THE apostles were instructed by their Master to commence the evangelisation of the world in Jerusalem. For a considerable time they must have been fully employed there, teaching the thousands who turned to the Lord. In view of the magnitude of the work that was being done in the holy city, we need not wonder that the apostles stayed longer than merely to make a beginning. Months must have elapsed to give time for all the events recorded in the first seven chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. But at last there came a time for dispersion. The rough hand of persecution scattered the church, and dispersed the members throughout Judea and Samaria. If the apostles were still required in Jerusalem, there were others now ready to spread the new evangel. The enemy outwitted himself; for wherever the disciples went they preached the word.

Luke, in his narrative, follows the tide of evangelisation in its northward movement to

We are taken from Judah to Israel, from the centre of the two tribes to the metropolis of the ten, from the southern kingdom to the northern, from the headquarters of the worship of Jehovah to the headquarters of Israelitish idolatry, and the seat of the composite worship of the mixed foreigners who colonised Samaria after the Israelites were taken into captivity.

But perhaps it was "a city of Samaria," and not the city called Samaria. The city had given its name to the whole district, and within the province of Samaria there was more cities than one. Kitto thought that it was Shechem or Sychar, where the Saviour had spent two days (John 4:5,40). It is unnecessary to decide which city Philip evangelised. The people and their environment must have been much alike throughout the whole province.

And yet, a few words about the origin and history of the city of Samaria may be useful. It derived its name from Shemer, who owned the hill on which it was erected. Omri, king of Israel, was its founder. He bought the hill from Shemer, built the city and called it Samaria, after the name of Shemer (1 Kings 16:23-24). The situation was good; the soil was fruitful, the surroundings were beautiful, and the fortifying of the place was easy. But the kings of Israel filled it with idolatry. Ahab, the son of Omri, built there an altar and a temple to Baal, and did more to provoke Jehovah than all the kings of Israel that preceded him (1 Kings 16:30-33). Others perpetuated the wickedness until the days of Jehu, who demolished the temple of Baal and made a treacherous slaughter of all the worshippers of that idol (2 Kings 10:8-28). The Israelites retained the city as their capital until the deportation by Shalmaneser, a period of two hundred years (2 Kings 18:9-12). Afterwards, Samaria had a chequered history. It was taken by Alexander the Great, and again by John Hyrcanus, who razed it to the ground. It came to life again, and was reckoned a Jewish city. It was afterwards again built by Gabinus, and still again by Herod, by whom it was called Sebaste, the Greek for Augusta, after his patron Augustus.

The siege of the capital of Israel by the king of Assyria, was long carried on, and at last was bitterly effectual. Not only was the city depopulated, the surrounding district shared the same fate. At a later period the neighbourhood and the city were occupied by colonists under Assyrian rule. "The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof" (2 Kings 17:24-33). A priest of the Jews was sent back from Assyria to teach the new Samaritans the worship of Jehovah. Of them it was said, "They feared the Lord and served their own gods." A queer conglomerate was the religion of those settlers. From that time down to the introduction of Christianity the Samaritans were a mixed people possessing a mixed religion. Ezra speaks of "the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria" (4:9-10). Along with such a variety of foreigners there was a sprinkling of Jews. "Manasseh, a man of priestly lineage, on being expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage," took up his abode in Samaria and fostered a wicked rivalry between Samaria and Jerusalem. Other malcontents may have done the same. Straggling Israelites still remained in the north of Palestine (2 Chron. 34:9), of whom probably some threw in their lot with the Samaritans. Then Alexander the Great placed a body of Syro-Macedonians in Samaria, and "Herod settled a colony of six thousand persons" in the city, "composed partly of veteran soldiers, and partly of people from the environs." How can the product of all these factors be described? It seems impossible to tell the nationality of the Samaritans in the time of Christ. They were a heterogeneous product, whose characteristic, as it had been in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, was enmity to the Jews. The woman at Jacob's well claimed Jacob as their father, (John 4:12). The same claim had before been made by the Samaritans to escape paying tribute to Alexander the Great during the Sabbatic year. They lived in the centre of the land of the Jews, they possessed part at least of the Jewish writings, and their worship was modelled after the Jewish pattern; but by the Saviour they were distinguished from the Jews and classed with the Gentiles; or, more exactly, they were neither Jews nor Gentiles, but midway between them (John 4:22; Matt. 10:5-6). The Saviour, however, had seen their fields white to harvest; many of the Samaritans believed on Him for the saying of the woman; and many more believed because of His own word. This was soil outside the circle of the orthodox Jews prepared for the evangelising visit of

