PHILIP had broken through Jewish conventionality and prejudice in giving the Gospel and its blessings to the Samaritans. He is now called upon to do more of kindred work. A "mutilated alien," whom Deut. 23:1 would debar from the congregation, is to be received as a Christian brother; and Philip is to be his instructor. One of the Lord's messengers gives Philip the preliminary information as to where he should go. He is to travel to the south of Jerusalem towards Gaza. The selected teacher was himself a fine sample of what a disciple should be: where he was told to go he went; what he was commanded to do he did with unquestioning obedience and alacrity.

It seems strange that Philip should be called away from his great and good work in Samaria for the sake of the conversion of one man. Could not one of the apostles have been sent from Jerusalem? They were nearer Gaza than Philip was. Or might not the eunuch have been spoken to before he left Jerusalem? We cannot now learn the reason of the choice of preacher. Perhaps Philip, having been much in company with the broad-minded and far-seeing Stephen, was more open to a full appreciation of the levelling comprehensiveness of the commission than were the apostles themselves at this time. Of this we may be certain, that the Lord's choice of an agent was wise. It should suffice to know that Philip was His choice. Nor can we do more than guess why the visitor was not spoken to until after he had left the Jewish metropolis. Probably his mind was in the most receptive state when he was busy trying to catch the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy, and God timed the appearance of an instructor to the state of mind of the pupil.

But why was a human instrument needed at all? Supposing that it was a superhuman intelligence who told Philip to go, could not such an angel as easily have gone himself as appear to Philip? And would not the good news proclaimed have been all the more entrancing and effective from angelic lips? Or might not the Spirit, who told Philip to join the chariot, Himself have joined and given infallible instruction to the eunuch? Would not this course have been more secure against the possibility of error, and at the same time more economical of agents? Why did not the Spirit teach without the intervention of man, and thereby leave Philip free to remain in Samaria and continue his successful work there?

It is sometimes argued that because the Lord Jesus had intrusted His Gospel to faithful men, He would not interfere with what had been left to them. Such an explanation only removes the difficulty one step farther back. Why did He commit His Gospel to men to be published by them? If angels and Holy Spirit were to take some part in producing conversion, why not leave the way clear for either angel or Spirit to tell the Gospel story and give the commands belonging thereto?

Let us reserve full consideration of this matter until we have examined the conversions of Saul and Cornelius, where there are similar supernatural appearances. At present let us note the fact that a human preacher was employed even when an angel delivered a message and the Spirit gave a command. Let us further note the work of each. It was to Philip, not to the eunuch, that angel and Spirit spoke. They exercised no influence upon the eunuch, save through Philip. They guided Philip where to go, and then Philip communicated the necessary teaching to the eunuch.

was Philip's scholar in the desert. The prophecy of the Psalmist was having fulfilment: "Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God" (Psalm 68:31). Our Ethiopian held a high office under Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians. "Candace is a name, not of an individual, but of a dynasty, like Aretas in Arabia, or like Pharaoh and Ptolemy. By Ethiopia is meant Meroe on the Upper Nile." "After the destruction of Thebes the inhabitants fled to Meroe, which again waxed strong and rich, and assumed a markedly Egyptian character. In the reign of Augustus it was captured by the Romans, and we read of one of its sovereigns, a Queen Candace, as his tributary." "A glance at the map of Nubia will show the reader that at Old Dongola, in latitude 18ø nearly, the Nile suddenly turns to the north-east, ascending above the 20th parallel, when it retraces its course in a southerly direction to its point of confluence with the Tacazze. The peninsular tract thus enclosed was the ancient kingdom of Meroe, whose capital, Napata, where Queen Candace held her state, is now represented by Old Dongola."

Whence the Eunuch came, and what was his sphere of life, are of less importance to us than the indications of his religious life. We now, therefore, turn our attention to

1. He was a worshipper of God. He had been to Jerusalem to worship. He knew the God of the Jews, and had been to the Jewish capital to do homage to Jehovah according to the Old Testament law. And it was no light matter for him to go to Jerusalem. He must have travelled somewhere about a thousand miles from his home in Old Dongola. A man is in earnest who takes such a journey for the purpose of worshipping.

