Acts 8:14-17

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 8:14. Sent.—The mission of the two apostles, Peter and John, is not said to have had as its motive the imparting of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans (Holtzmann), although this was undoubtedly a consequence which flowed from their mission.

Acts 8:15. Prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.—Not the ordinary converting influences of the Spirit, which they must already have received, since they had believed, but those miraculous endowments which had been conferred upon the Pentecostal believers (Acts 2:4).

Acts 8:16. As yet He was fallen upon none of them.—Contrast the case of Cornelius and his household, upon whom the Spirit fell before baptism (Acts 10:44); and compare that of John’s disciples in Ephesus, who were first baptised, and afterwards endowed with the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1).

Acts 8:17. Then laid they, the apostles, their hands on them, and they, the Samaritans, received the Holy Ghost.—That none but the apostles had the power of imparting the Spirit, and that this was the reason why the preaching of Philip did not secure this endowment for the Samaritans (Hofmann), cannot be maintained in face of Acts 9:17 and 1 Timothy 4:14. Still less can the non-descent of the Holy Ghost in this case be ascribed to a difference between Philip’s preaching and that of the apostles (Neander). Possibly the reason lay in this, that as the Samaritans were half-heathen, it was the purpose of the Holy Ghost to mark their reception into the Church (which their endowment with His miraculous gifts attested) by a formal act through the hands of the apostles, which would carry with it all the weight of authorisation. There is no ground for thinking that the Spirit intended here to institute a new rite corresponding to Confirmation.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 8:14

The Mission of Peter and John; or, the Confirmation of the Saints

I. The occasion of this mission.—The report about Samaria. The good news could not be kept from spreading. The apostles at headquarters took deep interest in the progress of the cause which for a moment the persecution had seemed to overwhelm. When perhaps the outlook appeared blackest, this information which came to them from Samaria would seem like the breaking forth of a star upon the dark firmament overhead.

II. The authors of this mission.—The Apostles. These had not left Jerusalem, but remained at their post. Not, as some think, because through Stephen’s superior brilliancy they had dropped into obscurity, and so in a manner had become safe from persecution (Stokes), but because, like brave men, they felt it incumbent on them rather to face the peril than to flee. (See on Acts 8:1.)

III. The agents of this mission.—Peter and John, who appear to have been drawn to one another by common affinities and by perceiving each in the other the complement of himself, and to have acted in concert after the resurrection (Acts 3:1; John 20:4) as well as before (Matthew 27:1; Luke 8:51).

IV. The fulfilment of this mission.—

1. They went down to Samaria. Ever ready to “doe the next thing,” and to execute whatever task was laid upon them, they proceeded to Samaria. Regarding the instructions of their colleagues as an expression of the Spirit’s mind, they obeyed. At the same time, their own wisdom and zeal would without doubt concur in the expediency of the journey.

2. They prayed for the converts. These had not yet received the seal of the Holy Ghost—i.e., in His miracle-working endowments—though it need not be questioned they had received the Spirit in His ordinary gracious operations. Accordingly the two apostles prayed that this further seal of conversion might be given them.

3. They laid their hands upon the converts. The result they expected followed. The converts received the Holy Ghost, and doubtless (though it is not so stated) began to speak with tongues and perhaps work miracles of healing, as afterwards the Spirit-endowed believers in the Christian Church did (1 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Corinthians 10). The communication of such gifts was of course only symbolically brought about by the imposition of the apostles’ hands. Their unseen but real bestower was the glorified Christ. (See “Critical Remarks.”)

V. The termination of this mission—

1. When? After they (the apostles) had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, Peter and John neglected no opportunity of either confirming the disciples or making new converts. Neither should their successors in the ministry.

2. How? They returned to Jerusalem. Not directly, but preaching by the way to many villages of the Samaritans—thus bringing on themselves the blessedness of them who sow beside all waters (Isaiah 32:20).

Lessons.—

1. The interest which all should take in the spread of the gospel.
2. The true source of spiritual endowments—the Holy Spirit.
3. The unwearied diligence which Christian preachers should ever show.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 8:14. Peter and John; or, the First Apostolic Delegates.

