Then said the high priest, Are these things so? &&& Acts 7:1-53 The high priest and his question Bp. Jacobson. This functionary was probably Theophilus, son-in-law of Caiaphas. The ex-officio president of the council called for the defence against the charge of blasphemy ( Acts 6:13, 14 ). The question, equivalent to guilty or not guilty, appears to have been put with great mildness, possibly under the influence of the angel-like aspect. ( Bp. Jacobson. )

Benson Commentary Acts 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so? Acts 7:1-3 . Then said the high-priest — Who was president of the council, and, as such, the mouth of the court; Are these things so? — Are they as these witnesses have deposed? for thou art permitted to speak for thyself, and make thy defence. And he said — Stephen had been accused of blasphemy against Moses, and even against God; and of speaking against the temple and the law, threatening that Jesus would destroy the one and change the other. In answer to this accusation, rehearsing, as it were, the articles of his historical creed, he speaks of God with high reverence, and a grateful sense of a long series of acts of goodness to the Israelites; and of Moses with great respect, on account of his important and honourable employments under God; of the temple with regard, as being built to the honour of God; yet not with such superstition as the Jews; putting them in mind, that no temple could comprehend God. And he was going on, no doubt, when he was interrupted by their clamour, to speak to the last point, the destruction of the temple, and the change of the law by Christ. The sum of his discourse is this: I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, Acts 7:2 ; the calling of Moses, Acts 7:34 , &c. the dignity of the law, Acts 7:8 ; Acts 7:38 ; Acts 7:44 ; the holiness of this place, Acts 7:7 ; Acts 7:45 ; Acts 7:47 . And, indeed, the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law. For God showed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children, freely, Acts 7:2 , &c., 9, &c., 17, &c., 32, 34, 45; and they showed faith and obedience to God, Acts 7:4 ; Acts 7:20 , &c., 23; particularly by their regard for the law, Acts 7:8 , and the promised land, Acts 7:16 . Meantime God never confined his presence to this one place, or to the observers of the law. For he hath been acceptably worshipped, before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, Acts 7:2 ; Acts 7:9 ; Acts 7:33 ; Acts 7:44 . And that our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, Acts 7:4 , &c., 14, 29, 44, and exile, Acts 7:43 , show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, Acts 7:9 ; have withstood Moses, Acts 7:25 , &c., 39, &c. have despised the land, Acts 7:39 ; forsaken God, Acts 7:40 , &c. superstitiously honoured the temple, Acts 7:48 ; resisted God and his Spirit, Acts 7:50 ; killed the prophets, and the Messiah himself, Acts 7:51 ; and kept not the law, for which ye contend, Acts 7:53 . therefore God is not bound to you, much less to you alone. And, truly, this solemn testimony of Stephen is most worthy of his character, as a man full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith, and power: in which, though he does not advance so many regular propositions, contradictory to those of his adversaries, yet he closely and nervously answers them all. Nor can we doubt but he would, from these premises, have drawn inferences touching the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the Mosaic law, the punishment of that rebellious people, and, above all, touching Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah, had not his discourse been interrupted by the clamours of the multitude, stopping their ears and rushing upon him. Men, brethren, and fathers — All who are here present, whether ye are my equals in years, or of more advanced age. The word which, in this and many other places, is rendered men, is a mere expletive. The God of glory — The glorious God; appeared to Abraham before he dwelt in Charran — Therefore Abraham knew God long before he was in this land. And he said, Get thee out of thy country — Depart from this thy native country, which is become idolatrous; and from thy kindred — Who are now alienated from my worship; and come into the land — A remote land; which I shall show thee — And to which, by my extraordinary interposition, I will guide thee; though at present thou dost not know even its situation, much less the way leading to it. See note on Genesis 12:2 . Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, Acts 7:3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Acts 7:4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. Acts 7:4-5 . Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans — Strange as the command which was given him might seem, he, with all submission, readily obeyed it; and dwelt in Charran — Namely, for several years, having been led thither by the divine conduct, and not immediately receiving a signal to proceed any further. And from thence — After his father died, by another call; he (God) removed him into this land — The land of Canaan. And yet, upon his coming into it, he gave him none inheritance — But he was a stranger and sojourner in it; no, not so much as to set his foot on — Or a piece of land which he might cover with the sole of his foot: for the field mentioned, Acts 7:16 , he did not receive by a divine donation, but bought it; yet he promised — At sundry times; that he would give it to him for a possession — Which promise Abraham firmly believed that God would fulfil; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child — And, humanly speaking, it was not likely he ever should have one: but his faith triumphed over all these seeming difficulties, and he confidently trusted in the power, and love, and faithfulness of God to make his word good. Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. Acts 7:6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. Acts 7:6-8 . And God spake, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land — When God had brought Abraham into this country, he did not keep him and his posterity here till the time when they were to enter upon the possession of it, in consequence of this divine grant; but, on the contrary, God informed him in a vision that his seed should be strangers in a foreign land, and that they among whom they sojourned should bring them into bondage — Should make them slaves; and entreat them evil — Use them with great cruelty; and that these events, with the circumstances preparatory to them, should extend themselves to the full period of four hundred years. See note on Genesis 15:13 . And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage — By which they shall be enslaved; will I judge, said God — I will assuredly punish with righteous and tremendous severity; and after that shall they come forth — Namely, out of that land; and serve me in this place — In this land, erecting a temple for the performance of my worship here. He gave him the covenant of circumcision — See notes on Genesis 17:10-14 . And so Abraham begat Isaac — After the covenant was given, of which circumcision was the seal. Acts 7:7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. Acts 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. Acts 7:9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him, Acts 7:9-10 . And the patriarchs, moved with envy — The rest of the twelve sons of Jacob, though their relation to such holy ancestors might have taught them a much better lesson; yet, influenced by envy at the superior regard which Jacob showed to his favourite son, most inhumanly sold Joseph — Their brother; into Egypt — Where he became