate. But this is identified, by the terms
   employed, with the confession which Timothy had made, which is also
   "the good confession." Timothy, then, made the confession that Jesus is
   the Christ, the same attributed to the eunuch. Moreover, this
   confession was so conspicuous, at the time of Paul's writing, that it
   was known as the confession, and so highly esteemed as to be styled the
   good confession.

   That Timothy was not alone in making this confession is evident from
   the following statement of Paul: "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth
   and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, That if
   thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy
   heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
   [152] From this it appears that one item in "the word of faith" which
   the apostles preached, was the confession of the Lord Jesus with the
   mouth. Paul assumes that this word was in the mouths and hearts of the
   brethren in Rome, whom he had never seen, and with whose conversion he
   had nothing, personally, to do. This assumption can be justified only
   on the ground that it belonged to "the word of faith" everywhere
   preached. He argued, from the universal practice of the apostles, to a
   particular conclusion in reference to their converts in Rome. We have,
   therefore, both his premises and his conclusion, to sustain us in
   deciding that this confession was universal in the primitive Church, as
   a part of the apostolic ritual.

   We here have use for the interpolated verse now under consideration.
   The fact that it is interpolated does not prove that the eunuch did not
   make the confession. On the contrary, when rightly considered, it
   establishes the presumption that the passage, as it now reads, is a
   faithful account of the event. The interpolation is easily accounted
   for. The text read: "The eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders
   me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and
   they went down both into the water." Now, the object of the
   interpolator was to fill up what appeared to be a historic blank, so
   that Philip should not appear to have led the man into the water too
   abruptly. In doing so, he, of course, inserted what he supposed to be
   the apostolic custom; and the fact that he inserted this confession
   shows that he believed that the apostles required candidates for
   immersion to make the confession. Furthermore, the interpolator would
   naturally be guided by the prevailing custom of his own day, so that
   his amendment might be received by his cotemporaries. In whatever age,
   therefore, the interpolation was made, it indicates both the custom of
   that age and the opinion then prevalent as to the apostolic custom.
   Whether these considerations have any force or not, depends upon the
   proximity of the age in question to the apostolic period. But this
   interpolation was known to Irenaeus, a.d. 170, [153] and this proves
   that the confession which the Scriptures show to have been universal in
   the days of the apostles was perpetuated into the latter part of the
   second century.

   Both the custom of confessing Christ, and the formula employed,
   originated in the most natural way, and without any positive precept.
   Jesus appeared in Galilee and Judea, proclaiming himself the Christ and
   the Son of God. As men became convinced of his claims, they would say,
   "I believe that he is the Christ." Others would say, "I believe that he
   is a prophet, but I deny that he is the Christ." Thus the confession or
   denial of this proposition was the first mark of distinction between
   believers and unbelievers. The Pharisees, therefore, "agreed that if
   any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the
   synagogue." [154] The confession was, then, all that was necessary to
   identify one as a disciple of Jesus. Hence, with special reference to
   this state of things, Jesus said, "He that confesses me before men, him
   will I confess before my Father in heaven; but he that denies me before
   men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven." After the commission
   was given, enjoining the immersion of all believers, the confession was
   still perpetuated, and immersion naturally took position immediately
   after it.

   A confession thus necessarily originating from the grand issue that
   Jesus presented to the world, and involving the earliest distinction
   between his friends and his foes, could not fail to have an important
   position in the formation of those friends into a great organization.
   The Church of Christ, like every other useful organization, is created
   and sustained by the obligations of some truth. This truth may be
   properly styled the foundation of the organization, because it is that
   from which it springs, and without which it could not exist. The truth
   declared in the confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
   is beyond controversy, the foundation of the Church of Christ, and is
   so declared by Jesus himself. [155] Without it no Church of Christ
   could possibly exist. It had to exist as a truth, and be demonstrated
   to men as such, before the Church would begin to be. The truth itself,
   however, and the confession of it, are two things entirely distinct.
   The former is the foundation; the latter, a means of building on it.
   There is no way to build an organization of men and women on a truth,
   except by a mutual confession of it, and an agreement to live together
   according to its obligations. When individuals, believing that Jesus is
   the Christ, mutually confess it, and agree to unite in the observance
   of its obligations, the immediate and necessary result is a Church. In
   this way the confession became an organic element in the ecclesiastical
   constitution.

   Inasmuch as some have conceived that Jesus in person is the foundation
   of the Church, it may be well to observe here that there is no way in
   which an organization can be built on a person, except by believing
   something in reference to him. It is not the fact that there is such a
   person as Jesus, but that that person is the Christ which gave
   existence to the Church.

   Inasmuch as members of the Church are built upon the true foundation,
   in part, by a mutual confession of its truth, the confession, formally
   made, is both an acknowledgment of the obligations which the truth
   imposes, and a pledge to all the duties of a member in the Church. It
   is true, that the confession, like immersion, and eating bread and
   wine, may occur amid the careless scenes of a wicked life, without any
   religious import. But this is only to say that the specific acts which
   God calls upon us to perform in religious ordinances may be performed
   by wicked men without religious intent. And this, again, is only to
   say, that, in adapting his institutions to us, instead of inventing new
   and unheard-of performances, he has lifted up certain actions and words
   already familiar, into association with religious truth and obligation.
   This arrangement is a proof of his wisdom; for by it the mind is
   averted from the mere physical act, which might otherwise have usurped
   too much consideration, and is compelled to associate the value of the
   deed with the thoughts which surround it. Such is pre-eminently the
   case with the confession, which, though a very simple declaration of
   faith, is a formal assumption of all the obligations of a Christian
   life.

   The kingdom of Christ is not limited to earth, but was designed to bind
   together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men. God himself
   was the first to present himself for this great union. Over the bank of
   the Jordan he made the same confession which is required of us, and
   thereby not only bore testimony to the fact that Jesus was his Son,
   but, also, voluntarily placed himself before the universe in the
   attitude which the incipient mediatorship required him to occupy. By
   this formal confession he pledged himself to accept the mediation of
   Christ, just as we, by the same confession, pledge ourselves to accept
   the blessings which that mediation procures for us. If God had never
   confessed Jesus, in this or some equivalent manner, we would have no
   direct assurance from him that he was in Christ reconciling the world
   to himself.

   Like men on earth, the angels in heaven passed into the privileges of
   the kingdom of God, by making this same confession. When Jesus ascended
   up on high, the Father said to him, "Sit on my right hand, till I make
   thine enemies thy footstool." [156] Then he "sat down at the right hand
   of the throne of God," [157] and God said, "Let all the angels of God
   worship him." [158] Then were fulfilled the words of Paul, "God hath
   highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that
   at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
   things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue
   should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The
   angels all confessed the good confession, receiving Jesus as their
   Lord, and rendering thus their first act of worship to the Son of Mary.
   The one identical confession, therefore, has brought together, in one
   harmonious whole, God, angels, and men; the latter being pledged by it
   to eternal worship, and the former pledged forever to accept their
   grateful homage through Christ.

   That this confession was the only one required of candidates for
   immersion by the apostles, is universally admitted by those who are
   competent to judge. It is likewise admitted that they regarded it as a
   sufficient confession. This fact alone should teach men to be satisfied
   with it now. He, indeed, who is guided by the Bible alone, can not
   require of men any other confession than such as he finds authorized by
   Bible precedents. Neither is it possible that he who implicitly follows
   the apostolic precedent can be misled, unless the apostles, the Holy
   Spirit, the New Testament, can mislead them. Fidelity to the word of
   God, therefore, binds us to this confession alone, and, in clinging to
   it, we have every assurance which inspiration can give that we are
   right.

   Departure from apostolic precedent is never justifiable, except when
   the precedent itself was the result of circumstances peculiar to the
   apostolic age. The primitive practice of washing the feet of brethren
   who came into the house from the highway, was an accidental, and not a
   necessary result of the law of hospitality. Growing out of the peculiar
   habit of wearing sandals, it ceased to be a matter of duty as soon as
   the circumstances which gave rise to it disappeared. If a similar
   change of circumstances has taken place in reference to the confession,
   rendering it insufficient for our times, then we are no longer bound by
   the precedent. That such is the case is affirmed by many of our
   cotemporaries, and we must extend these remarks sufficiently to
   consider the reasons offered in support of this opinion.

   It is often argued that, in the days of the apostles, the moment men
   became convinced that Jesus was the Christ they were ready to submit to
   his service; but now, every Church is surrounded with men and women who
   are convinced of this fact, but still persist in wickedness; hence some
   more effectual test should now be applied. This argument is based upon
   a false assumption in reference to results of primitive preaching; for
   we read of many rulers of synagogues who believed in Jesus, but would
   not confess him for hear of the Pharisees; [159] of Joseph of
   Arimathea, who, though a disciples kept it secret; [160] of Felix, who
   trembled under the preaching of Paul, but said, Go thy way for the
   present; and of Agrippa, who was almost, though not altogether,
   persuaded to be a Christian. If these men in high stations were
   deterred by fear, or by worldly lusts, from making the confession, how
   much more the common people, who had much more to fear! Witness the
   parents of the blind man who had been healed by Jesus, who gave evasive
   answers in the synagogue for this very reason. [161] There is no
   evidence that men were more prompt to yield to their convictions then
   than they are now.

   Sometimes it is argued, quite inconsistently with the above, that the
   danger of being known as a Christian in those days rendered the simple
   confession a sufficient test of a man's devotion; but now, when
   Christianity is popular, it is entirely insufficient. It must be
   granted, that sometimes it was dangerous to property and life to become
   a Christian, yet it was true then, as it is now, that many insincere
   persons found their way into the Churches. Jude complains that "ungodly
   men, turning the favor of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only
   Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," had "crept in unawares." [162]
   Paul echoes the same sentiment in reference to "false brethren,
   unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which
   we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." [163]
   There are those "who went out from us because they were not of us," and
   there was Demas, who forsook Paul in the hour of danger, "having loved
   this present world." And what more shall I say? For time would fail me
   to tell of Simon the sorcerer, of Alexander the coppersmith, of
   Phygellus and Hermogenes, of Hymeneus and Alexander whom Paul delivered
   over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, and of many
   others who proved insincere in their confession, or false to its
   obligations. Surely, if a test of sincerity which could let into the
   fold such wolves as these was sufficient for the inspired apostles, we
   may be content with the same, unless we affect a wisdom and a zeal
   superior to theirs.

   But the most popular argument against the present sufficiency of the
   good confession is this: that the immense multiplicity of doctrinal
   errors now prevalent requires a severer test of soundness in the faith
   than was used by the apostles before these errors had an existence.
   Unfortunately, however, its historic assumption is as baseless as that
   of the two we have just considered. For not only were the Churches
   surrounded with most pernicious errors in doctrine, but were sickened
   by the poison of those errors within their own bosoms. Pharisees in
   Jerusalem crept in to spy out the liberty of the new covenant, and
   bring the brethren back into bondage to the law; [164] and there were
   Sadducees in the Church at Corinth who denied the resurrection. [165]
   There were philosophers, such as "Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning
   the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is already past, and
   overthrow the faith of some," [166] and there were transcendentalists,
   who denied that "Jesus Christ had come in the flesh," [167] having
   speculated his bodily existence into the essence of moonshine, or
   something equally unreal. James had to warn some against being deceived
   into worship of the heavenly bodies, by assuring them that "every good
   gift comes down from the Father of lights," and not from the lights
   themselves; while Paul fights many a hard battle against brethren who
   were disposed to openly countenance fornication, incest, and the
   sacrificial banquets of heathen worship. Under the pressure of all this
   influx of falsehood and iniquity, why did not these inspired men see
   their mistake, and, discarding the simple confession, draw up a
   masterly catechism, which would shut out every error, and guard the
   purity of the Church? How sad the reflection, that men so ingenious in
   other respects, were so stupid in this! And how fortunate for us, that
   the wiser heads of Rome, Geneva, Augsburg, and Westminster have
   supplied this deficiency in the work of the apostles!

   We have thus far argued upon the broadest assumption in reference to
   the inefficiency of the good confession in guarding the purity of the
   Church. We might retort upon the advocates of creeds and catechisms, by
   showing that these devices can not be, and have not been, any more
   efficient; but we prefer to show the real exclusiveness of the good
   confession. It is certainly exclusive enough to keep out the pagan, the
   Jew, the Mohammedan, the atheist, and the infidel; for none of these
   can honestly make the confession. It will exclude the Unitarian and the
   Universalist; for while they are willing to confess that Jesus is the
   Christ, in the next breath they deny him, by contradicting some of his
   most emphatic declarations. It will also exclude the wicked and
   impenitent; for it is offered only to penitent believers. If this is
   not considered sufficient, we may advance still further, and say that
   it will exclude the Roman Catholic, who persists in having other
   intercessors in heaven, besides "the high priest of our confession."
   [168] It will exclude the devotee of the mourning bench, who waits for
   an operation of the Spirit before he comes to Christ. It will exclude
   the pedobaptist, who is satisfied with his sprinkling; for it requires
   an immediate immersion. None of these characters can scripturally make
   the good confession without some specific change in views or in
   character. Lest the tune of the objector should now be changed, and he
   should cry, "Your confession is too exclusive," we add, that it
   receives all whom the apostles would receive, and excludes all whom
   they would exclude.

   38, 39. When Philip ascertained that the eunuch believed in the Lord
   Jesus, and desired to obey him, there was no delay, but his desire to
   be immersed was immediately gratified. (38) "And he commanded the
   chariot to stand still, and they went down into the water, both Philip
   and the eunuch, and he immersed him. (39) And when they were come up
   out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the
   eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing."

   This is one of the passages which the conflict of contending parties
   has rendered familiar to every reader of the New Testament. The
   questions in controversy are: First, Whether Philip and the eunuch went
   into the water, or only to it; Second, Whether the facts in the case
   afford any evidence that the eunuch was immersed.

   The determination of the first question depends upon the exact force of
   the antithetical expression, katebesan eis to udor, and anebesan ek tou
   udatos. If the latter means, "they went up out of the water," then the
   former necessarily means, "they went down into the water;" and vice
   versa. There are two methods of inquiry, therefore, by which to
   determine whether they went into the water: First, The direct method,
   which depends upon the meaning of the words supposed to declare this
   fact; Second, The indirect method, which determines whether they went
   into the water, by determining whether they went out of it.

   In dealing with this question, Dr. Moses Stuart, one of the most
   learned and candid of the disputants on the pedobaptist side, does
   great injustice to his own reputation. He says: "That eis, with the
   verb katabaino, often means going down to a place, is quite certain; e.
   g., 'Jesus went down to Capernaum;' 'Jacob went down to Egypt;' 'They
   went down to Attalia;' 'They went down to Troas;' 'He went down to
   Antioch;' 'Going down to Caesarea.'" [169] How strange it is that the
   learned author did not perceive that in every one of these examples the
   meaning is necessarily into! If he had paused to ask himself whether
   Jesus went into Capernaum, and Jacob into Egypt, and so of the others,
   or merely went to the boundary line of those places, he would have
   spared his reputation by erasing this paragraph. He would also have
   saved himself the utterance of another unfortunate sentence on the same
   page: "I find but one passage in the New Testament where it seems to
   mean into when used with katabaino. This is in Romans x. 7, Who shall
   go down, eis abusson, into the abyss?" Besides the examples mentioned
   above, he must have searched with very little industry not to have
   discovered the following: "Let him that is on the housetop not go down
   into, katabato eis, the house." [170] "Now that he ascended, what is it
   but that he also first descended into, katebe eis, the lower parts of
   the earth?" [171] "This man went down into, katebe eis, his house,
   justified rather than the other." [172] "A certain man was going down,
   katabainen, from Jerusalem into, eis, Jericho." [173] "The road that
   goes down, katabainousan, from Jerusalem into, eis, Gaza." [174]

   These are all the instances in the New Testament in which these two
   words occur together; and the reader can but see, that in every single
   instance the controverted expression means to go down into. By our
   first method of inquiry, therefore, it is settled that Philip and the
   eunuch went down into the water.