I. Their relation to the apostolic college.—

1. Not the heads, but ordinary members. If in the Church they were reputed to be pillars (Galatians 2:9), they yet claimed no supremacy over their colleagues in the apostleship; not even though they had received distinctions above their brethren in the days before the crucifixion (Mark 5:37; Mark 9:2; Mark 14:33), and after the resurrection (John 21:15).

2. Not the senders, but the sent. They manifestly did not regard themselves as invested with authority to command their brethren, but viewed the whole body of the Twelve as of co-ordinate rank. They did not even think of disputing the right of the Twelve to appoint them to such a work as the mission to Samaria.

II. The reasons for their selection.—Why these and not a different pair—say Andrew and James—were deputed to execute this work may with some degree of probability be surmised.

1. Their personal capabilities were most likely such as to mark them out as leaders; and this inference receives ample confirmation from their writings which have been preserved in the New Testament

2. Their spiritual experience through their close and intimate fellowship with the Master was manifestly such as to qualify them beyond others for the execution of a delicate and responsible task like that of visiting and reporting on the great revival in Samaria.

3. Their close friendship of many years’ standing fitted them to act as colleagues on this important mission. They had long been accustomed to act in concert.

4. Their individual temperaments, on the one hand, of energy and impulse, fortitude and decision; on the other hand, of love and gentleness, thoughtfulness and sympathy, supplied the two elements that were specially demanded for the contemplated visitation.

III. The special object of their mission.—This may be gathered from the context.

1. To inspect and report upon the awakening in Samaria. To judge whether it was a genuine work of grace, or only a temporary excitement.

2. If found genuine, to complete it by receiving the baptised into Church fellowship, by laying hands upon them and praying for their endowment with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:14. The First Church Visitation.

I. The occasion.—I. There is Christian life to be fostered (Acts 8:14).

2. There is a want in the Church to be supplied (Acts 8:16).

II. The visitors.—

1. Peter: apostolic earnestness and zeal.
2. John: evangelical tenderness and mildness.

III. The functions.—

1. Prayer in the name of the Church (Acts 8:15).

2. Imposition of hands in the name of God (Acts 8:17).

IV. The effects.—

1. The strengthening of the Church (Acts 8:17).

2. The sifting of the Church (Acts 8:18).—Gerok.

Acts 8:17. Receiving the Holy Ghost.

I. A possibility.—Otherwise Peter would not have promised it (Acts 2:38).

II. A necessity.—Otherwise Peter would not have gone to pray for it.

III. A certainty.—Otherwise God’s promise would be falsified and Christ’s prayer for His people would be unanswered, and the lives of believers would be incomplete.

IV. A mystery.—Otherwise we should be able to comprehend it, which we are not.

HOMILETIGAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 8:18

The Two Simons; or, the Detection of a Hypocrite

I. Simon Magus’s proposal.—

1. What suggested it. The sight which he beheld. The coming down of the Holy Ghost upon those on whom the Apostle’s hands were laid. This shows that the recipients of the Holy Ghost must in some external fashion—probably through speaking with tongues or working miracles—have indicated their possession of the heavenly gift.

2. What accompanied it. An offer of money. This revealed that Simon had no right conception either of the nature of the miraculous endowment which had been conferred upon the Samaritan believers (and perhaps also upon himself) or of the means which had been used in its bestowment.

3. What composed it. A request that the apostles should impart to him, not the Holy Ghost, which possibly along with others he may have received, but the power of conferring the Holy Ghost with His supernatural gifts upon others. Simon recognised in what Peter and John had effected a power that transcended his own, and wished to secure it for himself, that by its means he might stand on a level with the apostles as a thaumaturge and be able to recover his lost influence with the people.

II. Simon Peter’s Refusal.

1. A terrible denunciation. “Thy money perish with thee!” Literally, may thy silver with thee be for destruction!

(1) The meaning. Hardly an imprecation, which would not have been becoming in a follower of Him who said, “Let your communication be ‘Yea, yea; Nay, nay,’ for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37), and who taught His disciples to bless and curse not (Matthew 5:41 Luke 6:28; Romans 12:14). Scarcely even a prediction that Simon was destined to perdition, since he afterwards directs Simon how that awful doom might be averted (Acts 8:22). But most likely and best, a strong and solemn asseveration that he, Simon, being in such a state of mind would certainly share that destruction which would eventually overtake his money, as all other earthly goods, which in their nature are perishable (Colossians 2:22). “Gold and silver would perish in the end. Equally valueless and perishable would be the life of an unrighteous man. The corruptible nature of that gold and silver which man prizes so dearly seems to have been ever in Peter’s mind, and to have entered continually into his arguments” (Spence). Compare 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18.