There is a Philip in the list of the apostles (Matt. 10:2,3); and one of the seven appointed to distribute the funds of the Jerusalem church among the needy was called Philip (Acts 6:5). Was it Philip the apostle, or Philip one of the seven, that visited Samaria? Or was it another Philip of whom we know no more than the work recorded of him in Acts 8?

It could not be the apostle Philip, for the apostles remained in Jerusalem (chap. 8:1). Moreover, when the apostles heard what had happened in Samaria under Philip's preaching, they sent thither two of their number to do something which, for some reason, the preacher there could not do. When Peter and John reached Samaria they prayed for the baptised believers, "that they might receive the Holy Spirit;" and "they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Philip was a faithful disciple and an effective preacher. He had led men and women to believe, and he had baptised those who believed. But he was not a medium through whom the Holy Spirit was given. That was a prerogative of the apostles. The Philip that visited Samaria, and did such efficient work in turning others, was not an apostle.

Probably the preacher in Samaria was the Philip of the sixth chapter of Acts, one of the seven. He stands second in the list of the seven. Stephen is first. Stephen's speaking career is brought before the reader in the latter half of the sixth chapter, and is terminated with his martyrdom in the seventh. It is therefore natural that the work of him who stands next on the list be recorded in the eighth chapter.

A comparison of Acts 8:40, with 21:8, confirms the thought that the Philip who ministered to the daily wants of the poor of the church, was the Philip who preached in Samaria. The last words of the eighth chapter leave our preacher in Cesarea; and it is in Cesarea where, by the light of the twenty-first chapter, we find "Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven." We conclude, then, that the Philip who was one of the seven, preached in Samaria, and in the desert to the eunuch, and became an evangelist, having his home in Cesarea.

Luke has not reported any of Philip's addresses. Nor has there been handed down to us one of those gospel conversations that must have been more frequent and often more beneficial that public addresses. We have not even brief notes. All that has been preserved to us is the subject. Nor is there is list of subjects such as modern evangelists sometimes announce. Philip has one theme, which the historian has recorded in two forms. First, there is a brief form - "Christ:" Philip preached Christ unto them. Second, there is an enlarged form - "The things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (verses 5 and 12). Luke has already narrated Peter's teaching respecting the name of Jesus Christ. That may sufficiently account for no notes being given of Philip's testimony on the same theme. "The things concerning the kingdom of God," as a phrase, now comes before us for the first time in apostolic preaching. The idea may have been present before; the phrase is new to us. What does it mean?

Kingdom in its fulness implies (1) ruler, (2) subjects, (3) laws, (4) territory. But all of these may not always be in view when a kingdom is spoken of. The idea of government may sometimes be so prominent that the territorial and geographical notion is overshadowed or entirely absent. The ruling, reigning, governmental, administrative concept is clearly paramount in many passages of Scripture. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" did not mean that so many miles of territory was fast approaching the inhabitants of Palestine. It meant that the reign of Heaven was coming down to them - that a new phase of divine rule was about to be inaugurated - that Heaven's administration of affairs upon earth was about to assume at once a simpler and more spiritual aspect - that God was going to give a fresh revelation of Himself and His will. While on earth the Administrator of the new kingdom - the Lord Jesus Christ - was educating the people, especially His disciples, for what was coming. After His resurrection He spoke to them "of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). On the day of Pentecost the laws of God's new reign began to be announced and practised. God had constituted Jesus both Lord and Christ, and in His name the principles and laws of heaven were administered. The kingdom was God's, the things concerning the kingdom of God were the things in operation under the apostles, and those things were all gathered round the name of Jesus Christ and appertained thereto. He was the God-appointed King in the new kingdom. He is the Administrator in the spiritual reign in existence in the present gospel dispensation. "The things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," is a parallel to "God hath made that same Jesus ... both Lord and Christ." Philip spoke of God's government as established and carried on by the Lord Jesus Christ.