a slave, and suffered a great variety of calamities; but God was with him — In the midst of them, supporting him, though he was not in this land, and rendering that country a scene of very glorious providences toward him: for by these things God was working, in a mysterious and surprising manner, for the accomplishment of the prediction before mentioned. From what Stephen relates of the story of Joseph, it was obvious for the members of the council to infer that the greatest favourites of Heaven might suffer by the envy of those who were called the Israel of God; and might be exalted by him after having been rejected by them: a thought worthy of their consideration with respect to Jesus; but prudence would not allow Stephen, in the beginning of his defence, to say expressly what they could not have borne to hear; for that they could not, appears by the manner in which they resented his application of these premises, when, he was drawing toward a conclusion. And delivered him out of all his afflictions — To which he was exposed in consequence of his integrity and piety; and gave him favour and wisdom — That is, favour on account of his distinguished wisdom; in the sight of Pharaoh, who made him governor over Egypt — Committing all things in the palace, as well as elsewhere, to his direction and management. Thus did God, in the course of his providence, wonderfully exalt this despised Joseph, whom his brethren (then the whole house of Israel) had most outrageously insulted and abused, and even sold for a slave. And thus, Stephen insinuated, hath God exalted Jesus, whom ye treated as a slave, insulted, and abused, scourged, and hanged on a tree. Acts 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. Acts 7:11 Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. Acts 7:11 . Now there came a dearth — According to the prediction of Joseph, when the seven preceding years of extraordinary plenty were past, which he had also predicted; over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan — A calamity which reduced the latter country to such distress, that, fruitful as it had generally been, our fathers found no sustenance — Or, not what was sufficient to support themselves and their families. But Jacob, hearing that there was corn in Egypt — Ordered his sons to go and fetch a supply from thence; and sent our fathers first — Namely, the ten without Benjamin. And at the second time — That they went, when Benjamin accompanied them; Joseph was made known to his brethren — Of which see on Genesis 44:1-15 . And, as the matter was immediately made public, Joseph’s kindred — Greek, ?? ????? , his descent, or race, was discovered to Pharaoh, of which he had not been informed before. Then sent Joseph, and called his father — With Pharaoh’s full consent; and all his kindred — Now become numerous, amounting in the whole even to threescore and fifteen souls — So the Seventy interpreters, whom Stephen follows: one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons, mentioned Genesis 46:27 . So Bengelius. Acts 7:12 But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. Acts 7:13 And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Acts 7:14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him , and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. Acts 7:15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, Acts 7:15-16 . Jacob went down into Egypt, and died — After having been supported there about seventeen years, by the filial gratitude and tenderness of his son Joseph; and our fathers — The patriarch’s children also ended their lives in the same country; and were carried over into Sychem — That is, as Jacob was immediately carried, with solemn funeral pomp and procession, to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Isaac, ( Genesis 50:13 ,) so the patriarchs also, having been embalmed, and put into coffins, in Egypt, ( Genesis 50:26 ,) were, at the return of Israel from thence, carried over to Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre — Made in that field which Jacob bequeathed to Joseph, as a peculiar legacy; he having first, as Abraham had done in a like case, bought it for a sum of money, (that is, for one hundred pieces of silver,) of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem — From whom, in particular, the place was named; and the Amorites having afterward seized it, Jacob had by force recovered it out of their hands. See notes on Genesis 48:22 ; Joshua 24:32 . It seems that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure (nor was it needful, where they were so well known) to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one two different sepulchres, places, and purchases, so as, in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Hamor. There Joseph was buried. You see here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews: particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the story, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer. And laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought — The first land which these strangers bought was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid by the sons [that is, descendants] of Hamor, the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. So Bengelius and Wesley. Acts 7:16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. Acts 7:17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Acts 7:17-21 . When the time of the promise drew nigh — That is, the time for the accomplishment of the promise; which God had sworn to Abraham — Concerning the multiplication of his seed; see note on Genesis 22:16-17 ; the people grew, &c. — Became very numerous in Egypt, notwithstanding that they were under great oppression there; till another king arose — Probably of another family; which knew not Joseph — And had no regard to his memory. The same dealt subtly with our kindred — Formed crafty and treacherous designs against them; and evil-entreated our fathers — Used them in a most injurious and barbarous way, lest in time they should become too powerful; so that — In obedience to a most inhuman order, which he published; they cast out their young children — Exposed them to perish by hunger or wild beasts; or cast them into the river Nile; to the end they might not live — That they might be cut off from being a people, and their very race become quite extinct. In which afflictive and persecuting, but seasonable time — When our fathers were reduced to this miserable state; Moses was born — The person intended by God to be the instrument of his people’s deliverance; and was exceeding fair — Greek, ??????? ?? ??? , fair to God, as the margin reads it. The words, being a Hebraism, are only an emphatical expression, to denote Moses’s extraordinary beauty, and might be not unfitly rendered divinely beautiful, the name of God being often introduced to express such things as were extraordinary in their kind. So in the Hebrew, what we translate great wrestlings, ( Genesis 30:8 ,) is wrestlings of God; goodly cedars, ( Psalm 80:10 ,) are cedars of God; great mountains, ( Psalm 36:6 ,) are mountains of God. This then agrees with what is said of Moses, ( Exodus 2:2 ,) that he was a goodly child; and with the account which Josephus gives of him, who says, “that when he was but three years old, his extraordinary beauty was such, that it struck every one that saw him; and as they carried him about, persons would leave their work to look at him.” See Grotius and Whitby. And when he was cast out — Was thus exposed to perish, the providence of God so ordered it, that Pharaoh’s daughter took him up — Being moved with pity at the sight of him; and nourished him — With a purpose of adopting him; for her own son — By which means, being designed for a kingdom, he had all those advantages of education, which he could not have had if he had not been exposed. “All these extraordinary circumstances, relating to the birth, preservation, education, genius, and character of Moses, serve to aggravate the crime of Israel in rejecting him, when he offered himself to them as a deliverer under so many advantages, and when Providence had so wonderfully interested itself in his favour.” — Doddridge. Acts 7:18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. Acts 7:19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. Acts 7:20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months: Acts 7:21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. Acts 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. Acts 7:22 . Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians — Which was then celebrated in all the world, and for many ages after. Geography, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, natural history, physic, and hieroglyphics, are all mentioned by ancient writers as branches of Egyptian literature. Several ancient testimonies to the extraordinary learning of Moses may be seen in Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clemens Alexandrinus. And was mighty in words — Deep, solid, weighty, though not of a ready utterance. “It expresses,” says Doddridge, “such a weight and solidity in his counsels and speeches, as may be very consistent with the want of a flowing elocution;” and in deeds — Referring to the astonishing miracles which God wrought by him. We may observe here, that it must have been a great piece of self-denial, such as none but a lover of learning, and one who has made some progress in it, can understand, for a person of such a genius and education as Moses, in the prime of life, to leave the polite court of Egypt, and live as a retired shepherd in the Arabian desert. Acts 7:23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. Acts 7:23-25 . When he was forty years old — So long he continued in Pharaoh’s court; it came into his heart — Probably by an impulse from God; to visit his brethren — He having been instructed, it appears, in the knowledge of his real descent, and in the principles of the Jewish religion; and it is likely his spirit was so impressed with a concern for their welfare, that all the pleasure and grandeur at the court of Egypt could not make him easy, without going in person to take a view of their state. And seeing one of them suffer wrong — Probably by one of the task-masters; he defended him — And smiting the Egyptian with a mortal wound, he at once rescued and avenged him that was oppressed — See note on Exodus 2:11-12 . For he supposed his brethren would have understood, &c. — The manner in which Stephen expresses himself, seems to imply, that he considered Moses as doing this action in consequence of a special impression from God on his mind, intimating to him the important work for which he was intended, that God by his hands would deliver them — Two things are here proper to be inquired into, namely, 1st, By what authority or right Moses slew the Egyptian. 2d, What reason he had to expect the people should understand that God designed him for their deliverer? “The Jewish historians,” says Whitby, “give us a very easy solution of these difficulties; for, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, their priests declare that Moses slew the Egyptian with a word, and so gave them a miracle to prove his mission: and Josephus assures us, that ‘God appeared to Amram, the father of Moses, as he was praying to him for the afflicted Jews, and said to him, Thy son, now in the womb of thy wife, shall escape the hand of the Egyptians, and shall deliver the Hebrews from the afflictions of Egypt; and that, to confirm this vision, his wife brought him forth without any pain.’ The Jerusalem Talmud likewise declares that Moses slew the Egyptian by the spirit of prophecy, or by an extraordinary impulse from God; and Maimonides makes this action one degree of prophecy. And thus, as Stephen here says: it came into his heart, namely, from God, to visit his brethren: and indeed otherwise he could not have justified this fact to God and his own conscience. Now Moses, knowing what had been declared of him to his father, and by this action working deliverance to one of them, might justly hope they would look upon him as one appointed by God to be their deliverer.” Dr. Benson, however, not crediting these stories, thinks “it does not appear that Moses had as yet any prophecy to assure him that he was the person who should deliver Israel; but, knowing there was a divine promise of deliverance made to, and retained in the house of Israel; that he himself had been extraordinarily preserved and educated, and that the time of their deliverance was approaching, he showed himself willing to run all hazards and dangers with the people of God, rather than continue in the splendour of the Egyptian court; and that when the time should be fully come, he would cheerfully join and head them, in order to rescue them from their bondage and cruel slavery.” But it seems there is more than this implied in the verse; and though we may have no certain information of any prophecy that Moses had yet received, it does not follow but he might have received some private revelation from God, that he was the person appointed by him to deliver the Israelites. But they understood not — Such was their stupidity and sloth, which made him afterward unwilling to go to them. Acts 7:24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him , and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: Acts 7:25 For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not. Acts 7:26 And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another? Acts 7:26-29 . The next day he showed himself unto them — Of his own accord, unexpectedly; as they strove — As they were quarrelling with each other; and would have set them at one — That is, by interposing between them, he would have put an end to their quarrel, and have persuaded them to live in peace and friendship; saying, Sirs, ye are brethren — Descended from Jacob, our common ancestor, and now also joined in affliction as well as in religion; which things ought doubly to cement your affections to each other; why then do you injure one another? But he that did his neighbour wrong — Unable to bear with his plain and faithful reproof; insolently thrust him away — As a person that had nothing to do in their controversy; saying, Who made thee a ruler, &c., over us? — Thus, under the pretence of the want of a call by man, the instruments of God are often rejected. The speech of this single person is represented ( Acts 7:35 ) as expressing the sentiments of the whole body of the people, as their slowness afterward to believe the mission of Moses, when attested by miracle, ( Exodus 5:20-21 ,) seems evidently to show that it was. Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian, &c. — His blood may cost thee dear enough, without adding mine to it. Then fled Moses — Finding the matter was discovered, and being apprehensive that, in consequence of it, the Egyptian power would soon be armed against him, while the Israelites were not inclined to use any efforts for his protection, nor to put themselves under his guidance. See the note on Exodus 2:15 . And was a stranger in the land of Madian — Where he became shepherd to Jethro, the prince of the country, and marrying Zipporah his daughter, he begat two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. Acts 7:27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Acts 7:28 Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? Acts 7:29 Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begat two sons. Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. Acts 7:30-34 . When forty years were expired — That is, forty after his leaving Egypt; during which time Israel had continued under this bondage, and Moses, inured to hardships and poverty, and to contemplation and devotion, had been trained up and prepared, in the humble and retired life of a shepherd, for the great work for which God designed him; see on Exodus 2:22 ; there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina — Which lay in the confines of the Midianite country, not far from the Red sea; an angel of the Lord — The Son of God, as appears from his styling himself Jehovah; (see on Exodus 3:2 ;) a name which cannot, without the highest presumption, be assumed by any created angel, since he whose name alone is Jehovah, is the Most High over all the earth, Psalm lxxxiii, 18. It was therefore the Angel of the covenant: Malachi 3:1 , the Angel of God’s presence, Isaiah 63:9 , who delivered the law to Moses, and was with the church in the wilderness, and gave them possession of Canaan as the Captain of the Lord’s host, Joshua 5:14 . In a flame of fire in a bush — Which, though of combustible matter, was not consumed; representing the state of Israel in Egypt, where, though they were in the fire of affliction, yet they were not consumed by it, but miraculously preserved as a people, and even increased. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight — Wondered why the bush, which burned, was not consumed: it was a phenomenon, with the solution of which all his Egyptian learning could not furnish him. And as he drew near to behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, &c. — Expressions sufficiently showing that the person speaking was not a mere angel, but possessed of true Deity, and therefore, as being also styled an angel, or messenger, was the Son of God, the Father’s Messenger to men. Then Moses trembled — Moses, upon this, perceiving that God himself was there present, and spake to him, trembled at this appearance of his majesty, and durst not behold with a curious regard, as he had intended. Then said the Lord, Put off thy shoes — An ancient token of reverence; for the place is holy ground — The holiness of places depends on the peculiar presence of God there. See the note on Exodus 2:5 . “It was formerly in the eastern nations, and is now in the southern, esteemed a ceremony of respect, to put off the shoes when approaching a superior, lest any of the dirt or dust cleaving to the shoes should be brought near him, and that the person approaching barefoot might tread more cautiously. This, which perhaps was introduced at first in court apartments, where rich carpets might be used, the King of kings requires to be done in a desert, as a token of the infinitely greater reverence due to him. See Joshua 5:15 , and Ecclesiastes 5:1 . On the same principle, it seems, the priests ministered thus in the tabernacle and temple, no direction being given for shoes or sandals as a part of their dress, though all the rest of it was so particularly prescribed.” I have seen, I have seen the affliction — See note on Exodus 2:7-8 . Acts 7:31 When Moses saw it , he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it , the voice of the Lord came unto him, Acts 7:32 Saying , I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Acts 7:33 Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground. Acts 7:34 I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt. Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. Acts 7:35-36 . This Moses, whom they refused — Namely, forty years before: probably not they, but their fathers did it, and God imputes it to them. So God frequently imputes the sins of parents to those of their children who are of the same spirit. The same did God send to be a ruler and deliverer — Which is much more than a judge. By the hand — That is, by the means; of the angel — See on Acts 7:30 . He brought them out — Though for a while he hesitated, he afterward complied, and at length led them forth in triumph, a willing people listed under his banner; after he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt — Which were afterward continued for the completing their deliverance, according as the case called for it; in the Red sea, and in the wilderness, forty years — During which space they were every day miraculously fed with manna from heaven, and conducted by a pillar of fire and cloud, and had a variety of other astonishing miracles wrought in their behalf continually. Thus Stephen is so far from blaspheming Moses, that he extols him as a glorious instrument in the hand of God in the forming of the Old Testament Church. But it does not at all derogate from his just honour, to say that he was but an instrument, and was excelled by Jesus, whom he encourages these Jews yet to receive and obey; not fearing, if they did so, but that they should be accepted, and obtain salvation by him, as the people of Israel were delivered by Moses, though they had once refused him. Acts 7:36 He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. Acts 7:37-38 . This is that Moses which said, A prophet, &c. — Here Stephen shows that there is no opposition between Moses and Christ. And it is mentioned as one of the greatest honours God put upon Moses; nay, as that which exceeded all the rest, that by him God gave notice to the Israelites of the great prophet that should come into the world, raised their expectation of him, and required them to receive him on pain of utter destruction. Now this was very full to Stephen’s purpose, supposing him to have intimated, as his accusers affirmed, that Jesus should change the customs of the ceremonial law. And he is so far from blaspheming Moses, that he really does him the greatest honour imaginable, by showing how one of the most important of his prophecies was fulfilled. This is he (Moses) that was in the church in the wilderness — Presiding in all the affairs of it for forty years, and being king as well as prophet: in Jeshurun, Deuteronomy 33:5 . Here we see the camp of Israel is called the church in the wilderness; and with good reason, for it was a sacred society, incorporated by a divine charter, under a divine government, and blessed with a divine revelation. It was a church, though not yet so perfectly formed as it was to be when they should come to Canaan. It was the honour of Moses that he was in that church; and many a time it would have been destroyed, if Moses had not been in it to intercede for it. But Christ is the president and guide of a more excellent and glorious church than that in the wilderness; and is more in it than Moses could be in that, as being the life and soul of it. With the angel that spake to him — The Angel of the covenant, even of the old as well as of the new. The angel that went before him and was a guide to him, otherwise he could not have been

