Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.D. 33.
*H And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Ver 1. Of the Grecians against the Hebrews. [1] By the Grecians are many times understood the heathens or pagans, as Acts xiv. 1. xviii. 4., &c., but here by Grecians (which some translate Hellenists or Grecists ) we may understand those new converted Christians, who had been Jews before, but who had been born in places where the Greek tongue was spoken; as by the Hebrews, we may understand those converted to the Christian faith, who were of the Jewish race, born, and bred in those places, where they spoke not Greek, but Syriac, which was then the language of the Jews. This difference is grounded on the Greek text. — Their widows were neglected; that is, they seemed less regarded, or less favoured in the daily distributions, than such as were of the Jewish race, and spoke the language of the Jews, as it was then spoken in Palestine. Wi. — They were most probably both of Jewish origin, and received their different appellations according to the language they spoke. The former were also frequently called Hellenists. Calmet. — It is not certain in what the Greek widows were despised. Some imagine, that a preference was given to their rivals, in the distribution of offices, that they were appointed to the meaner charges, and oppressed with too much labour. But it is most natural to suppose, that the complaints regarded the alms that were distributed, and that the necessities of both parties were not supplied, without the appearance of partiality. Menochius. — For c. iv. we read neither was there any one among them that wanted; and distribution was made to every man, according as he had need; and the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. But nothing in human institutions is so good, as not to require occasional reform, owing either to the wickedness or negligence of man. E. in dif. loc.
*H Then the twelve, calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
Ver. 2. And serve tables. The apostles did not judge it proper for them to be so much employed in managing that common stock, out of which every one, as they stood in need, were supplied, as to meat, and all other necessities: this took up too much of their time, which might be better employed in preaching, &c. Wi. — Word of God. The most essential duty of an apostle and bishop, is to announce the word of God. S. Paul would not even baptize, lest it should be a prejudice to the performance of this great duty, for which he had been sent. Many think, that this ministry of the tables, here signifies, not only the distribution of corporal nourishment, but the dispensing of the holy Eucharist. As sacred and divine as was this latter duty, the apostles preferred before it, their obligation of preaching. Calmet.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 40, Article 3
[III, Q. 40, Art. 3]
Whether Christ Should Have Led a Life of Poverty in This World?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most eligible form of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean between riches and poverty; for it is written (Prov. 30:8): "Give me neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life." Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of poverty, but of moderation.
Obj. 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among whom He lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of humility, according to Matt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it is written (1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a life of poverty.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 8:20): "The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on Matt. 17:26: "That we may not scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal to pay the tax for Himself and His apostles."
_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of preaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): "Let us go into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for to this purpose am I come." Now in order that the preachers of God's word may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free from care of worldly matters: which is impossible for those who are possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the apostles to preach, said to them (Matt. 10:9): "Do not possess gold nor silver." And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: "It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables."
Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily poverty, in order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes that through His poverty we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich."
Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Matt. 10:9, that if the disciples had been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for the salvation of mankind." And the same reason applies to Christ.
Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was poor and despicable, all that was of small account and hidden from the majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He live in want. Learn this from the manger."
Reply Obj. 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: since abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But forasmuch as Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add (Prov. 30:8); but only that which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft and perjury. But voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ.
Reply Obj. 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the necessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in regard to Christ: for it is written (Luke 8:2, 3) that certain women followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as Jerome says on Matt. 27:55, "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing. But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund, but not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by anxiety.
Reply Obj. 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty itself is a sign of very great humility. _______________________
FOURTH
*S Part 4, Ques 67, Article 2
[III, Q. 67, Art. 2]
Whether to Baptize Is Part of the Priestly Office, or Proper to That of Bishops?
Objection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A. 1, Obj. 1), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (Matt. 28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi). Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.
Obj. 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in the Church, as the gloss observes on Luke 10:1: indeed, they even take the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems that to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops.
Obj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate (_conficere_) the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament of Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal office.
_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone."
_I answer that,_ Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread and one chalice." Moreover, by Baptism a man becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he receives the right to approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to one and the same, to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole.
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing, but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the most important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts 6:2): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." And the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above (Q. 64, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 5, 9). A proof of this is found also in the fact that our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize; since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) that he had baptized some.