(2) The reason. “Because thou hast thought that the gift of God might be purchased,” or “to obtain the gift of God with money.” The proposal revealed that Simon had not apprehended the true nature of what had taken place. Neither the character of the blessing bestowed—which was a spiritual influence; nor the author of its bestowment—God, and neither Peter nor other man; nor the terms of its bestowment—as a free gift, so that no quantity of gold or silver could purchase it. Compare what is said of wisdom (Job 28:15). 2, An alarming declaration. “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter.” Concerning which also must be noted:

(1) The import of it—viz., that Simon had no share either in the word or doctrine of the Gospel which Peter preached, or in the Holy Ghost which God imparted to believers, so that even if apostolic hands had been laid upon him it was wholly in vain, or in the Christian community to which all Spirit-endowed believers belong. This was practically a sentence of excommunication on Simon. It excluded him from the congregation of believing and regenerated men, because his speech disclosed he should never have been reckoned with these.
(2) The ground of it. “Thy heart is not right in the sight of God” or “before God.” There was more at fault with Simon than defective understanding. His heart was not straight (compare 2 Kings 10:15, LXX.; 2 Peter 2:15), not sincere and upright. Crooked, perverse, and corrupt, it was directed towards not spiritual, but earthly things. It thirsted not for eternal life but for temporal power, sought not God’s glory, but its own fame. Though it might seem otherwise in men’s sight, such was its character in the eyes of God.

3. A solemn exhortation. “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness,” etc. Setting forth

(1) An urgent duty. To repent of his wickedness, since without godly sorrow for past sin moral improvement was impossible. To turn from his wickedness. This also was implied, inasmuch as no repentance could be sincere that did not lead to a changed life. To pray God or the Lord for forgiveness, because even repentance and reformation cannot cancel or atone for past guilt. And such guilt attached to the wicked thought of the heart quite as much as to the evil deed of the hand or sinful word of the mouth (Matthew 15:19).

(2) A fearful uncertainty. “If perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Peter could have no doubt that “all manner of sin could” and would be “forgiven unto men” if they repented and believed (Matthew 12:31), but in this case he appeared uncertain whether the special sin committed did not fall within the category of sins for which no forgiveness can be found either in this life or in that which is to come (Matthew 12:31; 1 John 5:16). Peter’s language shows that the power of absolution conferred on the apostles by Christ (John 20:23) was not absolute, and could not be exercised in every or any case except conditionally on the repentance and faith of the individual absolved.

(3) An appalling argument. Peter justifies his uncertainty as to the possibility of Simon’s forgiveness by stating that Simon was “in the gall of bitterness”—i.e., in bitterness, wickedness, hostility, as in gall, “and in the bond of iniquity”—i.e., in unrighteousness as in a chain. Not that he would lapse into such a condition if he did not repent (Stier), but that already he had fallen into and was abiding in it. The gall of noxious reptiles having been considered by the ancients as the seat of their venom, Peter, by the selection of this metaphor, virtually said that Simon was actuated by a spirit of bitter hostility against the Gospel, that the seat of this bitterness was in his corrupt heart, and that this malignity which his evil nature cherished held him fast like a chain, or bond.

III. Simon Magus’s entreaty.

1. What was right about it.

(1) It was good that Simon felt alarmed and thought of prayer, rather than magic, as a means of averting his peril.
(2) It was better that he sought the friendly mediation of Peter to make supplication on his behalf, whereas he might have turned upon Peter with cursing and violence.
(3) It was best that he directed Peter to lay his prayer before the Lord against whom he had sinned. Even of bad men it is right to take the most charitable view, and these thoughts suggest hope for Simon the Magician.
2. What was wrong about it.