2. He was a thoughtful reader. On his homeward journey he was busy reading a portion of Scripture. His worship of God was not ended when he departed from the temple. His mind was bent in reverent earnestness over the World of God. For his was no careless reading. He was reading aloud; Philip heard him. He was reading deliberately; paying such attention to what he was reading as to discover that he did not understand it. To find out difficulties by our own reading of Scripture is not so much a cause of discouragement as of encouragement. It is often the first step towards obtaining an accurate understanding of what is read. To take as much care in reading as to be able to put difficulties in question form, would be a means of subsequent enlightenment to many readers.

3. He was unassuming. When asked by Philip whether he understood what he was reading, he made no pretension to knowledge that he did not possess. Many people attempt to cloak their ignorance of Scripture, either by talking vague generalities and making orthodox assertions, or by more honest silence. This Scripture-reader frankly confessed his ignorance. How can I understand, he asked, unless some one shall guide me? The deplorable lack of exact knowledge of Bible teaching is often perpetuated by a foolish attempt to conceal ignorance. It may not be altogether our own fault that we do not accurately understand the Scriptures; but whether we be entirely or only partly to blame, it is always wise to lay ourselves open to learn. Without advertising our ignorance, or telling it to every one we meet, we may copy the disciple-like spirit of Queen Candace's chamberlain by frankly confessing ignorance wherever there is the least probability of obtaining information.

4. He asked instruction. Not content with confessing ignorance, the Ethiopian took steps to acquire knowledge. He became questioner, and asked Philip, "Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?" The pointedness and simplicity of the question betoken at once a thinking and a teachable mind. There is no attempt to extract a certain meaning from Isaiah's words - no culpable bringing of a theory and striving to support it by the words of Scripture. The honest inquirer simply wanted to know that the prophet meant. This is the true child-like disposition that will never meditate on God's Word in vain.

5. He was obedient. When he knew the Lord's will there was prompt eagerness to practise it. The Lord had said, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. The eunuch having heard this, and seeing water, said, See, water, what hinders me to be baptised? In connection with this question two or three things merit attention.

a) The eunuch's mention of baptism. Luke does not tell us of Philip saying a word about it, and yet his disciple asked to be baptised. Our historian had adopted the same course in the narrative of the conversion of the Samaritans. Men and women were baptised, but there is not a word of Philip having spoken of baptism to them. Baptism must have been named and explained to the Samaritans and to the Ethiopian. They could not otherwise have known it to be their Saviour's will.

b) His question implies anxiety. What hinders me to be baptised? He saw it to be a privilege to attend to the ordinance, and he was consequently eager to attend to it. According to the teaching of Christ and His apostles, salvation was associated with baptism. To be baptised as a repenting believer was to make sure of Christ's promise of salvation given in Mark 16:16, and of the Holy Spirit's promise of salvation given in Mark 16:16, and of the Holy Spirit's promise through Peter of forgiveness, as recorded in Acts 2:38. There is no wonder that the worshipping, studious, honest, humble, teachable, anxious foreigner longed to meet Christ in His own appointment.

c) The eunuch in his question is a contrast to many in modern times. He asked if he might at once obey the Lord's command. Many now struggle hard to find something to prevent them - an excuse for not being baptised. Why is it so? The reason is not far to seek. New Testament teaching on the place - the design - of this ordinance is not widely believed and is rarely taught. Teachers do not know, and inquirers are not taught the importance attached to obedience by Christ and inspired writers. On the contrary, there is constant teaching of the unimportance, the non-essential nature, of a "mere ceremony." Such anti-scriptural and unreasonable decrying of baptism produces the mischievous effect of indifference, and even antipathy, to the divinely commanded ordinance.

The eunuch chose the better part - that of obedience to the Lord. He had then the preacher's word, the Spirit's word, and the Lord's word, that he was saved. Such assurance filled him with joy. Having obeyed, he went on his way rejoicing. From first to last the man of Ethiopia is a bright exemplar to those who wish to be happy in the possession of salvation.

From a desire to have the excellencies of this inquirer presented as closely as possible in one view, we have passed over the Scripture he was reading. We now return to it. Isa. 53:7-8 are the verses which Philip heard him utter. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living." There is a difference in the words as given in Acts. This is accounted for by the fact that Luke gives the quotation from the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, and not from the Hebrew. But the variation in the words of Isaiah and Acts does not affect the meaning, which may be summarised as follows:-

1. Unresisting innocence. The person spoken of was innocent and unresisting as sheep or lamb taken to shearing or to slaughter.

2. A mock trial. The harmless one had no just trial. It was a sham. He was wrenched from judgment, and obtained no justice.