   It is not logically necessary to pursue this discussion any further;
   but, let it might be imagined that the conclusion we have already
   reached should be modified by the force of the other member of the
   antithesis, we must give some attention to the meaning of anebesan ek
   tou udatos. And here I must take exception to another sweeping
   declaration of Dr. Stuart's. He says: "anabaino is never employed in
   the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. The preposition ek,
   here, would agree with this idea--although it, by no means, of
   necessity implies it; but anabaino forbids us to thus construe it." Why
   is this apparently broad assertion so cautiously limited to the single
   case of "emerging from a liquid substance?" Is it possible that Dr.
   Stuart knew that the expression meant to go up out of, but, thinking
   that it did not occur in any other passage in connection with a liquid,
   framed his proposition to suit such an accident? It is humiliating in
   the extreme to see so great a mind descend to such special pleading on
   so grave a subject. If anabaiein ek means to go up out of, nothing but
   the most determined obduracy can preclude the admission that it means
   the same when referring to liquids as to other substances. Now, it is a
   fact, and it must have been known to Dr. Stuart, if he examined into
   the ground of his own statements, that, in every single occurrence of
   these two words in connection, in the New Testament, they men to go up
   out of. [175] Moreover, in one of these occurrences they are "employed
   in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. In Revelations xiii.
   1, John says: "I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast, ek
   tes thalasses anabainon, rising up out of the sea." Notwithstanding
   this broad assertion of Dr. Stuart's, therefore, the expression in
   question does, without a single exception, invariably mean to go up out
   of. Philip and the eunuch, then, went up out of the water; hence, they
   must first have gone down into it. By both methods of inquiry, the
   conclusion is established.

   The most astonishing display of partisan blindness on this passage is
   yet to be noticed. It is an argument employed by Moses Stuart, in which
   he is followed by Dr. Alexander. He says: "If katebesan eis to udor is
   meant to designate the action of plunging, or being immersed into the
   water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as
   well as the eunuch: for the sacred writer says they both went into the
   water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and, what is
   at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the
   eunuch." This argument proceeds upon the assumption that immersionists
   regard the act of going down into water as the act of immersion, than
   which there could not be a grosser perversion of their meaning. When a
   strong mind descends to arguments so weak and childish as this, we have
   the clearest evidence that the cause in which it is employed is felt to
   be weak and untenable.

   We must now address ourselves to the inquiry, whether this passage
   affords any evidence in favor of immersion. This much-controverted
   question may be discussed either as a philological question, or as a
   question of fact. In the former method, the controversy turns upon the
   meaning of the Greek word baptizo. In the latter, upon the action
   performed by the apostles when they baptized men. Questions of fact are
   much more tangible than those in philology, especially when the
   philological inquiry runs into a foreign language. We prefer,
   therefore, to discuss this question as a simple matter of fact; and
   this method is the more appropriate in this work, which treats of acts
   performed by apostles. It can be most easily determined what act was
   performed when men were baptized, without any discussion as to the
   meaning of the word baptizo.

   If the passage before us contains any evidence that the eunuch was
   immersed, outside of the meaning of the word, it must be circumstantial
   evidence, and not direct testimony. In ordinary jurisprudence, the
   former is often more conclusive than the latter; for living witnesses
   may be bribed, or voluntarily bear false testimony; but facts, however
   grossly they may be misinterpreted, can never give real utterance to
   falsehood. Circumstantial evidence is that derived from facts which
   transpired in such connection with the main fact assumed as to indicate
   its existence or character. There are two conditions necessary to its
   conclusiveness: First, That the facts which constitute the
   circumstances be fully authenticated; Second, That they shall be such
   as can not be accounted for without the admission of the main fact at
   issue. The first condition is always satisfied in scriptural inquiries,
   because the facts are asserted by infallible witnesses. Every thing
   depends, therefore, upon compliance with the second condition. This
   compliance may be so various in degree, as to admit of every possible
   degree of conclusiveness, from the slightest presumption up to absolute
   certainty. When the circumstances are as easily accounted for without
   the fact assumed as with it, they afford no evidence at all. When they
   can be better accounted for with the fact than without it, the evidence
   is probable. When they can not possibly be accounted for without the
   fact, and are fully accounted for by the fact, the evidence is
   irresistible.

   When the facts constituting the circumstances are actions performed by
   men, this introduces an additional element into the argument. In this
   case, if the agent is a rational man, he must be supposed to act for a
   reason, and his actions, as circumstances, may be regarded with
   reference to the reasons for which they were performed. We further
   observe, that the question, What act was performed by the apostles
   under the name of baptism? has not reference to an indefinite number of
   actions, but is confined, by the nature of the controversy, to two. It
   was either immersion or affusion; the latter term embracing both the
   specific acts of sprinkling and pouring. This is admitted by all
   parties; for, although some contend that either act will serve the
   purpose of a valid baptism, no one, at the present day, contends that
   the apostles practiced both. Those who contend for affusion deny that
   the apostles or John the harbinger practiced immersion; while those who
   contend for immersion deny that they practiced affusion. It is as if A
   and B were brought into court for trial in reference to the murder of
   C. It is admitted by both the parties, and known to the counsel, the
   jurors, the judge, the sheriff, and the spectators, that the murder was
   committed by one of these two parties. Now, whatever evidence might be
   presented to exculpate A, would have precisely the same tendency to the
   conviction of B. And if the demonstration of A's innocence were
   complete, the jury would render a verdict against B, though not a
   witness had testified directly to his guilt. Just so in the present
   case. Whatever evidence can be fund against the affusion of the eunuch
   and others, is good to the same extent in favor of their immersion, and
   vice versa.

   The circumstances by which this question is to be decided are divided
   into two distinct classes, which we may style, respectively,
   circumstances of fact, and circumstances of allusion. We will consider
   them in the order in which they are here named.

   There are some circumstances of fact which afford no evidence upon this
   question whatever. For instance, three thousand persons were baptized
   in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, in one afternoon. Now, if it were
   impossible for the agents employed to immerse so many in so short a
   time, or if sufficient water for that purpose could not have been found
   in Jerusalem, the two circumstances of place and time would furnish
   evidence against immersion. But as the facts on which this evidence
   would depend did not exist, [176] no such evidence is here found. All
   the circumstances involved in the transaction can be accounted for by
   the supposition of either affusion or immersion; hence they furnish no
   evidence in favor of either as against the other. In like manner, the
   command of Ananias to Saul, to "Arise and be baptized," though it
   supplies the fact that previous to being baptized he must arise from
   his prostrate or recumbent position, furnishes no evidence bearing upon
   our question, because it is consistent with either immersion or
   affusion. If it were proved that C was murdered with a club, this in
   itself would be no evidence again A, or in favor of B, seeing that
   either of them could have used a club.

   But there are other circumstances of fact which afford unmistakable
   evidence upon this question. The agent about to perform the act in
   dispute selected for the purpose a river, as the Jordan, [177] or a
   place where there was "much water," as in "AEnon near to Salim." [178]
   When the parties about to perform the act were in an ordinary dwelling,
   they went out of doors for the purpose, though it were the hour of
   midnight, as in the case of the Philippian jailer. [179] When they came
   down to the water selected, both the administrator and the subject went
   down into it, as in the case of the eunuch, and the baptism was
   performed while they were in it. These are all unquestionable facts,
   for they are declared in unambiguous terms by infallible witnesses.
   They are also actions performed by rational men, and, therefore, each
   of them must have been performed for some reason. Moreover, the reason
   for each was furnished by the nature of the main act, for the purpose
   of accomplishing which each of these subordinate actions was performed.
   But the supposition of affusion furnishes no conceivable reason for any
   one of these actions. It can not, therefore, be the main act in
   question.

   Again: If the main act could have been as well and as conveniently
   performed without these subordinate actions as with them, then all
   these agents acted without a reason. But certain affusion, even of the
   multitudes baptized by John, could have been performed as conveniently
   to himself and the people, at some well or fountain centrally located,
   as at the Jordan, or in AEnon. Paul could have sprinkled the jailer as
   conveniently in the house at midnight, as out of doors; and Philip
   could have sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch as well at the brink
   of the water, as by going down into it. Each of these subordinate
   actions, therefore, was an irrational one, if affusion was the main act
   performed.

   But, still further, there are good and valid reasons against such a
   line of action as we are considering, such as have sufficed, in every
   age and country, and among all ranks of society, to cause those who
   perform affusion to pursue a course the reverse of this in every
   particular. To save time and labor, and to avoid personal discomfort,
   instead of going to rivers and places of much water, they administer
   the rite at home or at church. Instead of going out of doors at night,
   if they happen to be out of doors at night, they prefer to go into the
   house. And, instead of going down into the water, they dip into it
   merely the tips of their fingers, or, avoiding all contact with the
   water themselves, they pour it from a vessel upon the subject. To
   suppose, in the face of all these reasons, which are controlling with
   rational men, that the apostles performed the various actions which we
   know they did, for the purpose of affusion, is to suppose them to act
   not only irrationally, but contrary to all the reasons which govern
   rational men. But they were rational men; therefore, he who reasons
   thus concerning them is convicted, beyond question, of drawing an
   irrational conclusion.

   So far as the circumstances of fact are concerned, we might logically
   rest the case here; for, having sustained the negative proposition that
   affusion was not the act in question, we have no alternative but to
   conclude that it was immersion. But the same circumstantial evidence
   which brings us to so solid a conclusion by this indirect method,
   serves the purpose equally well when applied to the direct proof of
   immersion. The supposition of immersion furnishes the desired reason
   for each one of the subordinate actions we have been considering. It
   accounts for the selection of a river or a place of much water; for
   leaving the house at midnight, and for going down into the water. It is
   the only supposition which can account for them; and, therefore, their
   existence demands the existence of immersion. We must either deny these
   facts, which would be infidelity; deny that the apostles acted
   rationally, which would be the height of folly and impiety; or admit
   that immersion, and not affusion, was the apostolic practice.

   The circumstances of allusion are equally conclusive with those already
   considered. Their force may be stated thus: When parties who are
   certainly acquainted with the facts in dispute let drop incidental
   remarks indicative of the nature of the facts, such remarks afford
   evidence, by indicating the knowledge possessed by the speaker. If, in
   the case of trial for murder above supposed, it were known that D was
   cognizant of all the facts, any incidental statement of his,
   inconsistent with the supposition that he knew A to be the murderer,
   would afford circumstantial evidence in favor of A, and against B. Now,
   Jesus and the apostles were cognizant of all the facts in reference to
   baptism, and they have made certain allusions to it, which, so far as
   the nature of the act is concerned, are incidental, but which indicate
   what they knew the act to be. If, upon a collation of these allusions,
   we find them inconsistent with the knowledge, on their part, that
   baptism was affusion, but just such as imply the knowledge that it was
   immersion, the evidence from this source will be conclusive.

   Of the many allusions at hand, we will select, for our present purpose,
   only a few, the bearing of which appears least liable to dispute.
   First, in the words of our Savior, "Except a man be born of water and
   the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." That the
   expression, "born of water," is an allusion to baptism, is admitted by
   all standard commentators and critics known to the writer, and is
   disputed by none but those who are incapable of being candid upon this
   subject. The term is used metaphorically, and, therefore, indicates
   some connection with water, which is analogous to a birth. But there is
   no conceivable analogy between a birth and an application of water by
   affusion; hence it is impossible that Jesus could have known the act
   alluded to to be affusion. The expression forces the mind to something
   like a birth, which can be found only in the act of drawing the body
   out of water, which takes place in immersion. This, alone, could have
   suggested the metaphor to the mind of Jesus, and to this our minds
   intuitively run when we hear the words pronounced. It is intuitively
   certain, therefore, that Jesus alluded to immersion, and not to
   sprinkling.

   The next allusion to which we invite attention is that in which Jesus
   calls the unspeakable sufferings which were to terminate his life, "The
   baptism with which I am to be baptized." [180] Here the term baptism is
   used metaphorically for his sufferings, which could not be unless there
   is, in literal baptism, something analogous to the overwhelming agonies
   of Gethsemane and Calvary. The soul revolts at the supposition that a
   mere sprinkling, or pouring of water on the face, could have supplied
   this analogy, and intuitively demands something like the sweep of water
   over the sinking body, which is witnessed in immersion. Immersion
   supplies the analogy, and it must be the meaning of the term baptism,
   if there is any meaning in the Savior's mournful words.

   One allusion from the Apostle Paul, and one from Peter, will suffice
   for our present purpose. Paul exhorts the brethren to draw near to God,
   "having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies
   washed with pure water." [181] Here is an allusion to the sprinkled
   blood of Christ, as cleansing the heart from an evil conscience, and to
   baptism as a washing of the body. But this language is inconsistent
   with the idea of sprinkling or pouring a little water on the face,
   which could, by no propriety of speech, be styled a washing of the
   body. Nothing but immersion will meet the demands of the expression,
   for the words describe what takes in immersion, and in no other
   ordinance of the New Testament. Peter's allusion is quite similar to
   this. He says: "Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of
   the filth of the flesh, but the seeking of a good conscience toward
   God." Now Peter could not have supplied the words, "Not the putting
   away of the filth of the flesh," unless there was something in baptism
   which might possibly be mistaken for this. But it would be impossible
   for any one to so mistake sprinkling, while immersion might be readily
   mistaken for a cleansing of the flesh. Peter, then, knew that
   immersion, and not affusion, was baptism, and so indicates by this
   language.

   We now have before us, from Jesus and Paul and Peter, who certainly
   knew what baptism was, unmistakable allusions to it, which could not
   have been made if they knew it to be affusion, and which force us to
   the conclusion that they knew it to be immersion. It is difficult to
   conceive how circumstantial evidence could be more conclusive.

   We might add to our list of circumstances of allusion the statement of
   Paul in Romans vi. 4, and Colossians ii. 12, that in baptism we are
   buried and raised again. But I regard this as direct testimony to what
   is done in baptism, and not a mere allusion to it. If any man were to
   try to frame a statement of what takes place in the act of immersion,
   he could not do so in more unambiguous terms than to say, "We are
   buried and raised again." If he were to say, "We are immersed," it
   would not be so specific a description of the act, nor so little liable
   to dispute as to its real meaning.

   The last clause of the passage under consideration demands some notice
   ere we introduce another section of the text. It is said that "when
   they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip
   away; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way
   rejoicing." No doubt the influence of the Spirit by which Philip was
   caught away was the same as that which had at first joined him to the
   chariot. It was that monition of the Spirit by which the movements of
   inspired men were frequently directed. We will notice frequent
   instances of the kind in the course of this work.

   When Philip was caught away to other labors, the eunuch "went on his
   way rejoicing." So universally does joy pervade the hearts of those
   whose sins are forgiven, that many sectaries of modern times have
   mistaken it for the evidence of pardon. The fallacy which they commit
   is to assume, without authority, that a real pardon from God is the
   only cause which can induce this feeling. Now, we know that joy must
   spring up in the heart, under the belief that pardon has been
   dispensed, however mistaken that belief may be. The convict awaiting
   execution would be just as happy if deceived by a counterfeit pardon,
   as if it were genuine. So with the penitent sinner. When his soul has
   been racked, for hours and days together, by the torture of an awakened
   conscience, it is likely, by the reaction of its own powers, or through
   exhaustion of the nervous system, to become calm. Now, if he has been
   taught that the supervening of this calm is an indication of pardon,
   immediately upon the consciousness of its presence there will spring up
   that joy which he alone feels who believes his sins are pardoned. Such
   individuals, however, generally have serious doubts, at times, whether
   they did not mistake the natural for the supernatural, and they seldom
   obtain more than a hope that their sins were forgiven. The rejoicing of
   the eunuch was based upon far different and more solid ground. Taught
   by Philip, according to the commission, and according to the preaching
   of Peter, who had been Philip's own teacher, that the penitent believer
   was to be immersed for the remission of sins; realizing in his own
   consciousness, that he was a penitent believer; and having been
   immersed, his conviction that his sins were pardoned was as solid as
   his confidence in the word of God and in his own consciousness. In
   neither of these could he well be mistaken, and, therefore, his joy was
   not alloyed by any harassing doubts.

   We now part company with this noble man, whose ready faith and prompt
   obedience give evidence of such a character that we would love to
   travel with him further; but here the curtain of authentic history
   drops upon him, and we see him no longer. Happily, the echoes that come
   back to us, as he passes on, are notes of joy, and we may hope to meet
   him at the point where all our journeys meet, and rejoice with him
   forever.

   40. The historian brings the present section of his narrative to a
   close by a brief notice of the subsequent labors of Philip. (40) "But
   Philip was found at Azotus; and, passing along, he preached the gospel
   in all the cities till he came to Caesarea." The town of Azotus, the
   Ashdod of the Old Testament, was westward of the route the eunuch was
   pursuing, on the shore of the Mediterranean. Philip's further tour
   extended northward, along the sea-shore, to Caesarea. We are not yet
   prepared to bid him a final adieu; but will meet him again, after the
   shifting scenes of many years, to say farewell amid many tears. [182]
   [112]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [138] Acts vi. 5.

   [139] See Barnes, in loco.

   [140] Acts ii. 38.

   [141] Acts xix. 6.

   [142] 1 Tim. iv. 14.

   [143] 2 Tim. i. 6.

   [144] Planting and Training.

   [145] Rom. viii. 9.