Expositor's Bible Commentary Acts 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so? 14 Chapter 15 ST. STEPHEN’S DEFENCE AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. Acts 6:12-14 ; Acts 7:1-2 ST. STEPHEN and St. Philip are the two prominent names among the primitive deacons. Stephen, however, much surpasses Philip. Devout expositors of Scripture have recognised in his name a prophecy of his greatness. Stephen is Stephanos, a garland or crown, in the Greek language. Garlands or crowns were given by the ancient Greeks to those who rendered good services to their cities, or brought fame to them by winning triumphs in the great national games. And Stephen had his name divinely chosen for him by that Divine Providence which ordereth all things, because he was to win in the fulness of time an imperishable garland, and to gain a crown of righteousness, and to render highest services to the Church of God by his teaching and by his testimony even unto death. St. Stephen had a Greek name, and must have belonged to the Hellenistic division of the Jewish nation. He evidently directed his special energies to their conversion, for while the previous persecutions had been raised by the Sadducees, as the persons whose prejudices had been assailed, the attack on Stephen was made by the Grecian Jews of the synagogues belonging to the Libertines or freedmen, in union with those from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. The Libertines had been slaves, Jewish captives, taken in the various wars waged by the Romans. They had been dispersed among the Romans at Rome and elsewhere. There in their captivity they had learned the Greek language and become acquainted with Greek culture; and now, when they had recovered their freedom through that suppleness and power of adaptation which the Jewish race has ever displayed, they returned to Jerusalem in such numbers that a synagogue of the Libertines was formed. Their captivity and servitude had, however, only intensified their religious feelings, and made them more jealous of any attempts to extend to the Gentiles who had held them captives the spiritual possessions they alone enjoyed. There is, indeed, an extremely interesting parallel to the case of the Libertines in early English history, as told by Bede. The Saxons came to England in the fifth century and conquered the Christian Celts, whom they drove into Wales. The Celts, however, avenged themselves upon their conquerors, for they refused to impart to the Pagan Saxons the glad tidings of salvation which the Celts possessed. But the Libertines were not the only assailants of St. Stephen. With them were joined members of synagogues connected with various other important Jewish centres. Jerusalem was then somewhat like Rome at the present time. It was the one city whither a race scattered all over the world and speaking every language tended. Each language was represented by a synagogue, just as there are English Colleges and Irish Colleges and Spanish Colleges at Rome, where Roman Catholics of those nationalities find themselves specially at home. Among these Hellenistic antagonists of St. Stephen we have mention made of the men of Cilicia. Here, doubtless, was found a certain Saul of Tarsus, enthusiastic in defence of the ancient faith, and urgent with all his might to bring to trial the apostate who had dared to speak words which he considered derogatory of the city and temple of the great king. Saul, indeed, may have been the great agent in Stephen’s arrest. It is a nature and an intellect like his that can discern the logical results of teaching like St. Stephen’s, and then found an accusation upon the deductions he makes rather than upon the actual words spoken. Saul may have placed the Church under another obligation on this occasion. To him may be due the report of the speech made by Stephen before the Sanhedrin. Indeed, it is to St. Paul in his unconverted state we feel inclined to attribute the knowledge which St. Luke possessed of the earlier proceedings of the council in the matter of the Christians. After St. Paul’s conversion we get no such details concerning the deliberations of the Sanhedrin as we do in the earlier chapters of the Acts, simply because Saul of Tarsus, the rising champion and hope of the Pharisees, was present at the earlier meetings and had access to their inmost secrets, while at the later meetings he never appeared save to stand his trial as an accused person. The question, How was Stephen’s speech preserved? has been asked by some critics who wished to decry the historic truth of this narrative, and to represent the whole thing as a fancy sketch or romance, worked up on historic lines indeed, but still only a romance, written many years after the events had happened. Critics who ask this forget what modern research has shown in another department. The "Acts" of the martyrs are sometimes very large documents, containing reports of charges, examinations, and speeches of considerable length. These have often been considered mere fancy history, the work of mediaeval monks wishing to celebrate the glory of these early witnesses for truth, and sceptical writers have often put them aside without bestowing even a passing notice upon them. Modern investigation has taken these documents, critically investigated them, compared them with the Roman criminal law, and has come to the conclusion that they are genuine, affording some of the most interesting and important examples of ancient methods of legal procedure anywhere to be found. How did the Christians get these records? it may be asked. Various hints, given here and there, enable us to see. Bribery of the officials was sometimes used. The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were numerous, and were always accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyr’s last trial. Secret Christians among the officials also effected something, and there were numerous other methods by which the Roman judicial records became the property of the Church, to be in time transmitted to the present age. Now just the same may have been the case with the trials of the primitive Christians, and specially of St. Stephen. But we know that St. Paul was there. Memory among the Jews was sharpened to an extraordinary degree. We have now no idea to what an extent human memory was then developed. The immense volumes which are filled with the Jewish commentaries on Scripture were in those times transmitted from generation to generation, simply by means of this power. It was considered, indeed, a great innovation when those commentaries were committed to writing instead of being intrusted to tradition. It is no wonder then that St. Paul could afford his disciple, St. Luke, a report of what Stephen said on this occasion, even if he had not preserved any notes whatsoever of the process of the trial. Let us, however, turn to the consideration of St. Stephen’s speech, omitting any further notice of objections based on our own ignorance of the practices and methods of distant ages. I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. This is our first remark, and it is an important one. We are apt to judge the Scriptures, their speeches, arguments, and discussions, by a Western standard, forgetting that Orientals argued then and argue still not according to the rules of logic taught by Aristotle, nor by the methods of eloquence derived from the traditions of Cicero and Quinctilian, but by methods and rules essentially different. What would satisfy Westerns would have seemed to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless and weak appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument, and if we wish to understand writers like the authors of the scriptural books we must strive to place ourselves at their point of view, or else we shall miss their true interpretation. Let us apply this idea to St. Stephen’s defence, which has been often depreciated because treated as if it were an oration addressed to a Western court or audience. Erasmus, for instance, was an exceedingly learned man, who lived at the period of the Reformation. He was well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but knew nothing of Jewish. ideas. He hesitates not, therefore, to say in his Annotations on this passage that there are many things in Stephen’s speech which have no-bearing on the question at issue; while Michaelis, another German writer of great