There had been a great increase in the number of the disciples, the charge of whose spiritual interests was quite sufficient to engage their entire attention; and if the temporal charge became incompatible with the spiritual, it could not be a question which of the two they ought to forego. They had decided to give their whole time and thought to the furtherance of the gospel, and to the discharge of the spiritual trust committed to them. The terms used are remarkable: 'But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer, and to the ministry of the word.' Here it is seen that 'the ministry of the word' is not placed in the forefront of their duties, and prayer thrown in as the incident of convenient seasons; but 'prayer' is placed in the front as the chief and primary matter, and 'the ministry of the word' follows in the second place-perhaps as a sequel or consequence. By this, if we like to be taught, we may learn that prayer holds no second place among our duties, or rather among the qualifying privileges of useful service. Since all success in the furtherance of the gospel is of God, prayer stands even before effort in the ministry of the word; if it be not rather that prayer is in itself effort-and effort of the most prevailing kind.

Determined, therefore, to free themselves from inferior trusts, which others might discharge as effectually as they, and to reserve all their strength for spiritual labours, the apostles directed that the church should, after due inquiry, select seven men of exemplary character, and already in possession of spiritual gifts and graces, and present these to them, that they might commit to their care the trust they themselves were ready to lay down. This course was very acceptable to the church, which in due time made choice of seven qualified persons, who were then solemnly set apart to the service by prayer and the imposition of the apostles' hands.

The names of the persons to whom this high and honourable trust was committed, were-Stephen, who is specially distinguished by the sacred writer as one eminently endowed with faith, and other high gifts of the Spirit; Philip, of whom we shall hear more anon; Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas,

and Nicolas, who is noted as 'a proselyte of Antioch.' From this it may be surmised that none of the others were proselytes; but as all their names are Greek, it may be inferred that they were all Hellenists; that is, that, in the fulness of Christian confidence and brotherly love, the whole seven had been selected from the body which had felt itself aggrieved—a step which could not fail to cut off for the future all grounds for suspicion or complaint against 'the Hebrews' on the part of 'the Grecians.'

Forty-first Week-Sixth Day.

STEPHEN. ACTS VI. 8-VII.

THE first name in the list of the seven deacons is, as we have seen, that of Stephen; and to him the sacred narrative now calls our attention.

Although primarily appointed for a secular object, the deacons, in the discharge of their special duty, frequently came in contact with home and foreign Jews; and since men endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit had been chosen for the office, they possessed both the inward call and the ability to make use of their opportunities for the spread of the gospel among the Jews. In these endeavours Stephen remarkably distinguished himself; nor were miraculous deeds wanting to attest the authority of his words. This soon awakened a fresh and vehement persecution, in which we might feel some surprise to find the Pharisees the active parties, notwithstanding their recent toleration, did we not closely examine the circumstances. The fact itself may suggest that some fresh, and to them abhorrent, aspect of Christian teaching had been produced, which had not indeed been previously suppressed, but which had not before been so strongly enforced upon their attention. If we look into the specimens of apostolic teaching which have hitherto occurred, we shall find it turn chiefly on this head-that the Jewish rulers had incurred deep guilt by

the rejection and murder of Jesus, whose Divinity and Messiahship had now been attested beyond all question by his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven, where He sits, glorified, to bestow blessings on his followers, and remission of sins on the contrite, and whence He shall hereafter appear to judge the world. But we do not find a word directly applicable to the discontinuance and abrogation of the Mosaic system, as a thing that had become old and must pass away, and had already, as a ritual system, lost all force and binding obligation, by its complete fulfilment in Christ. This truth even the apostles were slow to perceive, as we see by the disputes which, at a later time, arose between Paul and Peter on the subject. But such a man as Stephen, who was in some respects a harbinger of Paul, had, as a Hellenist, undoubtedly from the first entertained freer notions of the Old Testament dispensation, in its relation to Christianity, than a Jew of Palestine could easily realize; and therefore the Holy Spirit might the more bring into his view that aspect of Christianity, by which it was to draw the heathen world within the circle of that higher spiritual life which formed its essence, but which necessarily presupposed the dissolution of the temple of Jerusalem as a centre of union.

