ANOTHER example of conversion under the ministry of Peter we have yet to examine. Along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean he had been sowing the good seed, and reaping an abundant harvest. Sharon had resounded with joy because of the good tidings of great joy which he disseminated among the inhabitants. His labours had extended to Joppa. During his stay there, the way was opened for him travelling still farther north. An urgent call, in which there was a voice more authoritative than the invitation of disciples, summoned him to

"Strabo, in the reign of Augustus, describes at this part of the inhospitable coast of Palestine nothing but a landing-place with a castle called Stato's tower. Less than eighty years afterwards we read in Tacitus and Pliny of a city here, which was in possession of honourable privileges, which was the 'Head of Judea,' as Antioch was of Syria." Herod the Great "built on the shore between Dora and Joppa, where Strato's castle stood near the boundary of Galilee and Samaria, a city of sumptuous palaces in honour of Augustus Caesar. The city was provided with everything that could contribute to magnificence, amusement, and health. But its great boast was its harbour, which provided for the ships which visited that dangerous coast a safe basin." Herod having begun and completed the building of Cesarea in twelve years, made it "his residence, and this elevated it to the rank of the civil and military capital of Judea." Jerusalem was the centre of Judaism; Cesarea was the seat of Roman rule. Religion was predominant in Jerusalem; worldly power and magnificence in Cesarea. "Not only do we see here the residence of Roman procurators, the quarters of imperial troops, and the port by which Judea was entered from the west, but a Roman impress was ostentatiously given to everything that belonged to Cesarea. The conspicuous object to those who approached from the sea was a temple dedicated to Caesar and to Rome; the harbour was called the Augustan harbour; the city itself was Augustan Cesarea." But "its glory was short-lived. Its decay has been complete, as its rise was arbitrary and sudden." "Herod's magnificent city is a wreck on the shore." It "has perished, like the Roman Empire which called it into existence." "Nothing now remains of the former splendour of Cesarea: the supposed sites of the ancient edifices are mere mounds of indefinable form; the waves wash the ruins of the mole, the tower, and the port; the whole of the surrounding country is a sandy desert; and not a creature, except beasts of prey, resides within many miles of this silent desolation."

Philip visited Cesarea shortly after the conversion of the eunuch, and afterwards had his home there (Acts 8:40; 21:8). Saul visited it on his way from Jerusalem through Syria to Cilicia (chap. 9:30). But whether Philip or Saul had announced the good tidings of the Saviour, and gained any disciples prior to Peter's visit, we know not. There is no intimation of any company of disciples in Cesarea at the time that Peter received the call to proceed thither. On one of his journeys to Jerusalem, Saul landed at this seaport (18:22); and afterwards he had a long stay there as a Roman prisoner, and spoke before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa (23-26).

was the one to whose house Peter had an invitation. Cornelius was a name of great fame among the Romans. This Cornelius was in command of a cohort of soldiers, whose name of Italian band probably denotes that the company was drawn from Italy. The character of the soldier is of more importance than Roman renown or his position of trust in the army.

1. He was devout; i.e. pious, religious, addicted to worship, having reverence. This quality is predicated alike of Cornelius and of Ananias, the "devout man according to the law," who instructed and baptised Saul.

2. Cornelius feared God. The object of his reverence was the living God. He stood in awe of Him who was the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac. He had reverential fear towards the Creator. Such fear is the beginning of knowledge and of wisdom (Prov. 1:7; 9:10).

3. His household was God-fearing. Some men, though themselves worshippers of God, utterly fail to infuse their religious spirit into their families and dependants. The religion of Cornelius was of so genuine a nature as to commend it to those who had the best opportunity of knowing him in his every-day life.

4. He was a just man. He was upright in his dealings with others.

5. Benevolence characterised the soldier of Cesarea. He gave much alms.

6. He was of good repute. Brief follies and comparatively small sins tarnish a good name. Even a good character is sometimes damaged by slander and false report. He of whom a whole nation speaks well, as the Jews did of Cornelius, occupies a place to be desired, and almost certainly possesses a character of worth.

7. He had a good influence over his friends. When Peter arrived in Cesarea, he "found many that were come together." Cornelius "had called together his kinsmen and near friends."

8. The centurion was a man of prayer. He "prayed to God alway." He was an illustration of what is meant by praying without ceasing.

9. He fasted. Whatever may be thought of fasting as a duty, there can be no reasonable doubt of the thorough earnestness of one who fasted, as Cornelius did, until three o'clock in the afternoon.

If any man has half the recommendations of Cornelius, he is hailed all round as a thorough Christian. But that only shows how sadly modern professing Christians have deflected from New Testament teaching; for Cornelius had still to learn words by which to be saved (chap. 11:13-14). Peter had to be sent for to teach him the way of salvation.

Natural and supernatural means were set in operation by God that Cornelius might learn the way of salvation from the lips of Peter.

1. An angel was sent to Cornelius. His prayers and alms which had ascended to God as a memorial, were acknowledged by an angel visiting him. The instruction given by the angel was where Peter was lodging, and that he was to be sent for.