repute in the: earlier days of this century, remarks that there are many things in this oration of which we cannot perceive the tendency, as regards the accusation brought against the martyr. Let us examine and see if the case be not otherwise, remembering that promise of the Master, given not to supersede human exertion or to indulge human laziness, but given to support and sustain and safeguard His persecuted servants under circumstances like those amid which Stephen found himself. "But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." What, then, was the charge brought against Stephen? He was accused of "speaking blasphemous words against Moses, and against God," or, to put it in the formal language used by the witnesses, "We have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us." Now Stephen, if merely a man of common sense, must have intended to reply, to this indictment. Some critics, as we have just noted, think that he failed effectually to do so. We are indeed often in great danger of paying too much attention and lending too great weight to objections of this kind urged by persons who assume to themselves the office of critics; and to counteract this tendency perhaps it is as well to note that a leading German writer of a rationalistic type, named Zeller, who has written a work to decry the historical character of the Acts, finds in St. Stephen’s words an oration "not only characteristic, but also better suited to the case and to the accusation raised against him than is usually supposed." Disregarding, then, all cavils of critics whose views are mutually destructive, let us see if we cannot discern in this narrative the marks of a sound and powerful mind, guided, aided, and directed by the Spirit of God which dwelt so abundantly in him. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. How did he meet this? He begins his address to the Sanhedrin at the earliest period of their national history, and shows how the chosen people had passed through many changes and developments without interfering with their essential identity amid these changes. His opponents now made idols of their local institutions and of the buildings of the temple, but God’s choice and God’s promise had originally nothing local about them at all. Abraham, their great father, was first called by God in Ur of the Chaldees, far away across the desert in distant Mesopotamia. Thence he removed to Charran, and then, only after the lapse of years, became a wanderer up and down in Canaan, where he never possessed so much of the land as he could set his foot upon. The promises of God and the covenant of grace were personal things, made to God’s chosen children, not connected with lands or buildings or national customs. He next takes up the case of Moses. He had been accused of blasphemy and irreverence towards the great national law-giver. His words prove that he entertained no such feelings; he respected and revered Moses just as much as his opponents and accusers did. But Moses had nothing to say or do with Canaan, or Jerusalem, or the temple. Nay, rather, his work for the chosen people was alone in Egypt and in Midian and on the side of Horeb, where the presence and name of Jehovah were manifested not in the temple or tabernacle, but in the bush burning yet not consumed. The Grecian Jews accused Stephen of irreverence towards Moses. But how had their forefathers treated that Moses whom he recognised as a divinely-sent messenger? "They thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt." Moses, however, led them onward and upward. His motto was hope. His rod and his voice ever pointed forward. He warned them that his own ministry was not the final one; that it was only an intermediate and temporary institution, till the prophet should come unto whom the people should hearken. There was a chosen people before the customs introduced by Moses. There may therefore be a chosen people still when these customs cease, having fulfilled their purpose. The argument of St. Stephen in this passage is the same as that of St. Paul in the fourth-chapter of Galatians, where he sets forth the temporary and intermediate character of the Levitical law and of the covenant of circumcision. So teaches St. Stephen in his speech. His argument is simply this:-I have been accused of speaking blasphemous words against Moses because I proclaimed that a greater Prophet than he had come, and yet this was only what Moses himself had foretold. It is not I who have blasphemed and opposed Moses: it is my accusers rather. But then he remembers that the accusation dealt not merely with Moses. It went farther, and accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary, "saying that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place." This leads him to speak of the temple. His argument now takes a different turn, and runs thus. This building is now the centre of Jewish thoughts and affections. But it is a mere modern thing, as compared with the original choice and promise of God. There was no chosen dwelling-place of the Almighty in the earliest days of all; His presence was then manifested wherever His chosen servants dwelt. Then Moses made a tent or tabernacle, which abode in no certain spot, but moved hither and thither. Last of all, long after Abraham, and long after Moses, and even after David, Solomon built God a house. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, even then the temporary character of the temple was clearly recognised by the prophet Isaiah, who had long ago, in his sixty-sixth chapter, proclaimed the truth which had been brought forward as an accusation against himself: "Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me, saith the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things?"-a great spiritual truth which had been anticipated long before Isaiah by King Solomon, in his famous dedication prayer at the opening of the temple: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded." { 1 Kings 8:27 } After St. Stephen had set forth this undeniable truth confirmed by the words of Isaiah, which to the Pharisaic portion of his audience, at least, must have seemed conclusive, there occurs a break in the address. One would have thought that he would then have proceeded to describe the broader and more spiritual life which had shone forth for mankind in Christ, and to expound the freedom from all local restrictions which should henceforth belong to acceptable worship of the Most High. Most certainly, if the speech had been invented for him and placed in his mouth, a forger would naturally have designed a fuller and more balanced discourse, setting forth the doctrine of Christ as well as the past history of the Jews. We cannot tell whether he actually entered more fully into the subject or not. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of St. Stephen’s doctrine. Isaiah’s opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses, which were their pride and glory; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, St. Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." This exposition of St. Stephen’s speech will show the drift and argument of it as it appears to us. But it must have seemed to them much more powerful, plain-spoken, and aggressive. He vindicated himself to any right-thinking and fair mind from the accusation of irreverence towards God, towards Moses, or towards the Divine institutions. But the minds of his hearers were not fair. He had trampled upon their prejudices, he had suggested the vanity of their dearest ideas, and they could not estimate his reasons or follow his arguments, but they could resort to the remedy which every failing, though for the present popular, cause possesses-they could destroy him. And thus they treated the modern as their ancestors had treated the ancient prophets. What a lesson Stephen’s speech has for the Church of every age! How wide and manifold the applications of it! The Jewish error is one that is often committed, their mistake often repeated. The Jews identified God’s honour and glory with an old order that was fast passing away, and had no eyes to behold a new and more glorious order that was opening upon them. We may blame them then for their murder of St. Stephen, but we must blame them gently, feeling that they acted as human nature has ever acted under similar circumstances, and that good motives were mingled with those feelings of rage and bigotry and narrowness that urged them to their deed of blood. Let us see how this was. Stephen proclaimed a new order and a new development, embracing for his hearers a vast political as well as a vast religious change. His forecast of the future swept away at once all the privileges and profits connected with the religious position of Jerusalem, and thus destroyed the political prospects of the Jewish people. It is no wonder the Sanhedrin could not appreciate his oration. Men do not ever listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their profits swept away, their dearest hopes utterly annihilated. Has not human experience often repeated the scene acted out that day in Jerusalem? On the political stage men have often seen it, -we ourselves have seen it. The advocates of liberty, civil and religious, have had to struggle against the same spirit and the same prejudices as St. Stephen. Take the political world alone. We now look back and view with horror the deeds wrought in the name of authority and in opposition to the principles of change and innovation. We read the stories of Alva and the massacres in the Netherlands, the bloody deeds of the seventeenth century in England and all over Europe, the miseries and the bloodshed of the American war of independence, the fierce opposition with which the spirit of liberty has been resisted throughout this century; and our sympathies are altogether ranged on the side of the sufferers, -the losers and defeated, it may have been, for the time, but the triumphant in the long run. The true student, however, of history or of human nature will not content himself with any one-sided view, and he will have some sympathy to spare for those who adopted the stern measures. He will not judge them too harshly. They reverenced the past as the Jews of Jerusalem did, and reverence is a feeling that is right and blessed. It is no good sign for this age of ours that it possesses so little reverence for the past, thinks so lightly of the institutions, the wisdom, the ideas of antiquity, and is ready to change them at a moment’s notice. The men who now are held up to the execration of posterity, the high priest and the Sanhedrin who murdered Stephen, the tyrants and despots and their agents who strove to crush the supporters of liberty, the writers who cried them down and applauded or urged on the violent measures which were adopted and sometimes triumphed for the time, -we should strive to put ourselves in their position, and see what they had to say for themselves, and thus seek to judge them here below as the Eternal King will judge them at the great final tribunal. They knew the good which the old political institutions had worked. They had lived and flourished under them as their ancestors had lived and flourished before them. The future they knew not. All they knew was that changes were proposed which threatened everything with which their dearest memories were bound up, and the innovators seemed dangerous creatures, obnoxious to God and man, and they dealt with them accordingly. So it has been and still is in politics. The opponents of political change are sometimes denounced in the fiercest language, as if they were morally wicked. The late Dr. Arnold seems a grievous offender in this respect. No one can read his charming biography by Dean Stanley without recognising how intolerant he was towards his political opponents; how blind he was to those good motives which inspire the timorous, the ignorant, and the aged, when brought face to face with changes which appear to them thickly charged with the most dangerous results. Charity towards opponents is sadly needed in the political as well as in the religious world. And as it has been in politics so has it been in religion. Men reverence the past, and that reverence easily glides into an idolatry blind to its defects and hostile to any improvement. It is in religion too as in politics; a thousand other interests-money, office, expectations, memories of the loved and lost - are bound up with old religious forms, and then when the prophet arises with his Divine message, as Stephen arose before the Sanhedrin, the ancient proverb is fulfilled, the corruption of the best becomes the worst, the good motives mingle with the evil, and are used by the poor human heart to justify the harshest, most unchristian deeds done in defence of what men believe to he the cause of truth and righteousness. Let us be just and fair to the aggressors as well as to the aggrieved, to the persecutors as well as to the persecuted. But let us all the same take good heed to learn for ourselves the lessons this narrative presents. Reverence is a good thing, and a blessed thing; and without reverence no true progress, either in political or spiritual things, can be made. But reverence easily degenerates into blind superstitious idolatry. It was so with the Sanhedrin, it was so at the Reformation, it has ever been so with the opponents of true religious progress. Let us evermore strive to keep minds free, open, unbiassed, respecting the past, yet ready to listen to the voice and fresh revelations of God’s will and purposes made to us by the messengers whom He chooses as He pleases. Perhaps there was never an age which needed this lesson of Stephen’s speech and its reception more than our own. The attitude of religious men towards science and its numerous and wondrous advances needs guidance such as this incident affords. The Sanhedrin had their own theory and interpretation of God’s dealings in the past. They clung to it passionately, and refused the teaching of Stephen, who would have widened their views, and shown them that a grand and noble development was quite in accordance with all the facts in the case, and indeed a necessary result of the sacred history when truly expounded! What a parable and picture of the future we here find! What a warning as to the attitude religious men should take up with respect to the progress of science! Patience, intellectual and religious patience, is taught us. The Sanhedrin were impatient of St. Stephen’s views, which they could not understand, and their impatience made them lose a blessing and commit a sin. Now has it not been at times much the same with ourselves? Fifty or sixty years ago men were frightened at the revelations of geology, -they had their own interpretations of the past and of the Scriptures, -just as three centuries ago men were frightened at the revelations and teaching of modern astronomy. Prejudiced and narrow men then strove to hound down the teachers of the new science, and would, if they could, have destroyed them in the name of God. Patience, here, however, has done its work and has had its reward. The new revelations have been taken up and absorbed by the Church of Christ. Men have learned to distinguish between their own interpretations of religion and of religious documents on the one hand and the religion itself on the other. The old, human, narrow, prejudiced interpretations have been