There were at Jerusalem a great number of synagogues, founded by the foreign Jews for their own use when at the holy city, and for that of their sons who were sent thither to complete their education. To these synagogues, schools and colleges were in most instances attached. With the members of such synagogues Stephen naturally came into especial contact, as he, on the assumption of his being a Hellenist, must have belonged to one of them. The fearless zeal with which Stephen declared to them the whole counsel of God, on points upon which the Jewish mind was most open to offence, and the vigour of argument and power of eloquence with which he enforced them, soon awakened the strongest opposition in some of these synagogues, the members of which united their forces to put him down-by dint of argument and insult, or, if that failed, by strength of hand. The synagogues foremost in

this design were those of the Alexandrian and Cyrenian Jews; of Cilician Jews-to which the young Saul of Tarsus then belonged; of other Jews from Asia; and of the 'Libertines.' This last class has given occasion to some controversy. That they belonged to an unknown city called Libertum, is a conjecture to which no weight is now attached. It is better, and is indeed usual, to apprehend that it was a synagogue for the use of those who were freed-men; that is, Jews and proselytes who had been Roman slaves, and, with their descendants, had obtained their freedom. We are not, however, to suppose that freed-men only were connected with this synagogue, any more than that the other synagogues numbered among their members only men of Alexandria, Cyrene, or Cilicia. It is sufficient to understand that persons of this class preponderated in them. Young men must have formed an unusually large proportion of the members of these synagogues, seeing that so many were there engaged in their studies, the adult members of whose families were far away; and this fact, together with the certainty that one of Stephen's most active opponents did belong to this class, warrants the conclusion that the movement against Stephen originated among the Hellenistic students, and was conducted by them. It was not for this the less formidable. Jewish students were, in the essentials of student life and character, the same as German, English, or French students-heady, reckless, intolerant, prejudiced, and often ferocious young men, more vehemently carried away by party zeal than those to whom more extended years have given broader views of men and things.

The first step taken under these influences was, that the synagogues put forward some of their members, of different nations, and skilled in the subtilties of the later Jewish teaching, to argue the points in dispute with Stephen. But they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.' Ashamed of being thus openly defeated by a single adversary, and incensed that the religion which they opposed had thus received such signal confirmation, they suborned men of profligate consciences to accuse him of blasphemy before the

Sanhedrim; and then brought him tumultuously before the council, in order to obtain a formal decree of condemnation against him.

The precise accusation was, 'that he had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God;' and again, that he ceased not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law: for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs [or rites] which Moses delivered us.' This is said to have been the deposition of false witnesses. It does not, however, follow, that it was entirely a fabrication of theirs, but only that they had so coloured and exaggerated what he did say, as to give it an aspect of blasphemy which did not properly belong to it; though it must be admitted that even a fair report of what the teaching of his Lord authorized him to declare, might have been deemed blasphemous by those before whom Stephen appeared. There can be little doubt that what this holy man had said, afforded some basis for the misrepresentations of the witnesses; for before this time nothing similar had been advanced against the teachers of the Christian doctrine. Hence we may be able to collect, that what Stephen really did say was of the tenor already indicated. It is also observable that his defence plainly intimates 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 which he had really spoken, and which was already so obnoxious to the Jews, he had no wish to deny; but only to place what he had stated in its right connection, and to show that it was not open to the charge of blasphemy which had been laid against it. The 'blasphemy against Moses,' of which he had been accused, was probably found in his assertion that the authority of Moses was inferior to, or superseded by that of Christ. The blasphemy against God' may have been involved in the blasphemy against Moses, inasmuch as God was the great Author of that religion which Moses had taught the Israelites by his command; or it may have lain in his ascribing divinity to one who had lately suffered publicly as a male