   [146] Gal. iii. 26-29.

   [147] See 1 Cor. xiii. 8.

   [148] City of the Great King, p. 576.

   [149] Mark i. 1.

   [150] Mark xvi. 15, 16.

   [151] 1 Tim. vi. 12. The terms omologeo, and omologia, should be
   uniformly rendered confess and confession.

   [152] Rom. x. 8, 9.

   [153] Hackett, in loco.

   [154] John ix. 22.

   [155] Matt. xvi. 16-18.

   [156] Heb. i. 13.

   [157] Heb. xii. 2.

   [158] Heb. i. 6.

   [159] John xii. 42.

   [160] John xix. 38.

   [161] John ix. 22.

   [162] Jude iv.

   [163] Gal. ii. 4.

   [164] Gal. ii. 4.

   [165] 1 Cor. xv. 12.

   [166] 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.

   [167] 1 John iv. 1-3.

   [168] Heb. iii. 1.

   [169] Stuart on Baptism, Nashville, 1856, p. 95.

   [170] Mark xiii. 15.

   [171] Eph. iv. 9.

   [172] Luke xviii. 14.

   [173] Luke x. 30.

   [174] Acts viii. 26.

   [175] See John xi. 55; Luke ii. 4; Rev. viii. 4 ix. 2; xi. 7; xiii. 1;
   xiii. 11; xvii. 8..

   [176] See Com. ii. 41.

   [177] Mark i. 5.

   [178] John iii. 23.

   [179] Com. xvi. 33.

   [180] Matt. xx. 22.

   [181] Heb. x. 22.

   [182] See Acts xxi. 8.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts IX

   IX: 1, 2. These is a sudden transition in our narrative at this point,
   and it assumes more the character of a biography. The writers of sacred
   history, in both Testaments, devote the greater part of their space to
   biographical sketches. The greater familiarity of the masses of the
   people with such portions of the Bible fully attests the wisdom of this
   course. This familiarity is the result of a deeper impression made upon
   the heart, and, consequently, upon the memory. We accept it, therefore,
   thankfully, that Luke, in his sketch of apostolic labors, was directed
   to record, somewhat connectedly, the labors of Paul, rather than
   detached sketches from the lives of all the apostles. What is lost to
   our curiosity in reference to the other apostles is far overbalanced by
   the more thrilling effect of a continuous personal narrative. This
   effect is all the more thrilling, from the selection of him, who, among
   all the apostles, was "in labors most abundant."

   Saul has already been introduced to the reader in the account of
   Stephen's martyrdom. By the aid of his own subsequent statements
   concerning himself, we are able to trace his history to a still earlier
   period. The early education and ancestral remembrances of a man have
   much to do in forming his character and shaping his career. Those of
   Saul were calculated to thrust him into the very scenes in which he
   first figures in history. He was born in the city of Tarsus, in
   Cilicia, not far from the period at which Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
   He was of pure Jewish extraction, of the tribe of Benjamin, and
   descended from pious ancestry. This insured his careful instruction in
   Jewish history, and such portions of the law of Moses as he could
   understand in childhood. His parents were Pharisees, and, therefore,
   his understanding of the Scriptures was modified by the peculiar
   interpretations and traditions of that sect, while his prejudices were
   all enlisted in its favor. [183]

   Besides this religious instruction, he was taught the trade of
   tent-making. The goat's hair which was used in this manufacture was
   produced in Cilicia in such abundance, and of so fine a quality, that
   the manufactured article acquired the name Cilicium, from the name of
   the province. The wisdom of his parents in teaching him this trade as a
   means of providing against the unfortunate contingencies of life, will
   be fully exemplified in the course of this narrative.

   The child was being educated, under the eye of an overruling
   Providence, for a future unthought of by either himself or his parents.
   His residence in a city where the Greek language prevailed was not the
   least important circumstance bearing upon his education. Like the
   children of foreigners in our own country, though the ancestral tongue
   was the language of the fireside, on the streets and in all places of
   public resort he was compelled to employ the language of the adopted
   country. In this way he acquired that familiarity with the Greek, which
   enabled him, in after-life, to employ it with facility both in writing
   and speaking.

   It was only his earliest childhood that was thus devoted to parental
   instruction, and to the acquirement of the Greek language and a trade;
   for he was "brought up" in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of
   Gamaliel. [184] Under the instruction of this learned Pharisee, whose
   prudence and whose calm indifference to the cause of Christ we have had
   occasion to notice, in commenting on the second trial of the apostles,
   [185] his Pharisaic prejudices must have been intensified, with his
   knowledge of the law was enlarged, and his zeal for it inflamed.

   A youth of Paul's intellectual capacity would be expected to make rapid
   advances with the opportunities which he now enjoyed, and so, he tells
   us, he did. "I made progress in the Jew's religion above many my equals
   in age in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the
   traditions of my fathers." [186] This pre-eminence among his
   school-fellows was accompanied by the strictest propriety of religious
   deportment; so that he could appeal, after the lapse of many years, to
   those who knew him in his youth, though now his enemies, to testify
   that, "according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a
   Pharisee." [187] He could even declare that he was, "touching the
   righteousness that is in the law, blameless." [188] Such was his
   character, and his reputation, when he finished his course of
   instruction in the school of Gamaliel.

   If the usual supposition concerning Saul's age is correct, it is not
   probable that he was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, or
   for several years previous. If he had been, it would be unaccountable
   that in all his epistles he makes no allusion to a personal knowledge
   of Jesus. The supposition that he was at that time still confined in
   the school of Gamaliel is not only inconsistent with his supposed age,
   which could not have been less than thirty at the time he is introduced
   to us, but it is insufficient to account for his ignorance of events
   over which the every children of Jerusalem rejoiced. [189] The
   supposition that he left the school and returned to Tarsus previous to
   the immersion preached by John, and reappeared in Jerusalem after the
   ascension of Jesus, is most agreeable to all the known facts in the
   case. By an absence of a few years he had not forfeited his former
   reputation, but appears now as a leader in the movements against the
   Church. We have already, in commenting on Acts vi. 9, ventured the
   assumption, that among the Cilicians there mentioned as opponents of
   Stephen, Saul bore a leading part as a disputant. Such a position of
   his superior learning and piety would naturally assign him, and his
   prominence at the stoning of Stephen affords evidence in favor of this
   assumption. The law required that the witnesses upon whose testimony an
   idolater was condemned to death should throw the first stones, in the
   execution of the sentence. [190] In accordance with this law, the
   witnesses against Stephen, preparatory to their cruel work, laid off
   their cumbrous outer-garments, at the feet of Saul, who "was consenting
   of his death." [191] After the death of Stephen, he still maintained
   the position of a leader, and continued to commit men and women to
   prison, until the Church was entirely dispersed. Many of those
   committed to prison met with the fate of Stephen. This fact is not
   stated by Luke, but is confessed by Paul in his speech before Agrippa.
   [192] Many others were beaten in the synagogues, and compelled to
   blaspheme the name of Jesus as the condition of release from their
   tortures. [193]

   After the congregation in Jerusalem had been dispersed, Saul doubtless
   thought that the sect was effectually crushed. But soon the news came
   floating back from every quarter, that the scattered disciples were
   building up congregations in every direction. One less determined than
   Saul might have despaired of final success is destroying a cause which
   had thus far been promoted by every attack made upon it, and which even
   sprung up with increasing strength from apparent destruction. But his
   was a nature which gathered new resolution as obstacles multiplied
   before him; and thus he appears in the present text, which, after so
   long delay, we must now have before us. (1) "But Saul, yet breathing
   out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went
   to the high priest, (2) and requested from him letters to the
   synagogues in Damascus, that, if he found any of that way, whether men
   or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem."

   Why he selected Damascus as the scene of his first enterprise, rather
   than some of the cities of Judea, is acknowledged by Olshausen as
   "difficult to determine." But when we remember the sensitiveness of
   patriots, in reference to the reputation of their country and its
   institutions in foreign lands, the difficulty disappears. The ancestral
   religion of the Jew was his pride and boast in every land. It was
   bitter enough to the proud Pharisee that it should be brought into
   disrepute among a portion of the population at home; but when the hated
   authors of this reproach began to spread it abroad in surrounding
   kingdoms, it was beyond endurance. When the news reached Jerusalem that
   this dishonoring heresy had begun to spread in the ancient and
   celebrated city of Damascus, where thousands of Jews then lived, and
   had obtained a religious influence over a large portion of the
   population, the exasperation of the Pharisees knew no bounds, and Saul,
   with characteristic ardor, started in pursuit of the fugitives. He had
   reason, of course, to believe, that, upon requisition of the high
   priest, the authorities of Damascus, which was then embraced within the
   dominions of the Arabian king Aretas, would deliver up the disciples as
   fugitives from justice. That he was correct in this is sufficiently
   demonstrated by the zeal with which the governor afterward lent the aid
   of his guards to the orthodox Jews, for the purpose of seizing Paul
   himself. [194]

   3. The storm of passion with which Saul started from Jerusalem would
   naturally subside, in some degree, in the course of the five or six
   days necessary to perform on foot the journey of one hundred and forty
   miles, leaving him in a calmer mood, and better prepared for the scenes
   which transpired near the close of the journey. (3) "And as he
   journeyed, he came near to Damascus, and suddenly there flashed around
   him a light from heaven." This occurred at noon, when the sun was
   shining with full meridian strength upon the sandy plain which he was
   traversing, [195] yet the light from heaven was "above the brightness
   of the sun." [196]

   We are now fairly introduced to the history of Saul's conversion, and
   must note carefully the entire process, both with reference to the
   specific changes effected, and the influences which produced them. In
   order that we may have the case fully before us, we will draw upon the
   parallel passages in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters for
   such additional facts as they furnish.

   4. "And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, Saul,
   Saul, why do you persecute me?" He not only heard this voice, but,
   gazing, while his eyes could endure it, into the midst of the glory, he
   saw distinctly the being who spoke to him. [197] The question he heard,
   by the simple force of the word persecute, carried his mind forward to
   his bloody purpose in Damascus, and back to his bloody deeds in
   Jerusalem. Nor was this the only involuntary motion of his mind upon
   the instant; for here we must locate the additional words, "It is hard
   for thee to kick against the goads." [198] This language reveals to us
   that Saul's conscience had not been altogether at rest during his
   persecutions, but that, like an unruly ox, he had been kicking against
   a goad, which urged him to a different course. Although he had acted
   ignorantly, and in unbelief, yet it was with so many misgivings, that
   he ever afterward regarded himself as the chief of sinners, having been
   the chief of persecutors. [199] His conscience must have been
   instantaneously aroused by this reference to its past goadings.

   5, 6. Though his conscience was now aroused, and he knew full well that
   the vision before him was from heaven, he can not comprehend it until
   he knows who it is that speaks to him and asserts himself the object of
   his persecutions. (5) "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord
   said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute." It is impossible for us, who
   have been familiar with the glory of our risen Savior from our infancy,
   to fully appreciate the feelings which must have flashed, like
   lightning, into the soul of Saul, upon hearing these words. Up to this
   moment he had supposed Jesus an impostor, cursed of God and man; and
   his followers blasphemers worthy of death; but now, this despised being
   is suddenly revealed to him in a blaze of divine glory. The evidence of
   his eyes and ears can not be doubted. There he stands, with the light
   of heaven and the glory of God around him, and he says, "I AM JESUS!"
   "Now is Jesus risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them
   that slept." Stephen was a blessed martyr, and I have shed innocent
   blood. My soul is guilty. "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver
   me from the body of this death?" I have gloried in my shame. All that I
   have gained is lost. It is filth and refuse. I will throw myself upon
   his mercy. (6) "And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt
   thou have me to do?" The die is cast. The proud spirit yields, and the
   whole mighty current of that soul is turned back in its channel, to
   flow forever, deeply and strongly, in the opposite direction.

   The glorious power of the one great gospel proposition was never more
   forcibly illustrated than on this occasion. A moment ago, Saul was
   sternly, and with fearful calmness, pressing to the destruction of the
   cause of Jesus, but now he is a trembling suppliant at his feet. What
   has produced this change? It is not the fact that he has seen a light
   and heard a voice. For when he fell to the ground in alarm, his
   unbelief and ignorance still remained, and he still had to ask the
   question, "Who art thou?" Thus far, he is no more convinced that Jesus
   is the Christ than he was before; but he is convinced that the vision
   is divine, and this prepares him to believe what he may further hear.
   When that heavenly being, whose word he can not doubt, says, "I am
   Jesus," one new conviction, that must, from its very nature, reverse
   all the purposes of his life, takes possession of his soul. To stifle
   its effects he is not able; to resist its impulse is contrary to the
   honesty of his nature; and he has no time, if he would, to steel his
   heart against it. The change flashes over him in an instant, and he
   lies there a penitent believer. The word of the Lord, miraculously
   attested, gives him faith. The conviction that Jesus, whom he had
   persecuted in the person of his disciples, is really the Lord of glory,
   brings him to repentance. He mourns over his sins, and yields his will.
   These facts reveal the glorious simplicity of gospel salvation; and
   while we contemplate them, the sickly talk about "irresistible grace,"
   which floats, like the green scum on a stagnant pool, over the pages of
   many commentaries, in reference to this conversion, is swept away,
   while the sights and sounds which haunt the memory of many a
   superstitious convert are driven back to dwell with the ghosts and
   hobgoblins of a night of ignorance now nearly gone.

   To the question, What wilt thou have me to do? the Lord gave an answer
   which naturally divides itself into two parts. One part is given by
   Luke, in the verse before us, and by Paul, in his speech to the
   Jerusalem mob; the other, in the speech before Agrippa. The latter
   contains his commission as an apostle, and is expressed in these words:
   "I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee a minister
   and a witness of the things which thou hast seen, and of those in which
   I will appear to thee, delivering thee from the people and the
   Gentiles, to whom I now send thee, to open their eyes, that they may
   turn from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God,
   that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the
   sanctified, by faith in me." [200] In this sentence, which we will
   notice more at length in its proper connection, Jesus states the object
   of his personal appearance to Saul, and gives him his commission as an
   apostle. The former was necessary to the latter; for an apostle must be
   a witness of the resurrection, [201] and this he could not be without
   having seen him alive since his crucifixion. [202] Having now seen him,
   not only alive, but glorified, his evidence was afterward classed with
   that of the original apostles and witnesses. [203] If he had been
   converted without having seen the Lord, he would not have been an
   apostle, unless the Lord had afterward appeared to him to make him one.
   Instead of this, the Lord chose to appear to him in connection with his
   conversion. While this appearance was necessary to his apostleship, we
   may not assume that it was necessary to his conversion, unless we take
   the strange position that it was impossible for him to be convinced in
   any other way.

   Before Saul could enter upon the office of an apostle, it was necessary
   that he should become a citizen of the kingdom of which he was to be a
   chief officer. The other portion of the Savior's reply has reference to
   his duty in this particular. It is stated by Luke in these words,
   constituting the last clause of verse 6, of which we have already
   quoted a part: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee
   what thou must do." Saul's own statement of it is more minute: "Arise
   and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all
   the things which are appointed for thee to do." The things which he was
   to do as an apostle had just been told him, and concerning these there
   had been no previous appointment. The things which had been appointed
   for him to do concerned him in common with all other penitent sinners.
   These having been already appointed by the Lord himself, and their
   execution committed to the hands of faithful men, the Lord shows
   respect to his own transfer of authority, by sending the suppliant to
   Damascus to learn them.

   During his personal ministry, Jesus sometimes spoke pardon, at once, to
   penitent sinners. [204] But, since his resurrection from the dead, and
   the appointment, by formal enactment, of the terms of pardon, there is
   no instance of this kind. Moreover, his refusal to tell Saul his
   appointed duty, or to pardon him on the spot, establishes the
   presumption that he will not do so in any case. If there ever was an
   occasion on which we would expect the glorified Savior to speak pardon,
   in person, to a sinner, it is here, when he is in actual conversation
   with the penitent, and the request is formally preferred. But he
   refuses to do so. Those, therefore, who imagine themselves to have
   received a direct communication of pardon from Christ, either orally,
   or by an abstract spiritual agency, are deluded. They claim for
   themselves what was not accorded to Saul, and what is inconsistent with
   the order established in the kingdom of Christ. The reply to all
   inquirers, if Christ should now speak, would be, as it was then, Go to
   Damascus, and it shall be told you; Go to the apostles and evangelists
   of the New Covenant, and the answer will now be given you by Peter,
   Philip, Ananias, in the same words, and by the same authority, that it
   was then.

