and that what in itself is insignificant, is often raised into importance by forcible attempts to suppress it. On the other hand, the manner in which the apostles spoke and acted made some impression on a man not wholly prejudiced; while their exact observance of the law, and hostile attitude towards Sadduceeism, must have disposed him more strongly in their favour, and hence the thought might arise in his mind, that after all there was something divine in the cause they advocated. His counsel prevailed; no heavier punishment than scourging was inflicted on the apostles for their disobedience, and they were dismissed after the former prohibition had been repeated.

Up to this time, the members of the new sect, being strict observers of the law, and agreeing with the Pharisees in their opposition to the Sadducees, appeared in a favourable light to at least the moderate of the former.' But this amicable relation was at an end as soon as they came, or threatened to come, into open conflict with the principles of Pharisaism itself; when the spirit of the new doctrine was more distinctly felt in that quarter, an effect produced by an individual memorable on this account in the early annals of Christianity, the proto-martyr Stephen.

The deacons, as we have already remarked, were primarily appointed for a secular object, but in the discharge of their special duty frequently came in contact with home and foreign Jews; and since men had been chosen for this office who were full of Christian zeal, full of Christian faith, and full of Christian wisdom and prudence, they possessed both the inward call, and the ability to make use of these numerous opportunities for the spread of the gospel among the Jews. In these attempts, Stephen particularly distinguished himself. As a man of Hellenistic descent and education, he was better fitted than a native of Palestine for entering into the views of those foreign Jews who had synagogues for their exclusive use at Jerusalem, and thus leading them to receive the gospel. The Holy Spirit, who hitherto had employed as instruments for the spread of the gospel only Palestinian Jews, now fitted for his service an individual of very different mental training,

1 See Schneckenburger's Essay in his Beitragen zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament, p. 87.

the Hellenistic Stephen; and the result of this choice was very important. Although the Holy Spirit alone, according to the Saviour's promise, could lead the apostles to a clear perception of the contents of the whole truth' announced by himself; yet the quicker or slower development of this perception was in many respects dependent on the mental peculiarity, and the special standing-point of general and religious culture, of the individuals who were thus to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. In one individual, the development of Christian knowledge was prepared for by his previous standing-point; and hence, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, a knowledge (yvos) of Christian truth rapidly developed itself from faith (iors); whereas, for another to attain the same insight, the bounds which confined his previous standing-point must be first broken down by the power of the Holy Spirit operating in a more immediate manner, by a new additional revelation (aπokáλvs.) When Christ spoke to his apostles of certain things which they could not yet comprehend, but which must be first revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, he, no doubt, referred to the essence of religion, to that worshipping of God in spirit and in truth, which is not necessarily confined to place or time, or to any kind whatever of outward observances; and with which the abolition of the Mosaic ceremonial law (that wall of separation between the chosen people of God and other nations, Eph. ii. 14), and the union of all nations in one spiritual worship and one faith--were closely connected. The apostles had by this time understood, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the spiritual worship founded on faith, but the consequences flowing from it in relation to outward Judaism they had not yet clearly apprehended. In this respect, their standing-point resembled Luther's after he had attained a living faith in justification, in reference to outward Catholicism, ere he had, by the further maturing of his Christian knowledge, abjured that also—and that of many who before and since the Reformation have attained to vital Christianity, though still to a degree enthralled in the fetters of Catholicism. Thus the apostles first

1 Christ did not promise the apostles indefinitely that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all things, but into the whole of the truth, which he came to announce for the salvation of mankind; John xvi. 13.

attained to a full development of their Christian knowledge, to a clear perception of the truth on this side, when by the power of the Holy Spirit they were freed from the fetters of their strictly Jewish training, which obscured this perception. On the other hand, the Hellenistic Stephen needed not to attain this mental freedom by a new immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, for he was already, by his early development in Hellenistic culture, more free from these fetters, he was not so much entangled in Jewish nationality, and hence his Christian knowledge could on this side more easily and quickly attain to clearness of perception. In short, Stephen was the forerunner of the great Paul, in his perception of Christian truth and the testimony he bore to it, as well as in his conflict for it with the carnal Jews, who obstinately adhered to their ancient standing-point. It is highly probable, that he was first induced by his disputations with the Hellenists, to present the gospel on the side of its opposition to the Mosaic law; to combat the belief in the necessity of that law for the justification and sanctification of men, and, what was connected therewith, its perpetual obligation, and then to show that the new spirit of the gospel freed it altogether from the outward forms of Judaism; that the new spirit of religion required an entirely new form. As, agreeably to the prophecy of Christ, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, with which the Jews had hitherto considered the worship of God as necessarily and essentially connected, was now about to take place by means of the divine judgments on the degenerate earthly kingdom of God, through the victorious divine power of the Messiah, exalted to the right hand of his heavenly Father-so would the whole outward system of Judaism fall with this its only earthly sanctuary, and the theocracy arise glorified and spiritualized from its earthly trammels. cannot determine with confidence, to what extent Stephen, in his disputations with the Jews, developed all this, but we may infer with certainty from the consequences, that it would be more or less explicitly stated by this enlightened man. Hence it came to pass, that the rage of the Pharisees was now excited, as it had never yet been against the promulgators of the new doctrine; hence an accusation such as had never yet been brought against them—that Stephen had uttered blasphemous words against Jehovah and against Moses. We are