2. Messengers were sent by Cornelius for Peter. Cornelius was prompt to obey the command of the angel. Three men - two of his household attendants and a devout soldier - were immediately despatched to travel the thirty miles which lie between Cesarea and Joppa. When the men arrived in Joppa, they informed Peter of the character of Cornelius, and the visit and message of the angel.

3. A vision was given to Peter. While the men were approaching his lodgings Peter was undergoing a process of education to fit him for the part he was to take in Cesarea. He is described as having been in a trance. His felt need of food was utilised by God to communicate a needed lesson. But his Jewish sentiments and susceptibilities were shocked by being told to appease his hunger by partaking of prohibited animals. He recognised the vision as from heaven, but it seemed so repugnant to a Jew to touch unclean animals that Peter's outspoken honesty, as occasionally to the Redeemer, ventured an objection, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." He received his answer, and was willing to accept it; but what did it mean? "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." There was a deeper lesson than Peter could yet perceive; and forasmuch as the lesson was of gravest importance, and required to be deeply planted in his mind, the impressive act was performed three times.

4. The Spirit spoke to Peter. But no explanation was yet offered; there was simply a mandate to go with the visitors. "Behold, three men seek thee. Arise, therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

The attentive reader will remember that this blending of the natural and the miraculous is as it was at the conversion of the eunuch and of Saul; and he will observe that there and here the showing of the way of salvation was left to be done by a man. In the co-operation of superhuman and human agency, it was left to the human agent to teach the way of salvation. Saul had three days to wait, and Cornelius four, for the coming of the human teacher. How to be saved was learned from human lips by the eunuch, by Saul, and by Cornelius. And it is not on record that the gospel and its conditions were ever taught in any other way than by human agency. Even when miraculous intervention was common there was the constant employment of human agents. The Spirit might speak, but it was to the disciple, not to the inquirer. Angels might appear, and visions and trances be given; but these only brought the teacher and the learner face to face. It was God's plan that man should learn by the aid of his fellow-man.

Then, too, there was a special fitness in the means employed in each case. Saul was to be an apostle. It was therefore needful that he should see the Lord and receive his apostolic commission direct. Hence the appearance to him of the Lord, not of an angel. Cornelius was praying. The angelic appearance was the beginning of the answer to his prayer. The eunuch was studying the Scriptures; God had already set the means in operation whereby he might learn the full meaning of what he was reading. These two seekers after truth had no ordinary means within their reach of learning the truth. God in His kindness supplied the means miraculously. With us it is different. We have the teaching of Peter, Philip, and others. It would be a useless display of the supernatural to give us angelic apparitions or trances. If men hear not apostolic teaching as recorded in the New Testament, neither would they hear though they had a visitant from the spirit world.

Accompanied with six Christian Jews, Peter started off to Cesarea. On his arrival, "Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." This manly refusal of the genuine homage of Cornelius is a standing rebuke to the pompous assumptions of priestcraft and the sanctimonious airs of clericalism.

It required the rehearsal by Cornelius of his interview with the angel to conclude the chain of evidence that had been gradually gathering, and to ripen Peter for the work to be done. Our attention must now be turned to

The ten verses which contain what Peter said to Cornelius and his friends may be arranged under three heads.

1. What Peter had just learned.

Peter was a disciple as well as an apostle. His mind was open to expand under increased light. Nor was he unwilling to acknowledge progress. Immediately on his entering the house he had confessed to the whole company that God had shown him that he should not call any man common or unclean; and now, in opening his address, he further confesses a new perception. "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him." This declaration may be viewed in two parts.

a) The impartiality of God. That was a great deal for a Jew to perceive. The Jews deemed themselves such favourites of Heaven, and the Gentiles so far off, that for Peter to learn and avow the truth of God's impartiality was to have made a great advance in three or four days.

b) The acceptance by God of every God-fearer who behaves rightly, no matter of what nationality. Acceptance with God cannot mean being saved; for, as we have already seen, Cornelius had still to learn how to be saved. But acceptance with God means much. It meant, in the case of Cornelius, that God took favourable notice of him, and adopted the necessary means to give him the knowledge of salvation. His nationality was of no moment, but his character was noted by God. That character, though neither a proof of salvation nor a condition of it, was nevertheless an evidence that he was ripe for learning and accepting the conditions of salvation.

2. What the inhabitants of Cesarea already knew.

They knew what had been published throughout all Judea about Jesus of Nazareth. Doing little more than enumerating the items, we note -

a) It was a message from God to the Jews.

b) It was a peaceful proclamation.

c) It was delivered by Jesus Christ.

d) The message was published throughout Palestine. It began from Galilee and spread throughout Judea.

e) It dated from the baptism which John taught.

f) It consisted of facts about Jesus, viz.:-

(1) God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. The anointing of the Old Testament was the emptying of a horn full of olive oil upon the head. Thus was Aaron anointed to be priest, Elisha to be prophet, and David to be king. Jesus was anointed, not by man, but by God; not with olive oil, but with the Holy Spirit and power. He was anointed, not merely to be a prophet, or priest, or king, but to be all these, and more than these. His anointing took place at His baptism. "And Jesus, when He was baptised, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:16-17). Thenceforth he was "full of the Holy Spirit."