   7. While the conversation was passing between Saul and Jesus, the
   conduct of his companions is thus described by Luke. (7) "Now, the men
   who were journeying with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but
   seeing no man." Paul gives a different account of their demeanor, by
   saying that they all fell to the ground; [205] but the two accounts
   harmonize very naturally. The first effect of such an apparition would
   naturally to be prostrate them all; but his companions, not being held
   in this position by any direct address to them, would naturally arise
   after the first shock was over, and fleeing to a safe distance, there
   stand gazing, in mute terror, upon the glory which enveloped their
   leader. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Paul represents
   the falling to the earth as occurring before the voice was heard, while
   their standing speechless is connected by Luke with the close of the
   conversation.

   This supposition helps to account for a well-known verbal discrepancy
   between these two accounts. Luke says they heard the voice; Paul says
   "they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me." The discrepancy
   arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. There is nothing more
   common, among all nations, than for one who is listening to a speaker,
   but, either from his own confusion or the indistinctness of the
   speaker's articulation, can only catch an occasional word, to exclaim
   "I don't hear you;" although the sound of the voice reaches him
   continually. It is in this sense of the word hear, that the companions
   of Saul, in the confusion of their effort to escape from the scene,
   failed to hear the voice. They heard the sound, but did not understand
   the words.

   8, 9. When the vision disappeared, Saul promptly obeyed the commandment
   given him. (8) "And Saul was raised from the earth, but when his eyes
   were opened he saw no one, and they led him by the hand, and brought
   him into Damascus. (9) And he was there three days without seeing, and
   did neither eat nor drink." The physical effect of the intense light
   into which he had gazed upon his eyesight was not more painful than the
   moral effect of the whole scene upon his conscience. The former made
   him blind; the latter filled him with remorse. To this feeling alone
   can we attribute his total abstinence from food and drink. The awful
   crime of fighting murderously against God and Christ was pressing upon
   his soul, and as yet he knew not what to do that he might obtain
   pardon. His Jewish education, if not his natural instinct, prompted him
   to pray, and this he was doing with all fervor; [206] but the hands he
   lifted up were stained with blood--the blood of martyrs; and how could
   he hope to be heard? No penitent ever had greater cause for sorrow, or
   wept more bitterly than he.

   10-12. While this scene of anguish was transpiring in the presence of
   the astonished Jews who surrounded Saul, the Lord was not unmindful of
   the promise he had made him. As he had sent him to Damascus to learn
   what to do, he provides him with a teacher. (10) "Now there was a
   certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him
   in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. (11) And
   the Lord said to him, Arise, and go upon the street called Straight,
   and inquire in the house of Judas, for one named Saul of Tarsus. For
   behold, he is praying, (12) and has seen in a vision a named named
   Ananias coming in and putting his hand upon him that he might receive
   his sight." It will be observed, that, in these directions, the Lord
   does not tell Ananias what to tell Saul to do. This omission only
   proves that Ananias already knew perfectly what such a person should be
   told to do, and corresponds with the fact that the things in which he
   was to be instructed were "the things appointed for him to do."

   It is well to pause for a moment here, and inquire what progress has
   been made toward the conversion of Saul, and by what means the progress
   made has been effected. That he is now a believer, it is impossible for
   any man who has followed the narrative intelligibly to doubt. That he
   is also a penitent is equally certain. But the Holy Spirit--by whose
   direct agency alone, it is taught by man, a man can be brought to faith
   and repentance--has not yet been imparted to him, nor does he receive
   it till after the appearance of Ananias. [207] Such an agency of the
   Spirit, then, is not necessary to faith and repentance. Moreover, as we
   have already observed, the only influence yet brought to bear upon him
   was that of the words of Jesus, proved to be of divine authority by the
   miraculous vision. He was convinced, then, by the same means that the
   eunuch and the three thousand on Pentecost had been, by the word of the
   Lord miraculously attested. His case differs from both of those, in
   that the Lord himself was his preacher, instead of an inspired man; and
   from that of the eunuch, in that the miraculous attestation was a
   physical display in his case, and the fulfillment of prophesy in the
   eunuch's. The nature of the influences was the same in them all.

   Saul is now a believer, and a penitent believer; but he is not yet
   justified. The theory, therefore, drawn from his own words in the
   epistle to the Romans, that a man is justified by faith only, the
   moment he believes, is proved false by Paul's own experience. He says,
   "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." [208] But he had
   faith for three days before he was justified, or obtained peace with
   God. Interpreting his words, then, by his experience, we conclude that
   men are justified, not by faith only, nor the moment they believe, but
   when they are led by faith, as he was, to do what is appointed for
   penitent believers to do.

   There is another fact in the case worthy of notice just here. There is
   some such necessity for the co-operation of a fellow man, in order to
   one's conversion, that, although the Lord himself has appeared to Saul,
   and conversed with him, he can not find peace of mind, though he weeps
   and groans and prays for three days and nights, until Ananias comes to
   him. In this particular, also his case is like that of the eunuch,
   whose conversion could not be effected, though an angel had been sent
   from heaven, and the Spirit had operated miraculously, until the man
   Philip took his seat in the chariot. The necessity, in his case,
   differs from that of the eunuch, in that he needed not the man to
   preach Jesus to him; for this had already been done by Jesus himself.
   But there was something to be done before he obtained pardon, which a
   man must do; and the sequel will show what that something is. In the
   mean time, let it be observed, that all these pretended conversions of
   the present day, which are completely effected while the subject is in
   his bed at night, or alone in the grove, or praying in some solitary
   place, lack this something of being scriptural conversions. No man was
   so converted in the days of the apostles.

   13-16. Ananias had already heard of Saul, doubtless through fugitive
   brethren from Jerusalem, and such was the horror which his name
   inspired, that he was reluctant to approach him, even when commanded by
   the Lord to do so. (13) "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from
   many concerning this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints who
   are in Jerusalem, (14) and here he has authority from the high priests
   to bind all who call on thy name. (15) But the Lord said to him, Go;
   for he is to me a chosen vessel, to bear my name before the Gentiles,
   and kings, and the children of Israel. (16) For I will show to him how
   great things he must suffer on account of my name." Here we have a
   statement that the Lord had made a special choice of Saul for a certain
   work, and a prediction that he would suffer in the execution of it. The
   latter demonstrates the foreknowledge of God concerning human conduct,
   and the former shows that he makes choice beforehand of suitable
   individuals to execute his purposes.

   17-19. The assurance given by the Lord was sufficient to remove his
   fears. (17) "And Ananias went away and entered into the house, and laid
   hands upon him, and said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus who
   appeared to you in the road in which you came, has sent me that you may
   receive sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (18) And immediately
   there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received sight
   forthwith, and arose and was immersed; (19) and taking food, he was
   strengthened." In laying hands on Saul to restore his eyesight, Ananias
   imitated the example of Jesus, who wrought similar miracles, at one
   time by touching the eyes of the blind, [209] and at another by putting
   clay on them and directing that it be washed away. [210]

   It is quite common to assume that Ananias also conferred the Holy
   Spirit upon him, by imposition of hands. But this is neither stated nor
   implied in the text; nor is there any evidence that any besides the
   apostles ever exercised the power of imparting the Spirit. The fact
   that this power is not known to have been exercised by any other than
   the apostles, establishes a strong presumption that it was not
   exercised by Ananias. This presumption, in the entire absence of proof
   to the contrary, would alone be conclusive. We do not forget that
   Ananias says, "Jesus has sent me that you may be filled with the Holy
   Spirit." This shows that his reception of the Spirit in some way
   depended upon the presence of Ananias, but does not imply that he
   received it by imposition of hands. All the other apostles received it
   direct from heaven, without human agency. [211] They also received it
   after they had been immersed; for the fact that Jesus preached the
   immersion of John, and caused the twelve to administer it under his
   eye, is proof that they themselves had submitted to it. Moreover, in
   every other case in the New Testament, with the single exception of
   Cornelius, the gift of miraculous power followed immersion. These facts
   furnish a firm basis for the conclusion that Saul's inspiration was
   awaiting his immersion; and that it depended upon the visit of Ananias,
   because he was sent to immerse him that he might receive pardon and be
   filled with the Holy Spirit. To conclude otherwise would be to make his
   case an exception to that of all the other apostles in reference to
   manner of receiving the Spirit, and to nearly all other disciples,
   including the apostles, in reference to the time of receiving it.

   The manner in which Ananias proceeded when he reached the house of
   Judas presents a most remarkable contrast with the course of most
   Protestant preachers of the present day. Leaving out of view the
   miraculous restoration of Saul's eyesight, Ananias was simply sent to a
   man in a certain house, who had been a persecutor, but now was praying.
   He had no special directions as to the instruction he shall give the
   man, but is left to his own previous knowledge of what is proper in
   such cases. He comes into the house, and finds him prostrate upon the
   floor, almost exhausted from want of food and drink, which his
   wretchedness makes him refuse; and he is still praying in great agony.
   No man of this generation can hesitate as to the course one of our
   modern preachers would pursue in such a case. He would at once urge him
   to pray on, and quote to him many passages of Scripture in reference to
   the answer of prayer. He would tell him to believe in the Lord Jesus,
   and that the moment he would cast his soul entirely upon him he would
   be relieved. He would pray with him. Long and fervently would he call
   upon God to have mercy on the waiting sinner, and send down the Holy
   Ghost to speak peace to his troubled soul. If these efforts did not
   bring relief, other brethren and sisters would be called in, and their
   prayers united with those of the preacher. Pathetic hymns would
   alternate with zealous prayers and warm exhortations, until both the
   mourner and his comforters were exhausted, the latter every moment
   expecting to hear from their wretched victim a shout of joy, as the
   touch of God would roll away the burden from his soul. If all the
   efforts failed, the man would go mourning over his still unpardoned
   sins, perhaps for the remainder of his life. Fortunate would it be for
   him, if the terrible conclusion that all religion is but hypocrisy, or
   that he himself is an inevitable reprobate, did not take possession of
   his soul. This picture is not overdrawn; for my readers can testify
   that far deeper colors could be spread over it, by copying accurately
   from many thousands of cases which have occurred in popular "revivals."

   Such is the baleful influence of this gross departure from the word of
   God, that men who are under its influence are constantly denouncing as
   heretics those who venture to follow the example of Ananias. He finds
   the man to whom he is sent, praying to the Lord Jesus; but, instead of
   commanding him to pray on, and praying with him, he says to him, "Why
   do you tarry? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling
   on the name of the Lord." [212] There are many Churches at present day,
   professing to derive their creeds from the Bible, whose clergy dare not
   follow this example, upon pain of excommunications. Engaged in a public
   debate, a few years since, with a Doctor of Divinity of a numerous and
   powerful party, I determined to apply to him a test which had been
   employed before by some of my brethren, and charged that he dare not,
   as he valued his ministerial position, and even his membership in the
   Church, give to mourners seeking salvation the answers given by
   inspired men, in the very words, which they employed. He interrupted
   me, by asking if I intended to insinuate that he would not preach what
   he believed to be the truth. I replied, that I had no disposition to
   question his honesty, but that I was stating a startling fact, which
   ought to be made to ring in the ears of the people. I then told the
   audience I would put my statement to a test at once, and turning to the
   Doctor, I said: "Sir, if you had a number of mourners before you, as
   Peter had on Pentecost, pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and
   exclaiming, What shall we do? would you dare to say to them, 'Repent
   and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
   remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?'
   Or, if you were called into a private house, like Ananias, to see man
   fasting and weeping and praying, would you dare to say to him, 'Why do
   you tarry? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on
   the name of the Lord?' I pause for a reply." I stood waiting, and the
   immense audience held their breath, until the silence became painful;
   but the Doctor hung his head and answered not one word.

   It is high time that the people were won back from such delusions, and
   made to feel the necessity of following the word of God. Ananias was
   guided by the apostolic commission. Seeing there were three conditions
   of pardon, faith, repentance, and immersion, and that Saul had already
   complied with the first two, he does not tantalize him by telling him
   to believe or urging him to repent, but commands him to do the one
   thing which he had not yet done, "Arise, and be immersed." He instantly
   obeyed; and then, for the first time since he saw the vision by the
   way, he was sufficiently composed to take food and drink. "Taking food,
   he was strengthened." Like the eunuch, it was after he came up out of
   the water that he rejoiced.

   His composure and peace of mind, after being immersed, was the proper
   result of intelligent obedience in that institution. If he had not
   already learned its design, by what he knew of apostolic preaching, the
   words of Ananias conveyed it without ambiguity. To a sinner mourning
   over his guilt, seeking pardon, and knowing that the Lord alone could
   forgive sins, the command to be immersed and wash away his sins could
   convey but one idea, that, upon the washing of water over the body in
   immersion, the Lord would remove his sins by forgiving them. That such
   was the idea intended in the metaphorical expression, "wash away,"
   would need no argument, if it had not suited the theories of modern
   sectaries to call it in question. It is a common assumption that Saul's
   sins had been really forgiven before his immersion, and Ananias
   required him only to formally wash them away. But this is a mere
   combination of words to hide the absence of an idea. How can a man
   formally do a thing which has already been really done, unless it be by
   going through a form which is empty and deceptive? If Saul's sins were
   already washed away, then he did not wash them away in immersion, and
   the language of Ananias was deceptive. But it is an indisputable fact,
   that at the time Ananias gave him this command he was still unhappy,
   and, therefore, unforgiven. Immediately after he was immersed, he was
   happy; and the change took place in the mean time, which connects it
   with his immersion. In precise accordance, therefore, with the
   commission, with Peter's answer on Pentecost, and with the eunuch's
   experience, his sins were forgiven when he was immersed.

   These individual cases of conversion are of great value to one studying
   the plan of salvation, because they present more in detail the entire
   process that can be done in describing the conversion of a multitude.
   We now have before us two such, and will have a third in the tenth
   chapter, when we will find it profitable to institute a close
   comparison between them. [213]

   19-22. No sooner had Saul obeyed the gospel and obtained pardon, then
   he began to devote all his energies to building up what he had sought
   to destroy. (19) "Then Saul was some days with the disciples in
   Damascus, (20) and immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues,
   that this is the Son of God. (21) And all who heard him were
   astonished, and said, Is not this he who destroyed those in Jerusalem
   who called upon this name, and came hither for this purpose, that he
   might take them bound to the high priests? (22) But Saul increased the
   more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus,
   proving that this is the Christ." The one great gospel proposition,
   that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, the belief of which had
   wrought in him all the wondrous change on the road to Damascus is now
   his constant theme. The synagogues being for a time open to him, and
   the curiosity of the people intensely exited, in reference to his
   change of conduct, it is probable that he had more ready access to the
   unbelieving Jews in Damascus than had been enjoyed by those who
   preceded him. Whatever opponents he encountered, were "confounded" by
   the proofs he presented.

   In addition to proofs employed by the other apostles and teachers, Saul
   stood up in the synagogues as a new and independent witness of the
   resurrection, and glorification of Jesus. He had seen him alive, and
   arrayed in divine glory. He had conversed with him face to face. If any
   man doubted the truth of his statements in reference to the vision, his
   traveling companions, who saw the same light, and heard the same voice,
   could testify with him. If any man, still incredulous, ventured the
   supposition that all of them were deceived by an optical illusion, or
   by some human trickster, the actual blindness which remained after the
   vision had passed away, and was witnessed by both believers and
   unbelievers, proved, indisputably, that it was a reality. No illusion
   or deception could have produced this effect. If it were suspected that
   Saul and his companions had made up the story, in order to deceive, the
   suspicion was silenced by the fact that the blindness was real, and
   could not be feigned. Whether, therefore, they regarded him as honest
   and dishonest, such was the combination of facts that they could not
   find an excuse for doubting his testimony. No wonder that he
   "confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus."

   Such was the force of Saul's testimony, as it was addressed to his
   cotemporaries in Damascus. To others, not eye-witnesses of his career,
   and to men of subsequent generations, it stands thus: If the vision
   which he claimed to have witnessed was a reality, then Jesus is the
   Christ, and his religion is divine. But if it was not a reality, then
   Saul was deceived, or was himself a deceiver. His blindness precludes
   the supposition that he could have been deceived. Was he, then, a
   deceiver? His whole subsequent career declares that he was not. All the
   motives, in reference to both time and eternity, which can prompt men
   to deception, were arrayed against the course he was pursuing. His
   reputation among men, his hopes of wealth and power, his love of
   friendship, and his personal safety, all demanded that he should adhere
   to his former religious position. In making the change, he sacrificed
   them all, and, if he was practicing deception, he exposed himself,
   also, to whatever punishment he might suppose the wicked to incur in
   eternity. It is possible to believe that a man might, through
   miscalculation as to the immediate results, begin to practice a
   deception which would involve such consequences; but it is entirely
   incredible that he should continue to do after his mistake was
   discovered, and persist in it through a long life of unparalleled
   sufferings. It is incredible, therefore, that Saul was a deceiver. And,
   as he was neither deceived himself, nor a deceiver of others, his
   vision must have been a reality, and Jesus is the Christ.

