Benson (Histeny of the First Planting of Me Christian Religion) and others have considered the testimony of the witnesses against Stephen as in every respect false, and that we are not even to suppose that he had stated that Christ would change the customs which Moses delivered (Acts vi. 14), upon the ground of the improbability of more being revealed to Stephen than to the apo stles, as to the abolition of the Levitical ceremonies. From the strain of the martyr's speech, however, a different conclusion may be dmwn. His words imply, in various passages, that external rites were not essential, and that true religion was not con fined to the temple service (Acts vii. 8, 38, 44, etc.) And thei:e seems much plausibility in the conjecture of Neandcr (Planting ana' Training of the Christian Chztrch, translated by Ryland, vol.
p. 56, seq.), that Stephen and the other deacons from their birth and education were less under the influence of Jewish prejudices than the natives of Palestine, and may thus have been prepared to precede the apostles themselves in apprehending the liberty which the gospel was to introduce. The statements of Stephen correspond in more than one particular with what was af'terwards taught by St. Paul.
His speech is well deserving of the most diligent study., and the more it is understood the higher idea will it convey of the degree in which he pos sessed the qualities ascribed to him in the sixth chapter. Very different views have been taken of it by commentators. Upon the whole we are in clined to follow that which is given by Neander in the work referred to. Even as a composition it is curious and interesting from the connection which inay be discovered between the various parts, and from the unity given to the whole by the honesty and earnestness of the speaker. Without any formal statement of his object, Stephen obviously gives a confession of his faith, sets forth a true view of the import of his preaching in opposition to the false gloss that had been put upon it, main tains the justness of his cause, and shows how well founded were his denunciations against the impeni tent Jews.
He first enters upon a historical statement, involvin," a refutation of the charges which had been ma'cle against him of hostility to the O. T. institutions ; but at the same time showing that acceptance with God does not depend upon out ward relations. Under the same form he illus trates the providential care exercised by the Ahnighty in regard to the Jewish people, alom, with the opposition exhibited by the Jews toward's those sent to them by God. And he points the
application of his whole discourse by charging his carnal-minded hearers with resisting, like their fathers, the Holy Ghost. The effect upon his auditors was terrible. Conscience-smitten, they united in wreaking their vengeance on the faithful denouncer of their guilt. They drowned his voice with their clamorous outcries, they stopped their ears against him, they rushed on him with one accord in a tumultuary manner, they carried him forth, and without waiting for the authority of law, they stoned him to death as a blasphemer. [SzoNING.1 The frantic violence of his persecutors did not disturb the tranquillity of the martyr, and he died praying that his murderers might be forgiven (vii. 6o). In his prayer he showed that a new spirit had been introduced into the world, and taught the Christians that the example of tbeir Divine Master was to be followed even in circumstances that they might have conceived to be impossible. Nor was this prayer without effect. Saul of Tarsus, who consented to his death (viii. I), and kept the clothes of them that stoned him (vii. 58), heard his words, mocking, doubtless, like the rest. But the prayer was heard, and to it we owe the ministry of the apostle Paul (Tillemont, vol. ii. P. 8).
The only other particular connected with Ste phen, mentioned in Scripture, is, that devout men carried him to his burial, and made great lamentation over him' (viii. 2). No information is given respecting the time of his death, or the place of his burial. In the fifth century (415), however, the relics of the martyr were said to have been miraculously discovered by a Greek priest of the name of Lucian (Luciani Presbyteri Epistola Inventione S. Stephani), and they were brought to Europe by Orosius. Evodius, Bishop of Myala, wrote a small treatise concerning the miracles per formed by them ; and Severus, a bishop of the island of Minorca, wrote a circular letter of the conversion of the Jews in that island, and of the miracles wronght in that place by the relics which Orosius left there. These writings are contained in the works of Augustine, who gives the sanction of his authority to the incredible follies they record (De Civit. Dei, xxii. 8).
Since the fifth century, Stephen's day has been celebrated on the 26th of December. The date is confessed by many Roman Catholic writers to be arbitrary, and is wholly without authority.—J. K.