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 ...
Show full excerpt
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)).