   There is no way to evade the force of this argument, except by denying
   Luke's account of Saul's career, after his supposed conversion. But
   this would be to deny to Luke even the ordinary credibility attached to
   ancient history; for the argument depends not upon miracles, but upon
   the ordinary events of Saul's life, which are in themselves most
   credible. Supposing this much to be granted, as a basis for the
   argument (and it is granted by all who are acquainted with history,)
   the proof of the Messiahship of Jesus from the conversion of Saul is
   perfectly conclusive.

   23-25. Saul now begins to see enacted in Damascus scenes similar to
   those in which he had played a part in Jerusalem; but his own position
   is reversed. He begins to experience, in his turn, the ill-treatment
   which he had heaped upon others. (23) "Now when many days were
   fulfilled, the Jews determined to kill him; (24) but their plot was
   known to Saul; and they watched the gates, day and night, that they
   might kill him. (25) Then the disciples took him by night, and let him
   down through the wall in a basket." The Jews were not alone in this
   plot. Dwelling as strangers in a foreign city, they would hardly have
   ventured upon so murderous an undertaking without the connivance of the
   authorities. Paul himself informs us that the governor of the city lent
   them his active co-operation. He says: "In Damascus, the governor under
   Aretas, the king, kept watch over the city with a garrison, desiring to
   apprehend me." [214] From the same passage in Second Corinthians, we
   learn that it was through a window in the wall that he was let down.
   Even to the present day there are houses in Damascus built against the
   wall, with the upper stories projecting beyond the top of the wall, and
   containing windows which would answer admirably for such a mode of
   escape. The observations of modern travelers are constantly bringing to
   light topographical facts which accord most happily with the inspired
   narrative. Another such is the fact that there is yet a street in
   Damascus running in a straight line from the eastern gate for about a
   mile, to the palace of the Pasha, which can be no other than "the
   street called Straight," on which Judas lived, and where Ananias found
   Saul. [215]

   It was three years from the time of his conversion that Saul made this
   escape from Damascus. The whole of this period had not been spent in
   that city, but he had made a preaching tour into Arabia, and returned
   to Damascus. This we learn from his own pen: "I conferred not with
   flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were
   apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again into
   Damascus. Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see
   Peter." [216] It is quite probable that some excitement attendant upon
   his preaching in other parts of the dominions of King Aretas had some
   influence in securing the ready co-operation of the Arabian governor
   with the Jews, in trying to take his life.

   26, 27. The mortification of Saul as being compelled to thus escape
   from Damascus was remembered for many years, to be mentioned when he
   would "glory in the things which concerned his infirmities." [217] He
   had not yet seen any of those who were apostles before him since he
   left them in Jerusalem to go on his murderous mission to Damascus. He
   turns his steps in that direction, resolved to go up and see Peter.
   [218] We will not attempt to depict the probable emotions of the now
   devout apostle, as the walls of Jerusalem and the towering height of
   the temple came once more into view. As he approached the gate of the
   city, he passed by the spot where Stephen was stoned, and where he
   himself had stood, "consenting to his death." He was about to meet
   again, on the streets, and in the synagogues, his old allies whom he
   had deserted, and the disciples whom he had persecuted. The tumult of
   emotions which the scenes about him must have excited, we leave to the
   imagination of the reader, and pages of more voluminous writers. [219]
   We know the reception which awaited him both from friends and foes.
   (26) "And when he arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to join himself to
   the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he
   was a disciple. (27) But Barnabas took him and brought him to the
   apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and
   that he had spoken to him, and how he had spoken boldly in Damascus in
   the name of Jesus." This ignorance of the brethren in reference to the
   events of the past three years in Damascus is somewhat surprising; but
   it only proves that they had no rapid means of communication with the
   brethren in that city. It is not probable that Barnabas had any means
   of information not enjoyed by the other brethren. Doubtless he obtained
   this information from Saul's own lips, either because he was prompted
   to do so by the generous impulses of his own heart, or because Saul,
   having some knowledge of his generosity, sought him out as the one most
   likely to give him a candid hearing. In either case, it would not be
   difficult for him to credit the unvarnished story, told, as it must
   have been, with an earnestness and pathos which no impostor could
   assume. When Barnabas was once convinced, it was easy for him to
   convince the apostles; and the warm sympathy which he manifested for
   Saul was the beginning of a friendship between them which was fruitful
   in blessing to the Church and to the world.

   28, 29. Though the brethren, even at the solicitation of Barnabas, may
   have received him with some misgivings, the course he pursued soon won
   their confidence. (28) "And he was with them coming in and going out in
   Jerusalem, (29) and spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
   disputed against the Hellenists; but they undertook to kill him."
   During his three years' absence from Jerusalem, the persecution of
   which Saul had been the leader had so far abated that the Hellenists
   were once more willing to debate the points at issue. But they found in
   their new opponent one equally invincible with Stephen, and, in the
   madness of defeat, resolved that Stephen's fate should be his.

   30. In this emergency, the brethren found opportunity to make amends
   for the suspicion with which they had at first regarded him. (30) "And
   when the brethren knew this, they took him down to Caesarea, and sent
   him forth to Tarsus." We learn, from Paul's own account of this
   movement, that it was not controlled by his own judgment, nor entirely
   by that of the brethren. While praying in the temple, he fell into a
   trance, in which the Lord appeared to him, and said, "Make haste, and
   get quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive your testimony
   concerning me." Saul had, himself, come to a very different conclusion.
   Notwithstanding the murderous disposition of his opponents, he still
   believed that his labors among them would prove successful. He argued
   upon the supposition that his former position as a persecutor, like
   them, would now give peculiar weight, with them, to his testimony and
   arguments; and he ventured to urge this consideration upon the
   attention of the Lord: "Lord, they know that I am imprisoned and beat
   in every synagogue those who believe on thee; and when the blood of
   Stephen thy witness was shed, I was myself standing by and consenting
   to his death, and keeping the raiment of those who slew him." But he
   had erred in overlooking the peculiar odium attached to the character
   of one who could be styled a deserter, inclining men to listen more
   favorably to an habitual opponent than to him. The Lord did not argue
   the case with him, but peremptorily commanded him, "Depart; for I will
   send you far hence to the Gentiles." [220] The fears of the brethren
   were confirmed by this decision of the Lord, and they promptly sent him
   to a place of safety.

   After reaching Caesarea, a short voyage on the Mediterranean and up the
   Cyndus brought him to Tarsus, the home of his childhood, and perhaps of
   his earlier manhood. He returns to his aged parents and the friends of
   his childhood, a fugitive from two great cities, and a deserter from
   the strictest sect in which he had been educated; but he comes to bring
   them glad tidings of great joy. He disappears, at this point from the
   pages of Luke; but he does not retire into inactivity. His own pen
   fills up the blank that is left there by the historian. He says that he
   went "into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face to
   the Churches in Judea who were in Christ; but they heard only that he
   who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once
   destroyed. And they glorified God in me." [221] Not long after this we
   find mention of brethren in Syria and Cilicia, which renders it
   probable that his labors that were attended with his usual success. We
   have reason also to believe that he encountered, during this interval,
   a portion of the sufferings enumerated in the eleventh chapter of
   Second Corinthians; such as the five times that he received from the
   Jews forty stripes save one, the three shipwrecks, and the night and
   the day that he spent in the deep. We can not refer them to a later
   period; for, from this interval to the time of writing that epistle, we
   have a continuous history of his life, in which they do not occur.

   We now part company with Saul for a time, and while he is performing
   labors, and enduring afflictions, the full detail of which we will
   never learn till we meet him in eternity, we turn with our inspired
   guide, to contemplate some instructive scenes in the labors of the
   Apostle Peter.

   31. Preparatory to this transition in the narrative, the historian
   glances rapidly over the territory to which we are about to be
   introduced, stating the condition of things immediately after Saul's
   departure for Tarsus. (31) "Then the Churches had peach throughout all
   Judea and Galilee, and Samaria; and being edified, and walking in the
   fear of the Lord, and the consolation of the Holy Spirit, they were
   multiplied." Thus times of peace and quiet were seen to be propitious
   to a cause which had sprung up amid strife and opposition, showing that
   it was not the obstinacy of human passion, but the legitimate working
   of unchangeable truth, which had brought it into being. According to
   the philosophy which Gamaliel had urged in the Sanhedrim, [222] its
   claim to a divine origin was now vindicated.

   32-35. We have just seen Saul sent "far hence to the Gentiles;" but as
   yet we have no account of the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into
   the Church; it is time that this account should be before us, and Luke
   proceeds to give it. He approaches the subject by relating the
   circumstances which led Peter, who was the chosen instrument for
   opening the gates of the kingdom to the Gentiles, into the city of
   Joppa, where the messengers of Cornelius found him. We parted company
   with this apostle on his return with John from the visit to Samaria. We
   meet him again, engaged in active labor through the rural districts of
   his native country. (32) "Now it came to pass that Peter, passing
   through all quarters, came down also to the saints who dwelt at Lydda.
   (33) And he found there a certain man named AEneas, who had kept his
   bed eight years, and was paralyzed. (34) And Peter said to him, AEneas,
   Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise, and make your bed. And he arose
   immediately. (35) And all who dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him and
   turned to the Lord." The long continuance of painful disease makes the
   afflicted individual well known to a large circle of neighbors, and
   fixes their attention upon the disease itself as one difficult to cure.
   Hence, the effect upon this community of the cure of AEneas, like that
   of the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the temple, was decisive and
   almost universal. It was a demonstration of divine power in Jesus the
   Christ, whom Peter had declared the agent of the cure, which the honest
   people of Lydda and Saron could not gainsay, and therefore they had no
   honest alternative but to yield to his claims.

   36-42. From the midst of these happy and peaceful triumphs of the
   truth, Peter was suddenly called away to Joppa. The circumstances which
   led to this event are this related to Luke: (36) "Now, in Joppa, there
   was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, is Dorcas.
   [223] This woman was full of good works and alms which she did. (37)
   And it came to pass, in those days, that she took sick and died. They
   washed her, and laid her in an upper room. (38) And Lydda being near to
   Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was in that place, sent two
   men to him, entreating him not to delay to come to them. (39) Then
   Peter arose and went with them. When he arrived, they led him up into
   the upper room, and all the widows stood by him, weeping, and showing
   the tunics and mantles which Dorcas made while she was with them. (40)
   But Peter put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed: and, turning
   to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. She opened her eyes; and, seeing
   Peter, she sat up. (41) Giving her his hand, he caused her to stand up;
   and, having called the saints and widows, he presented her alive. (42)
   It became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord."

   Nothing could be more graphic and simple than this narration, or more
   touching than the incident itself. Amid the array of solemn and stately
   events which are moving before us, it is dropped in, like a flower in
   the forest. It opens a vista through the larger events of history, and
   lets in light upon the social sorrows of the early saints, awakening a
   closer sympathy between our hearts and theirs. We see here enacted
   among them scenes with which we are familiar, when one who has been
   noted for good works sickens and dies: the same anxiety felt by all;
   the same desire for the presence of him who had been their religious
   counselor; the same company of weeping sisters, and brethren standing
   by in mournful silence. As each good deed of the departed is recounted
   by some sobbing voice, and the garments "which she made while she was
   with us," to clothe the poor, are held up to view, how the eyes gush!
   how the heart swells! These are sacred hours. The labors of a whole
   life of piety are pouring their rich influence, unresisted, into
   softened hearts. How blessed are the dead who die in the Lord! They
   rest from their labors, but their works do follow them, still working
   while they are at rest. When Peter came into the company of weeping
   disciples, he seems to stand once more beside his master, as once he
   and all who were with him wept with Mary and Martha over the tomb of
   Lazarus. But he remembers that his compassionate master is now in
   heaven. With deep solemnity, he motions the mourners all aside. He is
   left alone with the dead, and the company without have hushed their
   sobs into silent suspense. He kneels down and prays. How the heart
   turns to God beside the bed of death! How fervent our prayers are then!
   The prayer of faith is heard. The eyes of the dead are opened, and the
   faith and hope which glowed in them ere they were closed are in them
   now. She sees the loved apostle, and rises to a sitting posture. He
   takes her by the hand, raises her to the feet, and calls in her
   friends. Who can describe the scene, when brothers and sisters in the
   flesh and in the Lord, wild with conflicting emotions, rushed in to
   greet the loved one recovered from the dead! And if that is
   indescribable, what shall we say or think of that scene when all the
   sainted dead shall rise in glory, and greet each there on the shores of
   life? May Christ our Savior help us to that day! We have no Peter now,
   to wake up our sleeping sisters, and give them back to us; but we do
   not regret it, for we remember that Dorcas had to die again, and we
   would not wish to weep again, as we have wept over the dying bed, and
   the fresh sods of the silent grave. We would rather let them sleep on
   in the arms of Jesus, till both we and they shall rise to die no more.

   43. Peter was engaged, at this time, in general evangelizing among the
   Jews, adapting his stay at a given point, and his change of place, to
   the exigencies of the cause. The restoration of Dorcas, doubtless,
   opened a wide field for usefulness in the surrounding community, (43)
   "and he tarried many days in Joppa, with one Simon, a tanner." Here the
   historian leaves him for awhile, and introduces us to the circumstances
   which removed him from this to another field of labor.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [183] See Phil. iii. 4, 5; 2 Tim. i. 3.

   [184] Acts xxii. 3.

   [185] Acts v. 34-39.

   [186] Gal. i. 14.

   [187] Acts xxvi. 5.

   [188] Phil. iii. 6.

   [189] Matt. xxi. 15.

   [190] Deut. xvii. 7.

   [191] Acts vii. 58; xxii. 20.

   [192] xxvi. 10.

   [193] xxii. 19; xxvi. 11.

   [194] Comp. ix. 23-24 with 2 Cor. xi. 32.

   [195] For a description of the natural scenery, see Life and Epistles
   of Paul, vol. i, page 86. Throughout the remainder of this volume I
   will draw freely from the rich resources of this valuable and
   exhaustive work.

   [196] Acts xxvi. 13.

   [197] 1 Cor. xv. 8.

   [198] Acts xxvi. 14.

   [199] 1 Tim. i. 13-15.

   [200] Acts xxvi. 16-18.

   [201] See Com. i. 22.

   [202] 1 Cor. ix. 1.

   [203] 1 Cor. xv. 8.

   [204] Matt. ix. 1-6; Luke vii. 37-50.

   [205] Acts xxvi. 14.

   [206] Verse xi.

   [207] Verse xvii.

   [208] Rom. v. 1.

   [209] Matt. ix. 29.

   [210] John ix. 6.

   [211] Acts ii. 1-4.

   [212] Acts xxii. 16.

   [213] See Com. x. 47, 48.

   [214] 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33.

   [215] Kitto's Encyclopedia, Art. Damascus.

   [216] Gal. i. 16-18.

   [217] 2 Cor. xi. 30-33.

   [218] Gal. i. 18.

   [219] See Life and Ep., vol. 1, p. 101.

   [220] Acts xxii. 17-21.

   [221] Gal. i. 21-24.

   [222] Acts v. 34-39.

   [223] Which, again translated into English, is gazel.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                     Acts X

   X: 1, 2. The scene changes from Joppa to Caesarea, about thirty miles
   northward along the Mediterranean shore; and we are introduced to
   another case for conversion, a Gentile and a soldier. (1) "There was a
   certain man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of the cohort
   called Italian, (2) a devout man, and one who feared God with all his
   house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God
   continually." We desire to examine, with great care, the process of
   this man's conversion, and begin by noticing the present religious
   elements of his character. He is a "devout man"--a man of deep
   religious feelings. He is not a devout pagan, but he "fears God," the
   true God. He must, then, be somewhat acquainted with the Jewish
   religion. He is not identified with the Jews, being uncircumcised. He
   is not a timid or unfaithful worshiper of God, but has taught all his
   family the same worship. He gives much alms to the people, and is a
   praying man.

   At first glance, it might appear strange that such a man should need
   conversion. There are many men, at the present day, in whose favor not
   so much can be said, who flatter themselves that their prospects for
   eternity are good. They are honest in their business, honorable in
   their intercourse with men, good husbands and fathers, generous to
   their neighbors, and benevolent to the poor; what have they to fear at
   the hands of a just and merciful God? They forget that their
   obligations to God are infinitely higher than those to men, even to the
   dearest friends on earth; and that, therefore, it is the most
   inexcusable of all sins persistently refuse him the worship which is
   his due. This offense takes the hue of the blackest ingratitude, when
   we remember the blood which has been shed to touch our hearts, and to
   open up to us the way of pardon and eternal life. Of this crime every
   man is guilty who does not worship the living God, and submit to the
   ordinances of Jesus Christ. But Cornelius was a praying man, a devout
   worshiper of God, besides possessing every other virtue claimed by
   self-righteous sinners; yet it was necessary for even him to hear
   "words by which he might be saved." [224] Until a man can claim for
   himself something more than is here said of him, he may not flatter
   himself with the hope of salvation.