modified. That which could be shaken and was untrue has passed away, while that which cannot be shaken has remained. The lesson taught us by these instances of astronomy and geology, ought not to be thrown away. Patience is again necessary for the Christian and for the scientist alike. New facts are every day coming to light, but it requires much time and thought to bring new facts and old truths into their due correlation, to look round and about them. The human mind is at best very small and weak. It is blind, and cannot see afar off, and it is only by degrees it can grasp truth in its fulness. A new fact, for instance, discovered by science may appear at first plainly contradictory to some old truth revealed in Scripture. But even so, we should not lose our patience or our hope taught us by this chapter. What new fact of science can possibly seem more contradictory to any old truth of the Creeds than St. Stephen’s teaching about the universal character of God’s promise and the freeness of acceptable worship must have seemed when compared with the Divine choice of the temple at Jerusalem? They appeared to the Sanhedrin’s ideas mutually destructive, though now we see them to have been quite consistent one with another. Let this historic retrospect support us when our faith is tried. Let us welcome every new fact and new revelation brought by science, and then, if they seem opposed to something we know to be true in religion, let us wait in confidence, begotten of past experience, that God in His own good time will clear up for His faithful people that which now seems difficult of comprehension. Patience and confidence, then, are two lessons much needed in this age, which St. Stephen’s speech and its reception bring home to our hearts. II. We have now spoken of the general aspect of the discourse, and the broad counsels we may gather from it. There are some other points, however, points of detail as distinguished from wider views, upon which we would fix our attention. They too will be found full of guidance and full of instruction. Let us take them in the order in which they appear in St. Stephen’s address. The mistakes and variations which undoubtedly occur in it are well worthy of careful attention, and have much teaching necessary for these times. There are three points in which Stephen varies from the language of the Old Testament. In the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter Stephen speaks thus: "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls"; while, if we turn to the Pentateuch, we shall find that the number of the original Hebrew immigrants is placed three times over at seventy, or threescore and ten, that is in Genesis 46:2 ; Genesis 46:7 , Exodus 1:5 , and Deuteronomy 10:22 . This, however, is only a comparatively minor point. The Septuagintor Greek version of the Pentateuch reads seventy-five in the first of these passages, making the sons of Joseph born in Egypt to have been nine persons, and thus completing the number seventy-five, at which it fixes the roll of the males who came with Jacob. The next two verses, the fifteenth and sixteenth, contain a much more serious mistake. They run thus:-"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmot the father of Sychem." Now here there occur several grave errors. Jacob was not carried over and buried at Sychem at all, but at the cave of Machpelah, as is plainly stated in Genesis 50:13 . Again, a plot of ground at Sychem was certainly bought, not by Abraham, however, but by Jacob. Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. Jacob bought his plot at Sychem from the sons of Emmor. There are in these verses, then, two serious historical mistakes; first as to the true burial-place of Jacob, and then as to the purchaser of the plot of ground at Sychem. Yet, again, there is a third mistake in the forty-third verse, where, when quoting a denunciation of Jewish idolatry from Amos 5:25-26 , he quotes the prophet as threatening, "I will carry you away beyond Babylon," whereas the prophet did say, "Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus." St. Stephen substituted Babylon for Damascus, two cities between which several hundred miles intervened. I have stated the difficulty thus as strongly as possible, because I think that, instead of constituting a difficulty, they are a real source of living help and comfort, as well as a great practical confirmation of the story. Let us take this last point first. I say that these mistakes, admitted mistakes which I make no vain attempt to explain away, constitute a confirmation of the story as given in the Acts against modern rationalistic opponents. It is a favourite theme of many of these writers that the Acts of the Apostles is a mere piece of fancy history, a historical romance composed in the second century for the purpose of reconciling the adherents of St. Paul, or the Gentile Christians, with the followers of St. Peter, or the Jewish Christians.; The persons who uphold this view fix the date of the Acts in the earlier half of the second century, and teach that the speeches and addresses were composed by the author of the book and put into the mouths of the reputed speakers. Now, in the mistake made by St. Stephen, we have a refutation of this theory. Surely any man composing a speech to put into the mouth of one of his favourite heroes and champions would not have represented him as making such grave errors when addressing the supreme Jewish senate. A man might easily make any of these slips which I have noticed in the heat of an oration, and they might have even passed unnoticed, as every speaker who has much practice in addressing the public still makes precisely the same kind of mistake. But a romancer, sitting down to forge speeches suitable to the time and place, would never have put in the mouth of his lay figures grave errors about the most elementary facts of Jewish history. We conclude, then, that the inaccuracies reported as made by St. Stephen are evidences of the genuine character of the oration attributed to him. Then again we see in these mistakes a guarantee of the honesty and accuracy of the reports of the speech. The other day I read the objections of a critic to our Gospels. He wished to know, for instance, how the addresses of our Lord could have been preserved in an age when there was no shorthand. The answer is, however, simple enough, and conclusive: there was shorthand in that age. Shorthand was then carried to such perfection that an epigram of Martial (14:208), a contemporary poet, celebrating its triumphs may be thus translated:- "Swift though the words, the pen still swifter sped; The hand has finished ere the tongue has said." While even if the Jews knew nothing of shorthand, the human memory, as we have already noted, was then developed to a degree of which we have no conception. Now, whether transmitted by memory or by notes, this address of St. Stephen bears proofs of the truthfulness of the reporter in the mistakes it contains. A man anxious for the reputation of his hero would have corrected them, as parliamentary reporters are accustomed to make the worst speeches readable, correcting evident blunders, and improving the grammar. The reporter of St. Stephen’s words, on the contrary, gave them to us just as they were spoken. But then, I may be asked, how do you account for St. Stephen’s mistake? What explanation can you offer? My answer is simple and plain enough. I have no other explanation to offer except that they are mistakes such as a speaker, filled with his subject, and speaking to an excited and hostile audience, might naturally make; mistakes such as truthful speakers every day make in their ordinary efforts. Every man who speaks an ext