We

told, indeed, that false witnesses deposed against him that he ceased not to speak against the Holy City (the Temple) and the Law-that he had declared that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the Temple, and abrogate the usages handed down from Moses. But although these accusations are represented as the depositions of false witnesses, it does not follow, that all that they said was a fabrication, but only that they had, on many points, distorted the assertions of Stephen, with an evil intention. They accused him of attacking the divine origin and holiness of the law, and of blaspheming Moses; all which was very far from his design. Yet he must, by what he said, have given them some ground for their misrepresentations, for before this time, nothing similar had been brought against the publishers of the gospel; hence we may make use of their allegations to find out what Stephen really said. And his defence plainly indicates that he by no means intended to repel the accusation as altogether a falsity, but rather to acknowledge that there was truth mixed up with it; that what he had really spoken, and what was already so obnoxious to the Jews, he had no wish to deny, but only to develop and establish it in its right connexion. And thus we gain the true point of view for understanding this memorable and often misunderstood speech.

Stephen was seized by his embittered enemies, brought before the Sanhedrim, and accused of blasphemy. But though the minds of his judges were so deeply prejudiced by the reports spread against him, and they waited with intense eagerness to see the man who had uttered such unheard-of things-when he actually came before them, and began to speak, they were struck with the commanding expression of his whole figure, with the inspired confidence-the heavenly repose and serenity which beamed in all his features. In the Acts we are told, that he stood before them with a glorified countenance, as it were the face of an angel ;" and it is very probable, that many members of the Sanhedrim had thus described the impression which his appearance made upon them. The topics and arrangement of his discourse were suited to confirm this impression, and to turn it to good account, to fix the attention of his judges, and to put their minds in a more favourable position towards the speaker, thus gradually preparing them for that which he

wished to make the main subject of his discourse. That discourse perfectly corresponds with the leading qualities ascribed to his character in the Acts. In his frank manner of expressing what he had learnt by the light of the Divine Spirit, we recognise the man full of the power of faith, without the fear of man, or deference to human opinion; in his manner of constantly keeping one end in view, and yet, instead of abruptly urging it, gradually preparing his hearers for it, we recognise the man full of Christian prudence.

The object of Stephen's discourse was not simple but complex; yet it was so constructed, that the different topics were linked together in the closest manner. Its primary object was certainly apologetical, but as he forgot himself in the subject with which he was inspired, his apologetic efforts relate to the truths maintained by him, and impugned by his adversaries, rather than to himself; hence, not satisfied with defending, he developed and enforced the truths he had proclaimed; and at the same time, condemned the carnal ungodly temper of the Jews, which was little disposed to receive the truth. Thus with the apologetic element, the didactic and polemic were combined. Stephen first refutes the charges made against him of enmity against the people of God, of contempt of their sacred institutions, and of blaspheming Moses. He traces the procedure of the divine providence, in guiding the people of God from the times of their progenitors; he notices the promises and their progressive fulfilment, to the end of all the promises, the end of the whole development of the theocracy-the advent of the Messiah, and the work to be accomplished by him. But with this narrative, he blends his charges against the Jewish nation. He shows that their ingratitude and unbelief, proceeding from a carnal mind, became more flagrant in proportion as the promises were fulfilled, or given with greater fulness; and their conduct in the various preceding periods of the development of God's kingdom, was a specimen of the disposition they now evinced towards the publication of the gospel.' The first promise

1 In this species of polemical discussion, Stephen was a forerunner of Paul. De Wette justly notices, as a peculiarity of the Hebrew nation, that conscience was more alive among them than any other people often, indeed, an evil conscience, the feeling of guilt, the feeling of the high office assigned to it which it cannot and will not relinquish, the feeling of a schism between knowledge (the law) and the will, so that sin accumu