   Under the former dispensation, the piety and fidelity of Cornelius
   would have given him an honorable place among the holy men of God; but
   this alone could not suffice him now. Jesus the Christ had stepped in
   between God and man, and opened, through the rent vail of his flesh,
   the only access to God. All heaven had confessed his authority, and the
   holy disciples on earth had come to the Father by him. But Cornelius
   was still calling upon God, without the name of Christ, and seeking to
   approach him by the old, not by the new and living way. He was in the
   same condition with any pious but unbelieving Jew of that or of our own
   age. It was necessary to his salvation that he should believe in Jesus
   and obey him. This would secure to him the pardon of his sins, which he
   had not and could not secure by worshiping according to the law.

   3-6. This defect in his religious character was not a fault; it was
   only a misfortune. He was doing the best he knew how; and, if we may
   infer what he prayed for, from what he obtained in answer to his
   prayers, he was praying for additional knowledge, and perhaps for an
   interest in the salvation offered through Christ. Such a prayer,
   offered by such a man, is always acceptable to God. On a certain day he
   had fasted till in the afternoon, and at three o'clock was praying
   within his house, [225] when, (3) "He saw distinctly in a vision, about
   the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him and saying
   to him, Cornelius. (4) He looked intently upon him, and was full of
   fear, and said, What is it, Lord? He said to him, Thy prayers and thine
   alms have come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now, send men to
   Joppa, and call for one Simon who is surnamed Peter. (6) He is lodging
   with a certain Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-shore. He
   will tell you what you ought to do."

   Here is an unconverted man praying, and his prayer is answered. But the
   circumstances of the man, the nature of the prayer, and the answer
   given, are all essentially different from those of unconverted men who
   are taught to pray by the Protestant sects of the present day. The man
   was not instructed in a knowledge of the Redeemer, and the way of
   salvation, and of his own interest in the same, but neglecting his
   duty, as in the case with the modern sinner. Neither was he praying for
   pardon, while postponing obedience to the gospel, as in these cases;
   but his prayer was for a knowledge of his duty, and he had no one by to
   instruct him. The answer to his prayer was given, not, as is now so
   often pretended, by sending forth the Spirit into his heart to speak
   his sins forgiven, but by sending an angel to tell him where he can
   find a man who will guide him in the way of salvation.

   In the case of the eunuch, an angel appeared to the preacher and sent
   him to the inquirer. In this case, the angel appears to the inquirer,
   and tells him to send for the preacher. In both cases, the only work of
   the angel was to bring the two men together, face to face. Thus, again,
   we seen an insuperable necessity, in case of a scriptural conversion,
   for the presence and co-operation of a human agent, showing that the
   divine influences, whatever, and however numerous they may be, reach
   the heart through the word of truth. The prayer of Cornelius was
   answered, like that of Saul, by referring him to inspired authorities
   within the Church. This shows how vain, at the present day, must be
   every prayer for direct answers from heaven, in reference to the pardon
   of sins. If a verbal answer to such prayers could be obtained, we are
   bound to conclude, from these precedents, that it would still be, "Go
   to Damascus and it shall be told you," or "Send men to Joppa for Simon
   whose surname is Peter, and he will tell you what you ought to do."
   Peter and Ananias are before us now, with the same instruction which
   they gave then, and it is useless for us to offer for what we have in
   hand, prayers which Saul and Cornelius offered for what had not yet
   been granted. The directions given by the two teachers, in these cases,
   and by other inspired men, is all that God granted to sinners then, and
   it is certainly all that we have a right to ask for now.

   The necessity for the spoken word in order to the conversion of men is
   not only exhibited in these mission of angels, but it also explains the
   occurrence, in the two cases of Cornelius and the eunuch, of an agency
   not discernible in other cases. If no heavenly messenger had been sent
   to Philip, he could not have known that there was an Ethiopian on the
   road to Gaza, reading his Bible, and ready to hear the gospel. And if
   no angel had appeared to Cornelius, he could not have known that he had
   any interest in the blood of Jesus, or any right to send for Peter. No
   human being could have informed him, because all others, including
   Peter, were as ignorant of it as himself. An interposition from heaven
   is necessary; but when it occurs, it provides only for just such
   demands of the case as could not be supplied without it. The multitude
   on Pentecost needed no such angelic aid, for the preacher was before
   them, and each party was conscious of the right to speak, on the one
   hand, and the right to obey, on the other. So with us. When we wish any
   information, or the enjoyment of any religious privilege, we have the
   apostles before us, face to face. Their words are in our hands, and may
   be in our minds and hearts. We have no need for heavenly apparitions or
   illuminations; and if we expect them, we will be disappointed, or
   deluded. If a man in ignorance prays for a knowledge of salvation, this
   incident in the case of Cornelius, instead of encouraging him to pray
   on, actually answers his prayer, by telling him to send for some man
   who understands the gospel, and will guide him as Peter did Cornelius.

   Before proceeding further in this case of conversion, we wish the
   reader to observe that enough has occurred already to secure Cornelius'
   recognition as a genuine convert, by the prevailing Protestant parties
   of this day. Let any man come before the Church with such an experience
   as his, saying, "I have been for many years a devout man, worshiping
   God as well as I knew how, giving alms to the poor, praying
   continually, and teaching all my family the fear of God. Yesterday
   afternoon, at three o'clock, I was praying, according to my custom,
   when suddenly a holy angel stood before me, and said, Thy prayers and
   thine alms have come up for a memorial before God." Who would doubt
   that he was "powerfully converted," or dare to insinuate that there was
   anything else necessary in this case? He would receive the right-hand
   of fellowship at once. Yet, so different was the apostolic procedure,
   that the man was now only prepared to hear words by which he might be
   saved. How long will religious men allow their inventions and
   traditions to nullify the word of God?

   7, 8. (7) "And when the angel who spoke to Cornelius went away, he
   called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of those who
   attended him, (8) and having fully related all these things to them, he
   sent them to Joppa." The two servants are included in the household,
   who with him feared God, and the soldier selected had also learned the
   same great lesson. None but men of such character would be suitable
   messengers in a case like this.

   9-16. The scene of the narrative now changes again, from Caesarea back
   to Joppa, and to the house of the tanner, where we left the Apostle
   Peter. Leaving the messengers of Cornelius on the way, Luke anticipates
   their arrival, and relates how Peter was prepared for the favorable
   reception of their message. (9) "Now, on the next day, while they were
   on their journey, and were drawing near to the city, Peter went up upon
   the house to pray, about the sixth hour. (10) He was very hungry, and
   desired to eat; but while they were preparing, he fell into a trance,
   (11) and saw heaven opened, and saw a certain vessel descending, like a
   great white sheet tied by the four corners, and let down to the earth;
   (12) in which were all kinds of four-footed animals and wild beasts and
   reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (13) And there came a
   voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so,
   Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean. (15) And the
   voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has cleansed, do not
   you call common. (16) This was done three times, and the vessel was
   taken up again into heaven."

   In order to fully appreciate the necessity for this vision, we must
   remember the prejudice of the Jews against uncircumcised Gentiles.
   Previous to the Babylonish captivity, they had too great an inclination
   to intimacy with their idolatrous neighbors; but that terrible
   affliction cured them of idolatry, and when they returned to their own
   land, they put away, at the instigation of Nehemiah, all the idolatrous
   wives among them. [226] This was the beginning of a reaction toward the
   opposite extreme, and such a state of feeling was finally induced,
   that, in the traditions of the elders, it was regarded as a sin even to
   go into the house of one who was uncircumcised. The disciples of Jesus
   had been educated from their childhood to an intense degree of this
   prejudice, and there were facts in the history of Jesus calculated to
   foster rather than to eradicate it. They had heard him say, "I am not
   sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [227] They had
   seen him work no miracle for a Gentile except under the protest, "It is
   not proper to take the children's food and cast it to dogs." [228] And
   when he had sent them out on their first mission, he had commanded
   them, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into a city
   of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
   Israel." [229] It is true, that in their final commission he had
   commanded them to disciple and immerse all nations; but they very
   naturally interpreted this in the light of past experience, and
   concluded that all nations were to be gradually absorbed into the
   Jewish commonwealth by circumcision, and afterward brought into the
   Church. They had not hesitated, therefore, to immerse proselytes, and
   even to give them office in the Church, [230] though they still
   regarded it as a sin to enter the house of a Gentile who was
   uncircumcised. [231]

   This fact in the mental state of the apostles shows that they were not
   guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth at once, but their knowledge
   was extended according to the demands of the occasion. It was a
   prejudice, however, belonging to them as Jews, which had prevented
   them, thus far, from perceiving the particular truth here involved; and
   this involves the conclusion that prejudices previously were capable of
   impeding the inspiring influence, so that special measures were
   required for their eradication.

   The time had now arrived when this prejudice must be uprooted from the
   heart of Peter. If it were a part of the work of the indwelling Spirit
   to act immediately upon the heart, then there need be nothing more done
   with Peter than for the Spirit thus to act. But there is not the
   slightest intimation of any such action. On the contrary, influences of
   an entirely different nature are brought to bear upon him, and to them
   the effect is plainly attributed. A series of significant objects are
   presented to his eye, certain words are addressed to his ear, and a
   combination of facts are brought to bear upon his understanding.
   Falling into a trance, while hungrily awaiting his noonday meal, he
   sees descending from heaven, and then spread out before him, a great
   sheet full of animals, both clean and unclean. This vision conveys no
   meaning, until he hears the words, "Arise, Peter; kill and eat." He now
   understands it as indicating that he shall eat unclean animals. But
   this is so shocking to his sense of propriety that he exclaims, in
   perplexity, even to the invisible God who had spoken to him, "Not so,
   Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean." But he is
   commanded, "What I have cleansed, do not you call common." The vessel
   is brought near to him, and the same words repeated three times. Then
   the vision closes, and he recovers from the trance.

   17-20. Restored now to his natural state of mind, Peter remains upon
   the housetop, reflecting upon the vision, and wondering if there was
   not some meaning in it besides that in reference to unclean animals.
   The question was soon solved. (17) "Now when Peter was doubting in
   himself what this vision which he had seen could mean, behold, the men
   who were sent from Cornelius, having inquired out the house of Simon,
   were standing at the gate; (18) and calling, they inquired if Simon
   surnamed Peter was lodging there. (19) But Peter was still thinking of
   the vision, and the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are seeking
   you. (20) Arise, therefore, and go down and go with them, doubting
   nothing, for I have sent them." In the skillful arrangements of divine
   wisdom, all the separate influences which are to remove Peter's
   prejudices are adjusting themselves for combined and harmonious action.
   Those men have been on their journey two days, but God had measured
   their steps to the house of Simon, and timed the appearance of the
   vision to the motion of their feet, so that when they reach the gate he
   is still on the house-top absorbed in reflection; but ere they are
   admitted to the house, the Spirit has sent him down to meet them, and
   to go with them.

   21, 22. He knows nothing, as yet, of the nature of their mission,
   neither does he yet understand any better than before the meaning of
   the vision. (21) "Then Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I
   am he whom you are seeking. What is the cause for which you are come?
   (22) And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one who
   fears God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was
   warned from God by a holy angel to send for you into his house, and to
   hear words from you." Upon hearing these words, the whole truth at once
   flashed upon the mind of Peter, and the agencies which for two days had
   been preparing to uproot his prejudice, sprang upon it with their
   combined force. No less than an angel from God has sent these men to
   call me into the house of a Gentile, to preach the gospel to him. My
   vision of clean and unclean beasts is explained. God has cleansed the
   Gentiles, and I am no longer to call them unclean. The Spirit has
   commanded me to go with these men, without doubting. The authority of
   God, of an angel, of the Holy Spirit, all impel me. I can resist no
   longer. His prejudice is gone, and doubtless he feels a new thrill of
   joy as his heart tremulously enlarges to take the whole world within
   the embrace of his philanthropy.

   23. As the Spirit had directed, he does not hesitate as to the line of
   duty, but at once announces to the messengers that the journey shall
   begin to-morrow. (23) "Then, calling them in, he lodged them; and on
   the next day Peter went out with them, and certain brethren from Joppa
   went with him." It was a wise precaution that he took other brethren
   with him, so that the whole of this new movement might be properly
   attested by competent and disinterested witnesses.

   24. During the four days which had elapsed, Cornelius had made no
   secret of the vision he had witnessed, but had communicated it to such
   friends as were likely to take the same interest in it with himself.
   Having presumed, with all confidence, that Peter would come, and
   knowing the time that the journey would require, all was in readiness
   for his arrival. (24) "On the next day they entered into Caesarea.
   Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and
   intimate friends." These friends and relatives, it must be remembered,
   and not the mere family of Cornelius, were the chief part of the
   audience about to be addressed by Peter.

   25-27. (25) "Now as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell
   down at his feet and worshipped. (26) But Peter raised him up, and
   said, Stand up. I myself also am a man. (27) And conversing with him,
   he came in and found many who had come together." It is not in keeping
   with the character of Cornelius to suppose that he rendered to Peter
   such worship as is due to God. But prostration was the common attitude
   of approach to a superior, as it yet is in eastern countries, and
   Cornelius was but complying with this custom. To Peter, however, it
   appeared as if he intended something more, and hence the rebuke.

   28, 29. Upon entering the house of this Gentile, side by side with him,
   and into the presence of others who were likewise uncircumcised, Peter
   deemed it proper to inform them of his reason for thus departing from a
   well-known Jewish custom. (28) "And he said to them, You know that it
   is unlawful for a Jew to attach himself to, or to come into the house
   of one of another nation. Yet God has showed me that I should not call
   any man common or unclean. (29) Therefore, I came without objecting
   when I was sent for. I ask, then, for what purpose you sent for me?"
   This speech shows clearly that Peter had interpreted the vision of
   unclean beasts as referring to men as well as to animal food.

   30-33. (30) "Then Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until
   this hour, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold,
   a man stood before me in bright apparel, (31) and said, Cornelius, your
   prayer is heard, and your alms are had in remembrance before God. (32)
   Send, therefore, to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter. He
   is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea-shore. When he
   comes he will speak to you. (33) Immediately, therefore, I sent for
   you, and you have done well that you have come. Now, then, we are all
   present here before God to hear all things which are by God commanded
   you." In this last remark Cornelius speaks for his friends who were
   assembled, as well as for himself. As was becoming the occasion, he had
   gathered in, to hear the expected messenger, only those who were
   willing to hear him as a messenger of God. In the statement that they
   were all present before God to hear what he had commanded, there was an
   implied pledge to obey what they might hear, and there is no doubt,
   from the sequel, that such was their purpose.

   34, 35. The scene before Peter enlarges his conceptions of the purpose
   of God; for he now sees that his mission is designed not for the
   benefit of Cornelius alone, but for a large number of his Gentile
   friends; and if for all these, then, there is to be no further national
   limitation to the gospel. He gives utterance to this conception. (34)
   "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, In truth I perceive that God is
   not a respecter of persons; (35) but, in every nation, he that fears
   him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." This expansive
   thought was sufficient to burst asunder all the exclusive bonds of the
   Mosaic institution, and should be sufficient now to explode the equally
   injurious theory of an arbitrary predestination of certain men and
   angels to their eternal destiny. [232] It is a positive declaration
   that God respects not persons but character. To fear him, and to work
   righteousness, and not any other distinction between persons, is the
   ground of acceptability with him.

   36-38. Cornelius has now related to Peter such an experience, as, we
   have seen above, would secure him recognition as a genuine convert to
   Christ among Protestant sects; but Peter was so far from regarding it
   in this light, that he proceeds to preach to them as he would to other
   sinners. We will consider his speech by the sections into which it
   naturally divides itself. (36) "You know the word which God sent to the
   children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of
   all,) (37) the word which was published throughout all Judea, beginning
   from Galilee after the immersion which John preached, (38) concerning
   Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and
   with power; who went about doing good and healing all who were
   oppressed by the devil, because God was with him." From this it appears
   that Cornelius and his friends were familiar with the personal history
   of Jesus, and even with the message of peace which God has caused him
   to preach to the children of Israel. The information which they lacked,
   therefore, was only that which referred to their own interests in that
   message.