(1) That he prayed not himself but merely asked (perhaps mockingly) Peter to pray for him.
(2) That he only wished to elude the threatened punishment of his wickedness, and had no concern about escaping from the wickedness itself.
(3) That he made no mention of feeling sorry for his sin, but only “confessed his fear of punishment, not horror of guilt” (Bengel). In all which he resembled Pharaoh, who entreated Moses to intercede with Jehovah for him (Exodus 8:29; Exodus 9:28; Exodus 10:17), and yet afterwards hardened his heart.

IV. Simon Peter’s silence. It is not said that the apostle complied with the magician’s request. The inference is that he did not.

1. Not because it would have been wrong to pray for another. Intercessory prayer was practised by Old Testament saints, as Abraham (Genesis 17:18; Genesis 17:20; Genesis 18:23), Moses (Exodus 8:2; Exodus 8:13; Exodus 8:30), Samuel (1 Samuel 7:5), and Elijah (1 Kings 17:20); was enjoined upon New Testament disciples by Christ (Matthew 5:44), and is still enforced upon believers as a duty (Ephesians 6:18; 1 Timothy 2:1; James 5:16; 1 John 5:16).

2. Not because the forgiveness of heinous sin was impossible. If Simon Magus’s wickedness was outside the reach of pardon Peter did not know this, else he would not have urged on Magus to pray for forgiveness. But

3. Because the conditions of true prayer were wanting. Simon was not in a proper state of mind to be interceded for, being destitute of both repentance and faith. Peter may have supplicated heaven for his awakening, and perhaps did so in secret; while Simon continued as he was, Peter could not beseech God for the granting of his request. Whether the magician ever repented and reformed cannot be told. Ecclesiastical tradition reports that after his interview with Peter he went back to his old courses like a dog to his vomit, etc. (2 Peter 2:22), and became a bitter opponent of Christianity.

Learn—

1. That many who profess to be converted are still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.
2. That heaven’s gifts—whether in providence or in grace—cannot be purchased for money, but must always be accepted free.
3. That the purchase and sale of spiritualities (usually called Simony) is a heinous sin.
4. That “the heart aye’s the past aye, that makes us right or wrong” (Burns).
5. That the first thing to be done with sin is to repent of it, and the second thing to seek its forgiveness.

6. That sinful thoughts and feelings as much require repentance and forgiveness as sinful words and Acts 7. That if Peter could read the heart of Magus, much more can God read the hearts of all.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 8:18. Money.

I. Rightly viewed.—God’s gift to man.

1. Because the silver and the gold are Mine saith the Lord (Haggai 2:8).

2. Because no man can possess it except it be given him from above (John 3:27; James 1:17).

3. Because the ability to earn money comes from God (Deuteronomy 8:18).

3. Because God can recall it at any moment (Job 1:21).

II. Wrongly used.—When employed to purchase the Holy Ghost, or salvation.

1. Because the Holy Ghost, a spiritual gift, cannot be purchased by carnal things.
2. Because the Holy Ghost, a heavenly gift, cannot be purchased by earthly things.
3. Because the Holy Ghost, a free gift, cannot be purchased by anything.

Acts 8:21. A Heart not Right with God.

I. When destitute of true faith (Hebrews 11:6).

II. When anxious to make gain of godliness (1 Timothy 6:5).

III. When desirous of purchasing salvation.

IV. When secretly in love with sin (Psalms 66:18).

V. When a veiled enemy of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:10).

Acts 8:22. The Thoughts of the Heart.

I. Naturally wicked (Genesis 6:5).

II. Thoroughly understood (Proverbs 15:11).

III. All forgivable (Matthew 12:31).

IV. Certainly damnable, if not repented of (Luke 13:3).

Acts 8:24. Intercessory Prayer.

I. Commanded (Matthew 5:44; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Timothy 2:1; James 5:16).

II. Exemplified. Abraham (Genesis 17:18; Genesis 19:23); Moses (Exodus 32:31); David (2 Samuel 24:17); Paul (Romans 1:9).

III. Solicited.—By Pharaoh (Exodus 8:8; Exodus 8:28); Israelites (Numbers 21:7); Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:6); Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:1); Zedekiah (Jeremiah 37:3).

