Dr. Lampe, for instance, in attempting to explain why Philip’s converts had not received the Spirit in their baptism, is driven to the terrible expedient of suggesting that until Philip’s action was endorsed by the leaders of the Church, “the gift of the Spirit which was received through membership of the Spirit‑possessed community was withheld”.^[1]  If, as Dr. Lampe believes, the gift of the Holy Ghost was normally received through baptism without the Laying on of Hands, are we to infer that in “an unprecedented situation” the unworthiness, ignorance, or excessive zeal of the minister of baptism may hinder the effect of the sacrament?  Has any man power to withhold the gifts of God?  It can hardly be suggested that the Holy Spirit disapproved of Philip’s action, for, as Dr. Lampe says, the Spirit in Samaria “confirms the word of God with signs and wonders”^[2] (Acts 8:6), which surely indicates the Spirit’s approval.  How can this approval be reconciled with the suggestion that the Holy Spirit was withheld from Philip’s converts “until the fact had been demonstrated that the leaders of the Church were in full accord with Philip”?  According to Acts 1:8 our Lord’s last words to the disciples were: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria. . .”  Could anyone knowing of those words be in any doubt about the propriety of admitting Samaritans into the Church?  It is inconceivable that Philip should not have heard of Jesus’ last words: in all probability his last words, like the last words of many outstanding personalities, were most widely discussed and reported in the early Church.  It may indeed have been those words of our Lord which inspired Philip to go on his mission to Samaria.  If he told the Samaritans of the words of Jesus, as is most probable since they would be in the best possible justification for his preaching to them and baptizing them, can they have been in any doubt as to whether they should be accepted into the Church?  Dr. Lampe mentions Barnabas’ visit to Antioch as a parallel to the Apostles’ visit to Samaria, but there is no mention of the Laying on of Hands by Barnabas, which is surely remarkable if the imposition of hands was used in the Apostolic period as “a token of fellowship and solidarity”.  The suggestion that some kind of “ordination” is implied in Acts 8:14-l7 and 19:6 has met with so little support that it need not be discussed further.

Dr. Oulton suggests that Acts 8:4‑17 describes “a new departure in the Church” inasmuch as Samaritans were for the first time baptized and that the visit of the Apostles was necessary because Philip “in preaching and baptizing went beyond his ordained commission”.^[3]  He considers that the passage “does not assert that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit in baptism”, and he finds parallels between Acts 2:41‑7 and 8:5‑13 which indicate “a life in the Spirit” among the Samaritans prior to the visit of the apostles.^[4]  But the fact that Philip, immediately after the Samaritan episode, continued to preach (8:35, 40) and to baptize (8:38) is surely fatal to Dr. Oulton’s suggestion that Philip in Samaria “went beyond his commission”.  If he had indeed exceeded his commission we should expect the apostles would have taken some steps to prevent the repetition of such an error either by reprimanding Philip or by giving him a fuller commission.  There is no evidence that either was done, and Philip cannot have been conscious of having committed any error, or he would not have continued to preach and to baptize.  The chapter ends by informing us that Philip “preached in all the cities until he came to Caesarea”, that is, he returned to work in Samaria – a further indication that he cannot have been conscious of having exceeded his commission.  Is there any other evidence from the history of the early Church to support Dr. Oulton’s view that in Acts 8 and 19 “the manifest tokens of the Holy Spirit are granted in order to demonstrate that an irregularity had been set to rights”?  In the absence of corroborative evidence, the traditional interpretation of these passages seems preferable, since it has the support of Hebrews 6 and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus and is not explicitly contradicted by any other passage in the New Testament.  Dr. Oulton’s attempt to show that the Samaritan converts had received the Spirit before the visit of Peter and John is unconvincing.  Not only is it at variance with Acts 8:15 f., but his parallels between 2:41‑7 and 8:5‑13 are manifestly inconclusive evidence.  Reason and the context both suggest that the “joy” mentioned (8:8, cp. 12:14) are the people’s first and natural reaction to the signs and miracles of healing wrought by Philip, who had already been endowed with the Spirit, as Dr. Lampe points out.  The baptisms followed the performance of the signs according to the order of events in the text (8:12).  There is no evidence that anyone other than Philip performed signs and wonders, or that signs followed the baptisms (had such been the case the Laying on of Hands would have been superfluous).  The fact that homothumadon (“with one accord”) is often used in Acts of hostile, anti-Christian Jews and Gentiles (7:57; 12:20; 18:12; 19:29) renders its occurrence in 8:6 inconclusive as evidence of “life in the Spirit”.  Finally, whereas the three thousand who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine” (2:41, 42, 46), Acts 8:13 does not refer to all the new converts at Samaria but only states that Simon Magus “continued steadfastly” with Philip, and neither the context nor his subsequent conduct suggest that his steadfastness was motivated by disinterested devotion, or a necessary indication of “life in the Spirit”.

On the whole, therefore, acceptance of the traditional interpretation of Acts 8:14‑17 and 19:1‑7 is preferable and more easily justified than the above‑mentioned theories.  Perhaps the opponents of the traditional view have laid too much stress on the alleged silence of St. Paul, and the Verona text of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, and have paid too little attention to the significance of Hebrews 6:1-2.