He "beforetime in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one." The verb here translated 'used sorcery,' and the noun translated 'sorceries' in the eleventh verse, occur nowhere else in the New Testament. But the 'sorcerer' is found in Acts 13:6,8. The word translated 'sorcerer' is translated 'wise men' in Matt. 2:1,7,16. The persons so denominated possessed knowledge and skill beyond many around them. Those who used their knowledge for good have been called wise men; whereas those who used their knowledge to play on the ignorance and simplicity of others have been called sorcerers. The Greek includes both classes in 'magoi.' It is a different family of words in Gal. 5:20 (witchcraft), Rev. 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15. Simon the magos, magician, or sorcerer, made great pretensions; and his tricks, whatever they were, evoked the wonder of the Samaritans. It is too much to say that he bewitched them. The same word is translated 'wondered' in the thirteenth verse, where is is affirmed of Simon himself, and 'amazed,' in chap. 2:7,12, where it is predicated of the Jews on the day of Pentecost. The Samaritans were not bewitched, but they were in great wonder - they were amazed. And the amazement was wide-spread. From the least to the greatest they were under Simon's spell. Nor was his influence confined to one city. The nation was amazed, according to the marginal and correct translation of the ninth verse in the Revised Version. And it had long been so. "They gave heed to him, because that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries." By prolonged habit they had become submissive to his power. There was, therefore, a long-continued, deep-seated, and generally acknowledged power in Samaria, with which Philip had to cope. Simon had long possessed the sympathy of the people.

It speaks well for the cogency of Philip's miracles and the simplicity of his preaching and teaching, that in such circumstances he gained over the Samaritans. To heal diseases and control the actions of demons surpassed in manifest power and undeniable benefit all the displays of the conjurer. Simon might dazzle with his incantations and manipulations, but he imparted no boon; he might speak great swelling words, but he communicated no ennobling information. On the other hand, Philip's work and message were laden with blessing to all. The transparency of what he said and did must have contrasted favourably with the occult doings of the magos. Philip did good and spoke good. He gave the people experience of his power, and informed them that what they experienced was but a sample of what his Master had in store for them. Such ameliorating deeds, accompanied by a gospel agreeing therewith, gained the ear and the sympathy of the people. With one accord they gave heed.

The result of Philip's preaching and miracles, and of the attention given thereto by the Samaritans, was

They believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. In those portions of the Acts of the Apostles that we have already studied, we have not had a word about belief, at least on the part of the hearers. In Peter's instructions to inquirers on the day of Pentecost, and in his four addresses in the early chapters of Acts, there is nothing about the listeners believing. The historian, however, has several times asserted its existence in a remarkable way. He has spoken of "all that believed," and of "the multitude of them that believed:" and he has averred that "many of them who heard the word believed," and that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women" (2:44; 4:4,32; 5:14). Belief was not commanded, and has not been explained; and yet it was so important that to say that so many believed was equivalent to saying that they had become Christians.

1. Belief and faith are one. They may not be synonymous in modern English, but they are in Scripture. Isaiah said, "Lord, who hath believed our report?" and Paul adds, "So then faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:16-17). The 'believed' of one verse becomes 'faith' in the next - 'belief,' in the Revised Version. The equivalence of faith and belief is also seen in Heb. 10:38,39; 11:1. 'To believe,' in the thirty-ninth verse, is the same as 'faith' in the preceding verse and the first verse of the following chapter. Again the Revised Version simplifies, giving 'faith' in all three verses; as in Rom. 10, they have given uniformity by substituting 'belief' for 'faith.'