   39. Not content with assuming that these facts were familiar to them,
   Peter gives them a surer foundation for their convictions, by
   presenting the testimony upon which he relies to prove the facts. (39)
   "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of
   the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him upon a tree." In
   view of the fact that Cornelius had been "warned from God by a holy
   angel," to send for Peter and hear what he had to say, no confirmation
   of this his testimony was needed. They were prepared to receive
   everything he might say to them as a message from God.

   40, 41. The crowning fact of the gospel comes next in the statement.
   (40) "Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, (41) not
   to all the people, to be witnesses chosen by God beforehand, even to
   us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead." Here
   Peter states, by way of commending to his hearers the evidence of the
   resurrection, a fact which has been so differently construed by
   infidels, as to be made a ground of objection to it; that is, that the
   witnesses were chosen for the occasion. Whether Peter or the infidels
   are right in judgment, depends entirely upon the grounds of the choice.
   If they were chosen because of a dishonest desire to prove the fact, or
   because of the ease with which they might be deceived into the belief
   of a fact which had no real existence, then it may be rightly regarded
   as a suspicious circumstance. But the reverse is true in both
   particulars. Such was the situation of the witnesses, that there was
   great danger both to property and person, in giving their testimony,
   and therefore every motive to dishonesty prompted them to keep silent
   rather than to testify. They were also the least likely of all the men
   of Israel to be deceived, because of their long familiarity with the
   person of him who was to be identified. Peter, then, was right; for the
   fact that such witnesses were chosen beforehand is proof that no
   deception was intended; while the fact that they "did eat and drink
   with him after he arose from the dead," rendered it impossible for them
   to be deceived.

   42, 43. Having now followed the career of Jesus from the beginning to
   his resurrection and exhibition of himself alive to the witnesses,
   Peter proceeds in regular order to the next historical fact, the giving
   of the apostolic commission. (42) "And he commanded us to preach to the
   people, and to testify that it is he who is ordained by God the judge
   of the living and the dead. (43) To him all the prophets testify that
   every one who believes in him shall, through his name, receive
   remission of sins."

   The declaration that every one who believes in him shall receive
   remission of sins has been construed as proof that remission of sins is
   dependent on faith only. But the fact that Peter is here stating what
   Jesus commanded the apostles to preach should prevent such a
   construction of his words; for, in the commission to which he refers,
   immersion is connected with faith, as a condition of pardon. His words
   must be construed consistently with this fact. There is no difficulty
   in doing this, for it is a common apostolic usage to employ faith as an
   equivalent for the conditions of pardon. To deny that immersion is for
   remission of sins, because, in a condensed statement like this, it is
   not specifically mentioned, is not less subversive of the truth than to
   deny that repentance is a condition because it is not mentioned. It is
   not sufficient to reply to this, that repentance was always implied in
   genuine faith; for it certainly was not more uniformly attendant upon
   faith than was immersion. It would be difficult to find, in apostolic
   times, a penitent believer who was not immersed, without unnecessary
   delay, as a genuine believer who was not penitent. All believers who
   repented were invariably immersed. Of course, we exclude from this
   remark all cases which occurred previous to the date of the commission.

   If any one, dissatisfied with this explanation, is disposed to insist
   that Peter's declaration, that every one who believes in Jesus shall
   receive remission of sins, must include those--if any there be--who
   believe, but are not immersed, we have but to show the absurdity of the
   assumption by referring to a parallel case in which there can be no
   dispute. The Apostle John says: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is
   the Son of God, God dwells in him, and he in God." [233] He who would
   conclude from this remark, that the only condition of communion with
   God is to confess that Jesus is his Son, subverts the truth no more
   than he who makes the assumption in question; for the universality of
   the declaration is the same in both, and there is no limitation
   expressed in either.

   There is no one fact more distinctly stated in Acts that that believers
   should repent and be immersed for the remission of sins: [234] hence,
   there can scarcely be a grosser perversion of the word of God than to
   construe other statements of the Scripture so as to deny the truth of
   this. A condition of pardon once stated can never be set aside by any
   less than express divine authority.

   It should be observed, further, that the statement in question is not
   absolutely that "every one who believes in him shall receive remission
   of sins;" but that he shall receive it "through his name." The
   expression, "through his name," was not thrown in here at random; for
   the inspired apostles never spoke at random. It has a well-defined
   meaning, and was intended to qualify the sentence of which it forms a
   part. What we receive through his name certainly can not reach us until
   we attain some connectionwith his name. But we are immersed into his
   name with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit; hence it is at the
   time of this immersion, that the believer receives remission of sins
   through his name.

   44-46. We are next informed of a fact which is new to this narrative,
   and was very surprising both to Peter and his companions. (44) "While
   Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those
   who were hearing the word, (45) and the believers of the circumcision
   who came with Peter were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured
   out the gift of the Holy Spirit. (46) For they heard them speaking in
   tongues, and magnifying God." The matter of astonishment to the Jewish
   brethren was not merely that these men received the Spirit; for if
   Peter had gone on to finish his discourse, promising them the gift of
   the Holy Spirit as he did on Pentecost, [235] and had then immersed
   them, these brethren would have understood, as a matter of course, that
   they received the Holy Spirit. And if, after this, he had laid hands on
   them, as he did on the Samaritans, even miraculous manifestations of
   the Spirit could have created no surprise. The circumstances which
   caused the astonishment were: First, That the Holy Spirit was "poured
   out" upon them directly from God, as it had never been before on any
   but the apostles; Second, That this unusual gift was bestowed upon
   Gentiles.

   In attempting to classify the manifestations of the Holy Spirit known
   in this history, we are compelled to distinguish the case before us
   from the gift of the Spirit enjoyed by all disciples in common, by the
   fact that these parties "spoke in tongues;" and from the gift of the
   Spirit bestowed on the Samaritans, by the fact that it was bestowed
   without prayer or imposition of hands. We have no event with which to
   classify it except that which occurred on Pentecost. That these two
   events constitute a class by themselves is further evident from the
   fact that these two parties alone are said to be "immersed in the Holy
   Spirit." [236] These two are the only instances of immersion in the
   Holy Spirit on record, and they are distinguished from other gifts of
   tongues, in that they alone were bestowed without human agency.

   There is only one passage of Scripture in even apparent conflict with
   this conclusion, which, from the interpretation frequently given to it,
   demands some notice in this connection. It is the statement of Paul:
   "By one Spirit we were all immersed into one body, whether Jews or
   Greeks, whether bond or free, and have all been made to drink of one
   Spirit." [237] If the apostle intends by this to assert that all the
   disciples "were immersed in the Holy Spirit," then this immersion was
   not peculiar to the apostles and the house of Cornelius. The question
   turns upon the reference of the word immerse; whether it is to
   immersion in water or immersion in the Spirit. It is settled by the
   fact that the immersion here spoken of is that which introduces "into
   the one body." We know by the commission that immersion in water
   brought its proper subjects "into the name of the Father, and of the
   Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But when, and by whatever means, men were
   brought into the relation expressed in these words, it is indisputable
   that they were brought into the one body. It was immersion in water,
   therefore, by which "all were immersed into one body." Moreover, the
   immersion in the Holy Spirit did not have this effect; for the apostles
   were in the one body before they were immersed in the Spirit, and
   Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit before he was immersed into the
   name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes it certain that
   the passage in question is not in conflict with our conclusion. As to
   Paul's assertion that the immersion into one body was "by one Spirit,"
   the words "by one Spirit" are a declaration that the immersion had
   taken place under the direction of the one Spirit who was the author of
   all the gifts mentioned in the connection in which the passage occurs.
   [238]

   The immersion of Cornelius and his friends in the Holy Spirit previous
   to their immersion in water has been urged as proof that remission of
   sins takes place before immersion. But it can furnish no such proof
   unless it be first proved that the Holy Spirit could not be imparted to
   a man who was yet unpardoned. If Cornelius had been a man of gross
   wickedness, there would seem to be some incongruity in such an
   impartation; but, in view of his real character, and the fact that God
   had previously sent an angel to express his approbation of his conduct,
   there appears no incongruity in this circumstance.

   This incident in the conversion of Cornelius can not, in any way, be
   held as a precedent for us; from the fact that it was a miraculous
   gift, and therefore peculiar to the age of miracles. It may as well be
   regarded as necessary to see the Lord as Saul did, in order to a
   genuine conversion, as to be immersed in the Spirit as Cornelius was.
   It is, therefore, a very gross deception to urge upon the people that
   they should receive the Spirit, after the precedent of Cornelius,
   before they are immersed.

   47, 48. The true explanation of this unusual circumstance is given in
   the following words, together with Peter's own explanation of it in the
   eleventh chapter: [239] "Then Peter answered, (47) Can any man forbid
   water, that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy
   Spirit as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be immersed in the
   name of the Lord. Then they requested him to remain some days." The use
   that Peter made of it expresses the design of its occurrence. That use
   was to remove all possible objection to the immersion of the parties.
   In any other case which had occurred, or which occurred after this, no
   such objection could have existed. The very fact, therefore, which led
   to this unusual occurrence, was an exceptional circumstance, which
   furnishes the strongest proof that this case is not a precedent for
   imitation in this particular.

   Before he was interrupted, Peter had already proceeded so far with his
   discourse as to reach the subject of faith, and of remission of sins,
   and immersion must have been the next word upon his lips, if he had
   proceeded after the model of his sermon on Pentecost. The interruption,
   therefore, did not break the thread of his discourse, but enabled him
   to proceed with greater confidence to the very conclusion which he had
   intended. He first appeals to the brethren, to know if any objection
   yet lingered in their minds, and finding none, he commanded them to be
   immersed in the name of the Lord.

   Let us now recall the fact that Cornelius had been directed to send for
   Peter to hear "words by which he and all his family might be saved."
   [240] Peter has come, and delivered his message. He has told him of
   Christ, in whom the man now believes. He has commanded him to be
   immersed, and it has been done. This is the whole story of the
   conversion. When it was accomplished, the painful anxiety which he must
   have experienced during the last four days was removed, and his present
   happiness is indicated by the cordiality with which he invited Peter to
   remain with him some days.

   We now have three individual cases of conversion before us, each
   detailed with great minuteness. In some particulars they are precisely
   alike; in others, they are quite different. But they are all three
   genuine cases of conversion; and, therefore, the points in which they
   differ are not essential to conversion, but are accidental
   circumstances arising from the peculiarities of the individual case.
   Now, in order that we may learn what is essential to conversion, and
   what among all the cases on record, are accidental circumstances, we
   must be guided by the following rule. Whatever is common to all cases
   is necessary to a scriptural conversion; but whatever we find in one
   case which certainly did not occur in all others, is a peculiarity of
   the individual cases in which it occurs. The points in which all the
   recorded cases agree are the points in which all subsequent conversions
   must agree with them. The points in which they differ are points in
   which subsequent conversions may differ from them. In order to
   determine that certain features are not essential, it is only necessary
   to find cases in which they do not occur. In order to determine that
   any one is essential, we must find it in all cases, or find it
   prescribed in some general law expressly designed to govern all cases.

   While the three cases already before us are fresh in the memory, and
   before points of difference become multiplied by additional cases, so
   as to confuse the understanding, we propose to institute a comparison
   between them, in the light of the rule just prescribed. Leaving out of
   view the difference in character, occupation, and social position, of
   the eunuch, Saul, and Cornelius, which show only that the gospel is
   adapted to all men without regard to previous character or position, we
   will only notice those differences which might form the ground of
   erroneous conclusions. First, then, in the cases of the eunuch and
   Cornelius, there was the visible appearance of an angel; and many
   converts of modern times have related, as part of their experience in
   conversion, similar apparitions. But there certainly was not in Saul's
   case the appearance of an angel; therefore, such an appearance is not
   necessary to conversion. Second, The Lord himself appeared to Saul and
   conversed with him; but he certainly did not to either the eunuch or
   Cornelius. It is not necessary, then, to see the Lord. Third, Saul
   mourned and prayed for three days after he believed, and before he was
   immersed; but Cornelius and the eunuch did not; therefore, protracted
   sorrow and prayer are not necessary to conversion. Fourth, Cornelius
   was immersed in the Spirit, but Saul and the eunuch were not;
   therefore, immersion in the Spirit is not essential, but a circumstance
   arising from the peculiarity of a single case.

   The points in which these cases agree are chiefly these: they all heard
   the gospel preached, with miraculous evidence to sustain it; they all
   believed what they heard; they were all commanded to be immersed; they
   were all immersed; and after immersion they were all happy. If, then,
   we do not hereafter encounter recorded cases from which some of these
   items are certainly absent, we must conclude that at least all of these
   are necessary to scriptural conversion. When other cases are before us,
   we will institute further and more complete comparisons.

   We would be glad to know more of the history of Cornelius, so as to
   determine how far, even in times of peace, the profession of arms is
   compatible with the faithful service of the Prince of Peace. He is the
   only soldier of whose conversion we have an account in the New
   Testament, and of his subsequent career we know nothing. Whether, amid
   the scenes of blood and desolation not many years after most wickedly
   visited upon Judea by the army in which he was an officer, he resigned
   his office, or made shipwreck of the faith, we can not know till the
   great day. Let it be noted, however, that his is an instance of a
   soldier becoming a Christian, not of a Christian becoming a soldier. It
   furnishes a precedent for the former, but not for the latter. Whether
   Peter instructed him to resign his position in the army or not, is to
   be determined not by the silence of the historian in reference to it,
   but by first determining whether military service is compatible with
   the moral teachings of the New Testament. If Jesus and the apostles had
   been, for more than thirty years previous to the publication of Acts,
   teaching that Christians should not take the sword, it was not at all
   necessary for Luke to say that Peter so instructed Cornelius.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [224] Acts xi. 14.

   [225] Verse 30.

   [226] Neh. xiii. 23-31.

   [227] Matt. xv. 24.

   [228] Matt. xv. 26.

   [229] Matt. x. 5, 6.

   [230] See Com. vi. 5.

   [231] Acts xi. 3.

   [232] See Westminster Conf., ch. iii: sec. 5.

   [233] 1 John iv. 15.

   [234] See Acts ii. 38.

   [235] Acts ii. 38.

   [236] Compare i. 5 with xi. 16.

   [237] 1 Cor. xii. 13.

   [238] See 1 Cor. xii. 3-13.

   [239] Acts xi. 15.

   [240] Acts xi. 14.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts XI

   XI: 1-3. The novel scene which had transpired in Caesarea was soon
   reported abroad over the country. (1) "Now the apostles and brethren
   throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God.
   (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision
   disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men
   uncircumcised, and did eat with them." The prejudice from which Peter
   had been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish
   brethren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be
   wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there is no
   repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had occurred
   in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to bear upon them but
   what is contained in the words of Peter.

   4-17. (4) "But Peter related the matter to them in order from the
   beginning, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and saw, in
   a trance, a vision, a certain vessel like a great sheet descending, let
   down from heaven by the four corners, and it came to me. (6) Having
   looked intently into it, I perceived and saw four-footed animals, and
   wild beasts, and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (7) And I
   heard a voice, saying to me, Arise, Peter; kill and eat. (8) But I
   said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has at any time
   entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice from heaven answered me, What
   God has cleansed, do not you make common. (10) This was done three
   times, and all was drawn up into heaven again. (11) And behold, three
   men immediately came to the house in which I was, sent to me from
   Caesarea, (12) and the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting
   nothing. But these six brethren also went with me, and we entered into
   the man's house. (13) Then he told us that he had seen an angel in his
   house, standing and saying to him, Send to Joppa, and call for Simon
   who is surnamed Peter, (14) who will speak words to you by which you
   and all your house will be saved. (15) And while I was beginning to
   speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us in the beginning. (16)
   Then I remembered the word of the Lord, that he said, John immersed in
   water, but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. (17) Since, then,
   God gave to them the same gift as to us who already believed on the
   Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I should be able to withstand God?"
   The events here rehearsed by Peter had removed his own prejudice, and
   now, through the words which he addressed to the brethren, the same
   vision of unclean animals, with the command to kill and eat; the same
   command of the Spirit to go with the Gentile messengers; the authority
   of the angel who had ordered him to be sent for; and, finally, the same
   immersion of those Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, are all pressing upon
   their minds and hearts, with precisely the same import that they did
   upon his.

   18. The effect of these influences was the same upon them that it had
   been upon Peter. (18) "When they heard these things they held their
   peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God to the Gentiles also
   granted repentance in order to life." So greatly are their hearts
   enlarged, that they now glorify God for the very things on account of
   which they had just been censuring Peter.

