Acts 8:17

There cannot be any reason to doubt the validity of St. Philip's baptism, and it is therefore evident that the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 19:6) is here distinct from baptism, and also from the appointment to any Church office (as in Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3), or the bestowal of any special power of healing as in the person of Ananias, Acts 9:12; Acts 9:17, although gifts of healing might no doubt accompany it. But both here and in Acts 19:6 (cf. Hebrews 6:2) it follows closely upon baptism, and is performed by Apostles, to whom alone the function belongs, although it is reasonable to suppose that the prophets and teachers who were associated with them in their Apostolic office, and who could lay on hands in Acts 13:1-3, could do so in other cases also for the reception of the Holy Ghost (Gore, Church and the Ministry, p. 258). The question why St. Philip did not himself “lay hands” upon his converts has been variously discussed, but the narrative of Acts supplies the answer, inasmuch as in the only two parallel cases, viz., the verse before us and Acts 19:6, the higher officers alone exercise this power, and also justifies the usual custom of the Church in so limiting its exercise (“Confirmation,” Dict. of Christian Antiq. (Smith & Cheetham), i., p. 425; B.D. 1, iii., App.; and Hooker, Eccles. Pol., v., ch. lxvi. 5, and passage cited; Jerome, Advers. Lucif., c. 4, and St. Cyprian, Epis. 73, ad Jubaianum (reference to the passage before us)). Undoubtedly there are cases of baptism, Acts 2:41; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33, where no reference is made to the subsequent performance of this rite, but in these cases it must be remembered that the baptiser was an Apostle, and that when this was the case its observance might fairly be assumed. For the special case of Cornelius see below on Acts 10:44, see further “Confirmation,” B.D. 2, i., 640]. Weizsâcker contrasts this account in 8., Acts 5:16, which he describes as this crude conception of the communication of the Spirit solely by the imposition of the Apostles' hands (Apostolic Age, ii., 254 and 299, E.T.), and which represents baptism as being thus completed, with the account of baptism given us by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. But in the first place we should remember that Acts does not describe baptism as being completed by the laying on of hands; the baptism was not invalid, the Samaritan converts became by its administration members of the Church; and the laying on of hands was not so much a completion of baptism as an addition to it. And, in the next place, Hebrews 6:2 certainly indicates that this addition must have been known at a very early period (see Westcott, in loco). It may also be borne in mind that 2 Corinthians 1:21 is interpreted of confirmation by many of the Fathers (cf. too Westcott's interpretation of 1 John 2:20; 1 John 2:27), and that St. Paul is writing a letter and not describing a ritual. ἐλάμβανον : Dr. Hort, who holds that the reception of the Holy Spirit is here explained as in Acts 10:44 by reference to the manifestation of the gift of tongues, etc., points out that the verb is not ἔλαβον, but imperfect ἐλάμβανον, and he therefore renders it “showed a succession of signs of the Spirit” (sec also above). But this interpretation need not conflict with the belief in the gift of the Spirit as a permanent possession, and it is well to remember that ἐπετίθεσαν (ἐπετίθουν) is also imperfect. Both verbs may therefore simply indicate the continuous administration of the laying on of hands by the Apostles, and the continuous supernatural result (not necessarily external manifestation) which followed upon this action; cf. ἐβαπτίζοντο in Acts 8:12, imperfect, and so in Acts 18:8.