2. Faith is explained by the writer to the Hebrews as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (chap. 11:1). For 'substance' the Revised Version gives 'assurance,' and in the margin 'giving substance to.' For 'evidence' the Revisers give 'proving,' and in the margin 'test.' The American Committee suggest, "Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction," etc.

a) There is assurance, conviction, substance, the giving substance to. All these imply confidence, a state of mind the opposite of doubt and uncertainty; substance - giving substance to, especially - implying that the unseen things have become so real as to have substance given to them - the invisible is felt to have a veritable reality.

b) There is evidence, proving, testing, or conviction. Faith, as descriptive of the state of mind, is conviction; but in its action it is the putting of unseen things to the proof - a testing of them.

3. Faith, in its Scripture usage, deals with unseen things. It is assurance respecting things not yet possessed, but hoped for. It is expectation that we shall receive what at present is not ours. It is a conviction of things not seen, whether these things be future, or past, or at present existing, but beyond vision. By touch we learn much of the tangible; by sight we become acquainted with the visible; by hearing we become acquainted with what is audible; and by faith we become acquainted with the intangible, invisible, and inaudible. Faith becomes eyes with which we see the unseen. We did not see the work of creation performed, but "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." We do not see the Saviour at God's right hand, but by faith we know that He is there. In like manner we know by faith that he will come a second time without a sin-offering unto salvation. We did not see the Redeemer die on the cross; but we have a deep conviction that He did bear our sins in His own body on the tree. Such conviction is faith.

4. Faith rests upon testimony. It is not every conviction that may be called faith in the Scripture sense. Men often have convictions for which they can produce no evidence. They think, opine, reason, conjecture, surmise, and all their deductions are called convictions; but they are not faith according to the Biblical meaning. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. God speaks, and from His speech man derives assurance - faith - respecting unseen things, of which otherwise he could know nothing. Faith in God and in God's revealed things, is thus acquired in the same way as we obtain faith or assurance about foreign countries and terrestrial things that we have never seen. We read reports, letters from friends, or books and descriptions by travellers, and we thereby become as assured of those unseen countries, their general outline, climate, inhabitants, etc., as if we had seen them with our own eyes. The reader should, therefore, carefully distinguish between faith and opinion. The former rests on testimony - clearly formulated evidence; the latter is but an inference.

That faith is a product of hearing is a truth inseparably interwoven with Scripture teaching. Without speech and hearing, faith was unattainable. "How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). "Many of them who heard the word believed" (Acts 4:4). "They so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed" (Acts 14:1). It was plain, easily comprehended, earnest speaking that produced faith. The Samaritans believed Philip. His manner of speaking was such as to produce conviction in the minds of the hearers.

5. Faith derives its value from the things believed. It is with faith as with eating. It is not the act of eating that makes us strong. Whether we derive strength or not from eating depends on what we eat. Let a man swallow unwholesome food or poison, and mischief inevitably accrues. Let a man believe a lie, as Eve did when she listened to the serpent's story, and faith will bring a curse instead of a blessing. If there be any mixture of error accepted - believed - there must be evil consequences. To believe the right things is of the greatest importance. Hence the need of careful searching of the Scriptures to obtain their exact meaning.

6. Faith naturally leads to action. All those heroes of faith mentioned in Heb. 11 did something. Abel offered, Enoch walked with God, Noah built a boat, Abraham left his fatherland; and so with all the others there was action springing from faith. Faith alone had then no defenders, and should have none now. "Faith without works is dead," useless, fit only to be consigned to oblivion. "By works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:20-24). In like manner the believing of the Samaritans moved them to action. When they believed Philip they were baptised, both men and women. They showed their faith in Christ by carrying out the terms of His commission as taught by Philip. Women, as well as men, were immersed.