IV. Answered.—For Ishmael (Genesis 17:20); Pharaoh (Exodus 8:12; Exodus 8:30); Miriam (Numbers 12:13); Aaron (Deuteronomy 9:20); Peter (Acts 12:5); etc.

V. Refused.—To Judah (Jeremiah 7:16; Jeremiah 11:14; Jeremiah 14:11) and Simon Magus.

Acts 8:14. The Mistakes of Simon.

I. He sought to purchase spiritual gifts with money.—Rich men try to buy the favour of Him whom they have neglected all their lives by great gifts to His cause. Poor men try to do it by some outward service which is not loving sonship. It is the mistake of all who cannot understand that God’s offer is so free. So for penitence, which is only a motive to return to God and to receive His pardon, they substitute some penance which is the offering of our pains of mind or body to Him as the condition on which we ask His grace. It makes but little difference whether it is in a grosser or more spiritual form, whether it by the flagellation of our bodies or the torturing of our souls. God gives pardon; He does not sell it. Sin can earn wages, such as they are, but eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ is the gift of God’s free grace.

II. He sought spiritual gifts that he might use them for selfish ends.—For it is impossible not to suppose that he offered money for money’s worth. He had been a magician, and accustomed to receive the pay as well as the praises of the Samaritans. He desired this apostolic power that by its aid he might be both exalted and enriched. Here again, although the form of Simon’s sin is exceptionally gross, the spirit of it is not unknown even to our modern world. Simon’s sin is that of those who look upon the places of the Christian Church rather as means of support than as opportunities of ministry. But there is a subtler form of this same sin not so easily recognised, nor so easily brought to condemnation. Conceit may move men as well as covetousness. Ambition may be a motive as strong as avarice. They make this same mistake, commit this same sin, who desire to enjoy the dignities of Christian leadership in distinction from simply desiring to do Christian work. But there is a broader application of the principle, to those who desire the benefits of religion without the religion itself. The world is full of men who wish to have the advantage but not the responsibility of spiritual gifts. They would like the peace and joy of believing, but are not willing to accept its restraint and control. Above all, they are willing to be saved from the punishments of sin, but unwilling to be saved from the sin itself. They will join the disciple and be baptised and give their money, as Simon did, and would like all that God has to give them except a new heart; and the old heart is not right in His sight.

III. He sought to substitute the spiritual gifts of others for his own repentance and prayer.—And this was his last mistake, after he had been rebuked for the first two, and so was perhaps the worst and most harmful of all. Peter had turned on this baptised sorcerer with sharp rebuke. God’s gift cannot be purchased. Simon’s money can find no investment in these spiritual gifts. Worst of all, he has shown that his heart is not right in God’s sight; that it is full of wicked thoughts. “Repent of this thy wickedness,” he cries to him, “and pray God if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.” There is no sin so great that true repentance and turning to God may not cover it. But still the mind of the disappointed magician does not take in the remedy proposed and its necessity. He would rather pray them to pray God for him than do it himself. He would rather depend on them than on the Lord. “Pray for me,” he begs. If they would only pray for him, he might be delivered from these threatened evils. Nor is this a mistake confined to the Samaritan sorcerer. How many people are to-day depending on some other person’s goodness to save them, or some other person’s prayers to procure their pardon?—how many who practically hope for some miraculous saving power from the intercessions of others, without their own self-abasement before God, or without making supplication for themselves. There are husbands by scores who, having some general knowledge of the gospel, hope to be saved somehow by the godly living and praying of their wives; children, grown up to manhood and to womanhood in Christian homes, who are relying blindly on the power of their parents with God to secure for them deliverance from sin and a part in his salvation; unrenewed and unrepentant persons in all our congregations who hope that the Church will somehow pray them into heaven, if only at the eleventh hour. Perhaps the Church, in some of its branches at least, is not altogether blameless for this attitude on the part of many. Has it not sometimes encouraged them to ask for the prayers of God’s people without emphasising the need that their own prayers should first be offered up. No Peter by his prayers, devout and apostolic though they be, can save a Simon who does not repent of his sin and pray for his own pardon and purifying. No Monica can save an Augustine by her prayers till God shall teach the wayward son himself to cry to Him for help. There is but one Mediator between God and man—the man Christ Jesus; and not even He makes repentance unnecessary on the sinner’s part. After all, the mistakes of Simon were only the outcome of his mistaken heart. The heart which is not right in the sight of God cannot see anything rightly which relates to God. It does not see itself or Him, or its relation to Him, as it is. The right heart feels its need of that which cannot be procured by money or by its own good works, but only as the gift of God. The right heart recognises that it has no claim upon God’s spiritual gifts for its own sake, but only that it may use them in the new spirit it has received of love to God and love to man. The right heart will not depend on any other to make needless for it sincere repentance and humble prayer.—Monday Club Sermons.