3. Deprivation of life. The innocent one, ruthlessly deprived of the justice of a trial, was cruelly put to death; his life was taken from the earth.

4. A wicked generation. It is impossible adequately to depict the wickedness of the generation that so unrelentingly murdered an inoffensive man.

Some one was innocent, and unresisting amid enforced maltreatment; he was hurried off from a sham trial to execution by his wicked contemporaries. Who was he that was thus treated? asked the reader. He was Jesus of Nazareth, responded the preacher. Philip "beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus."

The man of Nazareth was the innocent One, against whom even His bitterest enemies could bolster up no indictment. He was the unresisting One, who did not strive, nor cry, nor lift up His voice in self-defence or in demolition of the paltry twaddle of His accusers. His was the mock trial. It was characteristically begun in the darkness of night, and a decision come to before break of day. His was the precious life that was sacrificed. And His contemporaries constituted the sinful generation that chose to liberate a notorious robber and murderer and to condemn to the ignominies of crucifixion Him against whom their most persistent and diabolical scrutiny and scheming were unable to find any material out of which to construct a charge that would stand the light of day.

Thus, a brief rehearsal of the life and death of Jesus would show that in Him Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled. The eunuch soon became satisfied that the prophet spoke of Jesus. For though we omit the thirty-seventh verse, as not found in some manuscripts, we have ample evidence left of the faith of the Ethiopian. Philip could not finish the story of Jesus without telling of the resurrection and the commission. His listener believed every word so heartily that he asked permission to act on his belief by being baptised. Both men went down into, not merely to, the water, and Philip buried his ardent disciple in the watery grave; he immersed him into the saving name.

And now their career together was ended. It had been brief, and it had been blissful. Seed was sown, and a beginning made, the full harvest of which no human mind can calculate. A good beginning had been made, but continuity was necessary, and something was done to leave the convert without a shadow of doubt. A concluding proof was given that the teacher was a man of God. The spirit of the Lord snatched away Philip, as Elijah had been taken from Elisha. Teaching and miracle were again hand in hand. Philip was taken to other spheres of labour, and the man of Ethiopia returned to his queen and country the possessor of wealth, compared with which all the treasures of his sovereign were but as dust and refuse. He had become an heir of glory and of God.

1. Is an inquirer now as dependent upon the presence of a human teacher as was the eunuch?

No; for a modern inquirer has in his possession not only Philip's teaching to the eunuch, and to the Samaritans, but Peter's to the Jews, and to Cornelius, and Paul's to the jailor, and to others. Inquirers in the days of apostles had no New Testament from which they could learn what the apostles of Christ taught. They had to learn from human lips. In some respects we are more favoured in having the record of much teaching and much apostolic practice that we can quietly study, and diligently compare. There is no living Philip ever brought to a reader by angel and Spirit; but the everlasting teaching which he and others gave abides with us in language that we can understand, even though we have no living voice to guide us. Every inquirer, therefore, who possessed a copy of the Acts of the Apostles, has the means of knowing the way of salvation; and if he remains in ignorance or disobedience, he has himself to blame.

But Christians should recognise the value of the living voice in disseminating truth. Many will listen who would not trouble to read. The melody of the voice, and the expressiveness of the countenance, may captivate; whereas the printer's type might repel or lull to sleep. Christians! scatter the Scriptures freely. Whosoever reads may understand. Combined therewith, however, employ every voice which is prompted by a heart filled with love to Christ, and accompanied by a life consecrated to Him.

2. Is there any reason for treating the separation of Philip from the eunuch as miraculous? "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."

The writer from whom the previous quotation is made, has not done justice to himself nor his subject. He has substituted assertion for induction. His positive "no doubt" becomes, under careful examination, not only a doubt, but an inexcusable blunder. The evidence points to something differing widely from a monition. Monition, indeed! Is the catching of the sheep by the wolf simply a monition to the sheep to move on? Was it a monition that the Jews were contemplating when they "would come and take Jesus by force, to make Him King"? Was it by monition that some one, of whom Paul speaks, was caught up to the third heaven, and caught up to paradise? Will it be by monition that the resurrected saints and the living believers will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air? In these, and in every other passage where the same word is found in the original as that which is used of Philip being caught away, the idea of monition is unsuitable. The meaning of the word - "to seize, take away by force, snatch away" - and the usage of the word alike point to a miraculous removal of Philip.