   We have, in this incident, an exhibition of the actual method by which
   the minds of Christians were enlightened, and their hearts enlarged. We
   see that Peter was first enlightened by a combination of facts,
   visions, and words, so as to understand the will of God in the matter,
   and that through this enlightened understanding he was made to feel the
   weight of divine authority. Although the Spirit of God dwelt in him
   continually, and imparted ideas to his understanding directly, yet,
   when his heart was to be relieved from an injurious prejudice, the end
   was accomplished by means of ideas communicated to his understanding.
   Thus the case stands with Peter, who occupies the position of an
   original recipient of truth.

   With the brethren in Jerusalem, who occupied the exact position toward
   this particular subject which we do to all revealed truth, there is
   this difference, that all the influence, both upon the understanding
   and the emotional nature, exerted in their case, reached them through
   Peter's words. Still, the influence was not inherent in the words, but
   in the facts of which the words were the medium of communication.
   Moreover, the facts had such an influence only because they indicated
   the will of God. It was then, at last, the moral power of God, embodied
   in the facts reported by Peter, but brought to bear through the words
   of Peter, which so changed their hearts. They had only to believe what
   Peter reported, in order to feel this power. If they had retained their
   prejudice after this, they would have felt that they were resisting
   God.

   In precisely this way the converting and sanctifying influence of the
   Holy Spirit reaches the hearts of men now. We do not have direct
   communication with heavenly beings, as Peter had, but, like the
   brethren in Jerusalem, we hear from his lips, and the lips and pens of
   other original recipients, the same truth which affected their minds
   and hearts, and we find ours affected by it in the same way. When we
   resist, we are resisting not Peter and Paul, but the Holy Spirit, by
   whom they spoke and wrote. The fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in us
   is no proof that his action upon our moral sentiments is direct or
   immediate; for he dwelt in Peter, and in the apostles who arraigned
   Peter; yet his action upon even their hearts was mediate, through ideas
   communicated. He who asserts for us a species of spiritual influence
   which was not exerted even upon the apostles and other inspired me, is,
   to say the least, a daring speculator.

   19. The scene of the narrative is now about to change to another Roman
   province, and to the city of Antioch. Preparatory to this transition,
   the historian glances back over a period of several years, to the
   dispersion of the Jerusalem Church. He had made that event his point of
   departure in rehearsing the labors of Philip and the early history of
   Saul, and now, with a degree of system in his arrangement which should
   not be overlooked, he starts again at the same point to sweep over
   another part of the wide field before him. (19) "Now they who were
   scattered abroad from the persecution which arose about Stephen,
   traveled as far as Phenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word
   to none but Jews." From this we learn that while Philip was preaching
   in Samaria, and Saul in Damascus and Arabia, others of the brethren
   were spreading the truth into Phenicia, the island of Cyprus, and
   Antioch in Syria. Thus the knowledge of salvation was sounded out from
   Jerusalem simultaneously into all the surrounding provinces.

   20, 21. Among the brethren engaged in these labors, Luke chooses to
   follow in a narrative only those who founded the Church in Antioch.
   (20) "And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, having come
   into Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. (21)
   The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and
   turned to the Lord." These men were not immediately from Cyprus and
   Cyrene, but were a part of those dispersed from Jerusalem. The
   expression, "Some of them," referring to the preceding sentence, thus
   designates them. The Hellenists were doubtless numerous in Antioch,
   from the fact if its being the chief commercial city of Western Asia;
   and these brethren, being also Hellenists, were best suited for
   reaching their ears.

   22-24. Jerusalem was still the chief center of religious influence,
   being the chief residence of the apostles. They kept a watchful eye
   upon the movements of brethren in all directions, supplying help and
   counsel according to the demand of circumstances. They were anxious to
   hear of every new success, and the brethren were equally glad to report
   it. (22) "Then tidings of these things came to the ears of the Church
   in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch.
   (23) When he arrived and saw the favor of God, he rejoiced, and
   exhorted them all with purpose of heart to cling to the Lord. (24) For
   he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith; and a great
   multitude were added to the Lord." It is not often that Luke bestows a
   direct encomium upon the characters of whom he writes, as he does here
   upon Barnabas. But it was proper, in this case, that the selection of
   Barnabas for this mission, in preference to other brethren, should be
   accounted for by stating the noble qualities which led to the choice.
   He was certainly a most proper man to send to a congregation of young
   disciples, to exhort them to cling to the Lord.

   25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, he
   seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He had
   not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken by the
   hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and introduced to
   the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often makes as deep
   an impression on the heart of the benefactor as on that of the
   recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the brethren
   sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow-laborer, his
   heart directs him where to seek. (25) "Then Barnabas departed to Tarsus
   to seek Saul; (26) and having found him he brought him to Antioch." The
   attachment being mutual, he found no difficulty in securing the object
   of his mission.

   26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a
   community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not fail
   of good results. (26) "And it came to pass, that during a whole year
   they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great
   multitude; and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
   There has been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by
   Barnabas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of
   Antioch, or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical
   purpose to decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with
   whichever party it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the
   disciples in general.

   As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation
   through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would
   require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this
   work, and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the
   authority of the name in question, than the course of investigation
   which we prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version
   of the passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all
   ages and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to
   rest the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can
   establish.

   If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, its
   authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in
   reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, in
   this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to
   them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of
   the Holy Spirit, or of Christ.

   Religious names are significant. They not only distinguish the bodies
   to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but they
   distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. All
   the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the
   denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist by
   the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the name of
   Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresenting his
   religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the Baptist,
   you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains the same by
   whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled him and done him
   injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us to use religious
   names with reference to their significance.

   If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to
   the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of God
   by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities were
   found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the character
   which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which attracted
   the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place to place,
   was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name disciples, or
   learners, by which they were first designated, and which is the most
   common designation in the gospel narratives. From the fact that there
   were disciples of John, with whom they might be confounded, they were,
   at first, styled "disciples of Jesus." But when John had decreased, and
   Jesus had increased, the limiting words were dispensed with, and the
   term disciple was appropriated, so that, standing alone, it always
   meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels the limiting words are
   commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke is giving some of their
   history as a great people spreading through the earth, after once
   calling them "disciples of the Lord," at the time Saul starts after
   them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and thence throughout
   the whole narrative he calls them simply the "disciples."

   When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it
   necessarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the
   nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which they
   were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became very
   intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation as
   "the brethren." They were so styled first by Jesus, saying to them: "Be
   not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren."
   [241] This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole
   body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of
   the report that he would not die: "This saying went abroad among the
   brethren." [242] In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still
   more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the
   brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most
   naturally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is
   used in speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally
   omitted. This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once
   found in the Epistles.

   This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic
   age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name
   which came into use in the same period. Jesus frequently called the
   disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying to say, "Our
   Father, who art in heaven;" but the title, "children of God," which
   grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them during
   this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but
   John's, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he
   is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of
   the period of which he writes. [243] This appellation, as a current and
   cotemporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into
   use after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the
   blessed privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them.
   It extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age: "Behold,
   what manner of love the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be
   called the sons of God!" [244]

   By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined
   character. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old
   Testament, were called saints, and this suggested the use of this term
   as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were enduring
   still further identified them with the holy "prophets who were before
   them." This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when he objected
   to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, "I have heard by
   many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints in
   Jerusalem." In the Epistles this name is used more frequently than any
   other.

   All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their
   specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the
   people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger would
   not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; but
   would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would he know who
   were the children of God, or the saints, until you had informed him to
   what certain characters these terms apply. There was need, therefore,
   of a name less ambiguous to those who had the least information on the
   subject--one better adapted to the great world. This, like all the
   others, originated from circumstances which demanded it for immediate
   use. When a Church was established in Antioch, it became an object of
   inquiry to strangers, brought thither by the pursuits of commerce, from
   all parts of the world. They were strangers to the cause of Christ in
   reference to all but the wonderful career of its founder. The whole
   world had heard something of Christ, as the remarkable personage who
   was put to death under Pontius Pilate, though many had heard nothing of
   the early history of his Church. From this fact, when strangers came to
   Antioch, and heard the new party who were attracting so much attention
   there, called Christians, they at once recognized them as followers of
   that Christ of whom they had already heard. This explains the fact
   stated in the text, that "the disciples were called Christians first in
   Antioch." The fact that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and
   Peter afterward recognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired
   usage, and, therefore, all the weight of divine authority. That it is a
   New Testament name is undisputed, and this renders its divine authority
   indisputable.

   This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was not
   designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were
   continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper
   place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose.

   To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in reference
   to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were contemplated with
   reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, they were
   called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed more
   particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled
   brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were
   called children of God. When they were designated with special
   reference to character, they were called saints. But when they were
   spoken of with the most general reference to their great leader, they
   were called Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of
   each of these names would soon conform our speech to the primitive
   model, and would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another,
   by giving to each its proper place.

   The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New
   Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of divine
   authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of this
   assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul administers to the
   Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: "It has been declared
   to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household of Chloe, that
   there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each of you says,
   I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is
   Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed into
   the name of Paul?" [245] Now, if it was sinful for these brethren to
   assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very
   same thing? The question demands the most solemn and trembling
   consideration of this generation.

   It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which now
   exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the
   difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to
   divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed
   parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes
   exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore,
   much greater than theirs.

   It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names
   now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one
   another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized by
   the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not censure
   ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right.
   But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the
   case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying.
   The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the
   partisan must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The
   name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed,
   it is none the less evil from being necessary.

   Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from
   the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians
   should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate
   them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians
   back to the New Testament model--for, in the New Testament period,
   there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state
   of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If
   this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that
   men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so
   hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard,
   persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item
   of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party
   names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New
   Testament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape from
   this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, as
   individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they
   may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act
   thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the
   Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice.

   In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we
   remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some
   obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently,
   to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in foreign country
   declare himself an American, he realizes that there is a peculiar
   demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act
   worthy of the name he wears. Even a man's patronymic, which means no
   more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever warning him
   not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be with all
   religious names.

   Is a man called a disciple of Jesus? He remembers that it is the part
   of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his
   example. Whenever he is reminded that this is his name, he feels the
   necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his
   footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very
   name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great Teacher
   himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, "If you continue in
   my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and
   the truth shall make you free." [246] Again he says, "It is enough for
   the disciple to be as his teacher;" and "whosoever does not bear his
   cross and come after me, can not be my disciple." [247] Thus he gives
   emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is constantly
   sounding in the ear of conscience.

   But the disciple is also one of the brethren--a brother to the Lord
   Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full
   of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him brother,
   without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should exist
   between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings toward a
   disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached by the
   word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. It will
   never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized by
   Peter, who says, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the
   truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that
   you love one another with a pure heart fervently." [248]

   There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the
   fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in
   reference to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but
   all subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground
   of a serious injunction. "Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher,
   and all you are brethren; and call no man on earth your Father, for One
   who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for one is
   your Leader, the Christ." [249] The fact that we are brethren is thus
   made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of distinction,
   and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which is invariably
   the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Leaders of sects--the
   ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling titles by which
   Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops and
   Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, exhibit the most
   flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of the Lord. A man who
   understands the meaning of the fact that he is one among many brethren,
   is guarded, by the humility of this title, from participation in a sin
   like this.

   If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and brethren,
   what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It
   originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. We
   are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, to do
   good to them who hate us, and pray for them who persecute us, that we
   may be children of our Father who is in heaven. [250] Thus the very
   highest moral obligations imposed in the word of God must ever press
   upon the soul of him who ears this title, inciting him to become a
   partaker of the divine nature.

   When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you
   thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old,
   and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of this
   name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased to
   wear it. When men apostasized from what its meaning indicates, it hung
   so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of fire on
   their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from themselves
   and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would ever come
   back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear the name
   saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it identifies us. The
   term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, "As he who called you
   is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behavior; because it is
   written, Be ye holy for I am holy." [251]

   The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, all
   the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being
   derived from the name of him who is "head over all things for the
   Church," whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar
   honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part in
   consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and
   encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even
   when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought Peter,
   when this name was most despised. He says, "If any suffer as a
   Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this
   account." "If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you;
   for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you." [252]

   When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong to
   him; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is
   called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of
   equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, whose
   character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a child
   of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a saint;
   and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who by his
   mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, how
   powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently
   pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice!

   When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural names, to
   consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless they all
   appear! The constant and only influence of party names is to intensify
   mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name Methodist feels
   called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; and when that
   name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only to exhort one
   another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected of a mere
   Methodist. So with all other party names. There is nothing in any of
   them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence they are
   never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On the contrary,
   the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sinners, "Our
   object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, or Baptists;
   but we want you to become Christians." How strange it is that men will
   pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus ashamed of in the
   presence of penitent sinners, when there are others at hand given by
   God himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of attraction to all who
   seek salvation!

   27-30. We have dwelt long upon the new name given in Antioch; we must
   now consider other interesting events which occurred there about the
   close of the year in which Barnabas and Saul labored there together.
   (27) "In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, (28)
   and one of them, named Agabus, arose and signified through the Spirit
   that there would be a great famine throughout the whole world, which
   also occurred in the days of Claudius. (29) Then the disciples, every
   one according as he was prospered, determined to send relief to the
   brethren who dwelt in Judea; (30) which also they did, sending it to
   the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul."

   This is the first account we have of the gift of prophesy among the
   disciples, but Agabus and his companions appear to have been already
   known as prophets, doubtless from previous exercise of this gift. The
   brethren, therefore, did not hesitate to give full credit to the
   prediction, and knowing that such a famine must cause peculiar distress
   among the extremely poor in Judea, they were prompt to supply their
   wants even before the period of distress arrived. Their benevolence is
   not less remarkable than that of the Church in Jerusalem at the
   beginning. The poor for whom that Church provided were in their midst,
   and suffering from present want; but the disciples in Antioch
   anticipate a state of distress yet in the future, on the part of
   brethren to whom they are personally unknown, and provide for it in
   advance. No more striking evidence could be given, at once, of their
   benevolence, and their confidence in the predictions of their own
   prophets.

   This benevolent supply was sent to the Elders, by whom, we are to
   understand, it was distributed to the final recipients. This is the
   first time that elders, as a distinct class, are mentioned in
   connection with the congregations of disciples. They are mentioned,
   however, as a class of officials then well known, and, consequently, we
   must infer that they had been appointed in the Churches at a still
   earlier period.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [241] Matt. xxiii. 8.

   [242] John xxi. 23.

   [243] John i. 12; xi. 52.

   [244] 1 John iii. 1.

   [245] 1 Cor. i. 11-13.

   [246] John viii. 31, 32.

   [247] Matt. x. 24; Luke xiv. 27.

   [248] 1 Peter i. 22.

   [249] Matt. xxiii. 8, 10.

   [250] Matt. v. 44, 45.

   [251] 1 Peter i. 15, 16.

   [252] 1 Peter iv. 14-16.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Acts XII

   XII: 1, 2. The historian does not follow Barnabas and Saul in their
   tour through the districts in Judea, but, leaving them for awhile,
   introduces a very interesting episode concerning events that were then
   transpiring in Jerusalem. (1) "Now, about that time, Herod the king
   stretched forth his hand to afflict certain persons of the Church, (2)
   and killed James the brother of John with the sword." The persecutions
   which we have hitherto noticed were conducted by religious partisans in
   Jerusalem, without any active assistance on the part of the civil
   authorities. We are now introduced to one in which the reigning prince
   is the leader, while the old enemies of the truth are working behind
   the curtain, if at all.

   This Herod was a grandson of that Herod by whom the infants of
   Bethlehem were slaughtered, and a nephew of "Herod the Tetrarch," by
   whom John the Immerser was beheaded. He grew up in Rome, where he
   wasted what fortune he had inherited in princely extravagance; but
   while doing so he acquired an intimacy with Caius Caesar, afterward the
   famous Caligula of history. When the latter ascended the throne, at the
   death of Tiberius, he elevated his friend Agrippa, as this Herod was
   most usually called, to a kingdom, which was subsequently enlarged by
   Claudius until it embraced all the territory ruled by his grandfather
   Herod the Great. He was now in the zenith of his power, and living in
   the utmost magnificence. [253] Why he undertook this persecution it is
   difficult to tell, unless he was instigated to it by the old enemies of
   the Church. This appears most probable from Luke's statement below,
   that he seized Peter because he saw that the death of James pleased the
   Jews. [254]

   A number of brethren suffered in this persecution, though James the
   brother of John is the only one who is said to have suffered death. He
   is designated as the "brother of John" to distinguish him from the
   other James, who is the author of the epistle bearing this name. He was
   the first of the apostles to suffer death, and his brother John was the
   last. In the death of both were fulfilled the words of Jesus, uttered
   on a memorable occasion, when they asked him for a seat, one at