The Natural Heart.—In meditating upon the story of the Samaritan impostor, and studying our own depraved nature in it, we may remark—

I. That the natural heart has no knowledge of Divine things.—We hear a great deal nowadays of the “religious instinct.” It is one of the catchwords by which men would do away with the notions of revelation and a new heart. According to some modern teachings, all men have a religious instinct, all have a desire to worship God—nay, all do worship God in some honest way, which, as he is a kind God, must be acceptable to him. On analysis, we shall find that this, which is called a religious instinct, is either the action of a guilty conscience or of a poetic fancy. But is this religion? Is this knowing and serving God? Is this intelligent action towards a revealed Maker? Is it a movement of will and affections toward a personal Ruler of the universe? Can such a religion as is found in the “religious instinct,” as it is called, satisfy the heart and purify the life? Has it ever done so? Do we find people and nations growing stronger on such diet, more civilised, more attractive? The religious instinct is of no higher character than the eating and drinking instinct, as far as true religion is concerned. One will lead to God as readily as the other. They are both of the earth, earthy. Men are cut off from God by sin, and they can return only by the use of Divine means. Nothing in themselves can be of any avail. The chasm must be bridged from the Divine side. Acceptance of what God has done is salvation. What we do only helps us downward in sin. That which Simon brought out into full relief by reason of his position and boldness was simply the common character of the natural man. Divine things are treated with low, earthly affections, and, of course, as low, earthly things. Simon in trying to buy God’s power was no worse than the many who try to appease God’s anger with a penance or a gift. The one tries to buy God’s power, the other tries to buy God’s pardon.

II. Note, in the second place, that man’s wickedness before God is in the condition of his heart.—Look at the words used in Simon’s case: “Thy heart is not right before God.” And then again, “Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Men have accustomed themselves to posit sin in overt acts, and have failed to explore the pollution of their hearts. Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount endeavours to correct this fatal error, and shows that the seat of murder and other gross offences is in the heart. He, as a holy God, can receive none to Himself except as the unholy heart is renewed. This fundamental truth is what the poets and philosophers ignore. They would reform man on the basis of the old evil heart. They would make the outer circles of life pure, and leave the core rotten. If, however, they say that the heart of man is pure, how then did it ever produce such universal impurity in life? For surely the life must come from the heart. But some will say, “We believe the heart must be renewed, but why cannot man renew it himself? What is renewal except turning the heart from one object of affection to another, from wrong to right, from the false to the true?” In reply, we make our third remark on our text—

III. That only God’s power can renew the heart.—We accept the definition that renewal is a turning from wrong to right, from the false to the true. But when the affections are in the wrong and the false, how can their own influence take them out? How can love destroy itself? Now, the heart is this love, this love for evil. How can it change itself to love for good? Where is the first impetus to come from when that which forms the force of the life is fixed upon evil? Do you take refuge in the thought that there is some element of good in the heart, and that this at last accomplishes the renewal? Then why does it not always accomplish it? What is there to make exceptional cases? Any exceptional case destroys your theory, for Nature always works in the same way, and if the good element would produce renewal in one heart, it certainly would in all. But, besides that, how could the good element in the heart overcome the bad unless it had a majority? And if it had a majority, how came the heart ever to go wrong? No; the theory will not bear examination. The evil heart cannot renew itself. God alone can do that.

IV. The hope of man is in prayer.—“Pray the Lord,” said Peter, “if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Prayer must have penitence as its spirit (“Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord”). It must have a deep conviction of personal sin. Though Simon apparently did not take the road to pardon and to God, we see in Peter’s injunction what the road is. It is prayer to God. The heart needs His forgiving grace.—H. Crosby, D.D.