(2) Jesus did good deeds. By a brief sentence of two words Peter gave an apt description of the whole public life of Jesus. In our language it is expressed thus: He went about doing good.

(3) Jesus cured all whom the devil oppressed. Diseases are here designated oppression by the slanderer. It reminds us of Heb. 2:14, where it is asserted that the devil had the power of death. Christ's work is an antidote to the arch-enemy's mischief.

Within the three verses which contain the well-known report respecting Jesus, there are two statements which were probably made by Peter as explanatory, and are not to be reckoned as part of the known word. They are the last words of the thirty-sixth verse - "He is Lord of all;" and the last words of the thirty-eighth - "God was with Him.

3. What Peter added.

a) The claim of witnesses. "We are witnesses" probably includes the six brethren who had come with Peter from Joppa.

b) The death of Jesus. "Hanging Him on a tree" describes the dishonourable death to which He was subjected.

It is not asserted that these items were all alike unknown to Cornelius and his friends. They had probably heard of the crucifixion of Jesus. But the rumours respecting it would naturally be more conflicting than the testimony about His benevolent life, and the design and value of the death would be entirely unknown.

c) His resurrection.

4. His appearance after the resurrection to chosen witnesses, viz:-

a) Openly - manifestly. There was neither darkness nor dubiety in the Lord showing Himself to the disciples.

b) Unmistakably. They had ample opportunity of being thoroughly certain; they ate and drank with Him.

5. His command to the chosen witnesses to preach and to testify.

6. The subject to be testified - that Jesus is the God-appointed Judge both of the living and the dead. His dominion includes the spirit world.

7. The testimony of the prophets to Jesus as the sin-pardoner. "By His knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many" (Isa. 53:11).

This address differs from Peter's previous ones in that, on this occasion, he had no defence to make, and there was no explanation needed of anything that was perplexing the hearers. He was not under suspicion of being under the influence of wine, as on the day of Pentecost. Probably his true position as an authoritative representative of God was better appreciated in Cesarea that at first among his own countrymen. But the main points of Peter's previous addresses are here also. The theme of discourse is the same - Jesus Christ, Lord of all. The working of miracles, because God was with Him, corresponds to the 'man approved of God by miracles,' of Acts 2. There is also the appeal to what his hearers knew in the words "ye know," as in Acts 2, "ye yourselves also know." The antithesis between the attitude of God and the Jews towards Jesus is here, too. And here, as on former occasions, we have the work of the witnesses and the testimony of the prophets.

There are, however, fresh points for consideration. Anointing with the Holy Spirit and power has not before been named, and yet it is more a variation of expression than of thought. To be anointed was to be christed; in Jerusalem Peter had asserted that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ. The following things are additional:- (1) The agency of the devil; (2) the assertion of the forcible nature of the evidence for the resurrection; (3) Christ the Judge; (4) remission through belief.

1. Is not justification by faith alone taught by the promise that "whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins"?

Is confession alone taught by John, when he says, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he is God" (1 John 4:15)? If so, even faith is dismissed. That should convince us of the absurdity of interpolating 'alone' into any passage. The confession upon which life in God is predicated, is not confession alone; but a confession accompanied with faith and other Scripture conditions. So the belief of Acts 10:43 is not believing alone, but in company with other divinely-appointed conditions of salvation. it was believing which, in that very audience, resulted in baptism. The careful reader will also observe that the question omits three important words - "through His name." It is through Christ's name that whosoever believes receives remission. How through His name? In what way must His name be used? Believers are called upon to be baptised into His name, and thereby receive pardon. The verse itself, therefore, contains within it a refutation of faith alone.

2. The falling of the Holy Spirit on the audience in Cesarea reminded Peter of the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Does not that show that pouring is baptism?

It was the Holy Spirit that was poured. If, therefore, the pouring were the baptism, the Holy Spirit was baptised. But the pouring and the baptism are affirmed of different parties. The Spirit was poured, and Peter's hearers were baptised; just as the water is poured into the baptistery, and believers are baptised in it. The pouring preceded the baptism, and was no part of it. Whenever 'pouring' and 'baptism' are made to exchange places, nonsensical and impossible assertions ensue, showing that pouring is not baptism.

3. I have been baptised with the Holy Spirit, and therefore do not need baptism in water.

It would not be difficult to disprove the statement of those who talk so confidently about having been baptised with the Spirit. But if we meet them on their own ground by supposing that they have been baptised with the Holy Spirit, we can at once show that they have learned their logic from a different teacher than Peter, and from a different text-book than the New Testament. The objection before us is a short-sighted excuse often urged in favour of neglect of believers' immersion. One glance at Peter's question by any one who believes that he was inspired, would lead to the opposite conclusion. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" Peter in effect says, 'Because these men have received the Holy Spirit, I argue that they should be immersed in water, and I therefore command them to be immersed.'