This is the first mention of the immersion of women. But it does not thence follow that this is the first occasion on which women were immersed. In Acts 5:14, it is said that multitudes both of men and women were added to the Lord; and we know from chapter 2:41, that the way in which they were added was by receiving the word and being immersed. Again, the mention of Sapphira in chapter 5, and of the widows in chapter 6:1, is clear evidence that women were in the church; but only repenting, baptised ones were received into the church. Women, therefore, must have been immersed before Philip left Jerusalem on his campaign in Samaria.

The Revised Version of Acts 8:16, gives another thought respecting baptism, which has not come before us in the conversions already examined. "Only they had been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus." Their baptism was into the name of Jesus. This implies a covenanting to be His faithful servants. It may be illustrated by the baptism of the Israelites into Moses. They were baptised unto - into - Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Not only was there an enveloping by the water of the sea on either side and the cloud above; the baptism thus experienced had a special reference to their following of Moses. They followed him into the sea, and thereby voluntarily acknowledged him as their adopted leader. So in baptism into the name of Jesus there is an acceptance of Him as Lord as well as Saviour; there is a vowing of allegiance to Him for life. The believer, in the act of baptism, promises to serve, and Christ promises to save.

Of those on the day of Pentecost belief is not affirmed. But it is implied in their anxious cry to "Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" It was their belief of what Peter had said to them that led to the earnest inquiry. Peter and the other apostles did not command faith when already it was in existence. They acted on the sensible fashion of indicating the next thing to be done. Peter's command to the believing inquirers was to repent and be baptised. Of the Samaritans no repentance is predicated - only hearing, seeing, believing, and being baptised. In the light of the believing declared of the Samaritans, we can understand that the glad reception of the word - the reception of the commands to be obeyed as well as the teaching about Jesus - by the dwellers in Jerusalem, was equal to belief; while the baptism of the Samaritans was an evidence that they had repented - change of will showed itself in obedience. Faith is included, if not distinctly named, in a glad receiving of the word which is followed by repentance and baptism; and repentance is included, though not named, between believing and acting, i.e., between faith and baptism. In Jerusalem and in Samaria, therefore, the things enjoined upon, and practised by, those who were becoming converts, were faith, repentance, and baptism - acceptance of the word of the Lord, resolution to do His will, and immersion into His name.

1. "Is it not a fact that faith is God's gift?"

This question is occasionally made the means of insinuating that man is helpless until God gives the needed faith - that man has not the means within his reach to acquire faith. Whether the question is made a cover for this innuendo, or the words are taken in their simple and natural meaning, it is briefly answered as follows:-

Yes; faith is God's gift, although the passage usually quoted in proof, does not prove it. I refer to Eph. 2:8. It is not faith, nor grace, but salvation, that is God's gift in this Scripture. Faith, however, if God's gift; but it is through our use of means, as food is God's gift through our employment of means to obtain it. To acquire faith we must make good use of the Scriptures. We should diligently search them until we are convinced, assured, of the reality of the unseen things.

2. Did Simon's baptism do him any good?

The question has sometimes been asked with an evident intention to throw discredit on baptism. Hence, I reply, in the first instance, by asking another question. What if Simon's baptism did him no good? Does the abuse by one man of any of God's appointments, nullify the good of that appointment to others? If Simon misused the ordinance, that should warn us to use it properly, not to neglect it altogether.

But there is no Scripture intimation that Simon did abuse the ordinance. There is no implication that he did not secure the blessing ordinarily obtainable in the baptism of a believer. His belief and baptism are recorded in as unqualified a manner as the belief and baptism of others in Samaria; and no man coming after the historian has any right to discredit either of them, or to insinuate anything discreditable of Simon in connection with them. It is true that he afterwards committed a grievous blunder; but that in no way involves that he was hypocritical in being baptised. Was there ever man or woman baptised who did not sin afterward? Simon's great sin is at once and frankly acknowledged, but it is denied that there is any Scripture authority for impeaching his baptism.