Reply Obj. 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials; according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only." Consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the Church to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke 10.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the sacrament of Baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of perfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to bishops. _______________________
THIRD
*H Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Ver. 3. Look ye out among you seven men, and men of a good repute and character, full of the Holy Ghost. Wi. — Diverse circumstances prove, that they were chosen to be about the altar also. They were to be full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom: they received the imposition of the apostles' hands, and in them S. Paul requireth, in a manner, the same conditions as in bishops; all which would not have been necessary for any secular stewardship. See Acts xiii. 3. Immediately after their ordination, they preached, baptized, disputed, as we see in S. Stephen, &c. &c. Hence S. Ignatius: "it is ours to please by all means the deacons, who are for the ministry of Jesus Christ; for they are not servitors of meat and drink, but ministers of the Church of God. For what are deacons but imitators or followers of Christ, ministering to bishops, as Christ to his Father, and working unto him a clean and immaculate work, even as S. Stephen to S. James? Ep. ad Tral.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 184, Article 6
[II-II, Q. 184, Art. 6]
Whether All Ecclesiastical Prelates Are in the State of Perfection?
Objection 1: It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of perfection. For Jerome commenting on Titus 1:5, "Ordain . . . in every city," etc. says: "Formerly priest was the same as bishop," and afterwards he adds: "Just as priests know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too, bishops should recognize that, by custom rather than by the very ordinance of our Lord, they are above the priests, and are together the rightful governors of the Church." Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore those priests also are who have the cure of souls.
Obj. 2: Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons, of whom a gloss on Acts 6:3, "Brethren, look ye out . . . seven men of good reputation," says: "The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the Church seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were the supports of that which is nearest to the altar." Therefore it would seem that these also are in the state of perfection.
Obj. 3: Further, just as bishops are bound to "lay down their life for their sheep," so too are parish priests and archdeacons. But this belongs to the perfection of charity, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3). Therefore it would seem that parish priests and archdeacons also are in the state of perfection.
_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): "The order of pontiffs is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative and light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive." Hence it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops only.
_I answer that,_ In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things may be considered, namely their order and their cure. Their order is directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated above (Q. 183, A. 3, ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not bound on this account to things pertaining to perfection, except in so far as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the taking of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to perfection, as we shall state further on (Q. 186, A. 4). Therefore it is clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not placed simply in the state of perfection, although inward perfection is required in order that one exercise such acts worthily.
In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on the part of the cure which they take upon themselves. For they are not bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain the cure of souls; but they can surrender it--either by entering religion, even without their bishop's permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2, can. Duae sunt)--or again an archdeacon may with his bishop's permission resign his arch-deaconry or parish, and accept a simple prebend without cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of perfection; for "no man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). On the other hand bishops, since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal cure, save by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain causes, as we shall state further on (Q. 185, A. 4). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only bishops.
Reply Obj. 1: We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were not distinct. For bishops are so called "because they watch over others," as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while the priests according to the Greek are "elders." [*Referring to the Greek _episkopos_ and _presbyteros_ from which the English 'bishop' and 'priest' are derived.] Hence the Apostle employs the term "priests" in reference to both, when he says (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor"; and again he uses the term "bishops" in the same way, wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says (Acts 20:28): "Take heed to yourselves" and "to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God."
But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a difference between them, even at the time of the apostles. This is clear on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on Luke 10:1, "After these things the Lord appointed," etc. which says: "Just as the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples were made priests of the second order." Subsequently, however, in order to avoid schism, it became necessary to distinguish even the terms, by calling the higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that priests nowise differ from bishops is reckoned by Augustine among heretical doctrines (De Heres. liii), where he says that the Arians maintained that "no distinction existed between a priest and a bishop."
Reply Obj. 2: Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese, while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry under the bishops. Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 12:28, "to one, helps, to another, governments [*Vulg.: 'God hath set some in the church . . . helps, governments,' etc.]," says: "Helps, namely assistants to those who are in authority," as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop; "governments, namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who have to instruct the people": and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that "just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or bishop." Also it is said (XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): "Priests and deacons must all take care not to do anything without their bishop's permission." Wherefore it is evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors to the king; and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed by simple commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon or parish priest receives his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by receiving orders before having a cure.
Reply Obj. 3: As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure, but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so the pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to lay down their life for the sheep, except in so far as they have a share in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to perfection rather than that they attain the state of perfection. _______________________
SEVENTH
*H And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor, and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Ver. 5. By the names of these seven, it would appear, that they were all Greeks. The reason of this, most probably, is to silence more effectually all future murmurs, by giving to the aggrieved party protectors of their own nation. Tirinus. — The history of Stephen occurs hereafter. Philip, in the 8th chapter, is called an evangelist, that is, a preacher of the gospel. By Eusebius, Tertullian, and others, he is called an apostle, that is, an apostolic man. See Lives of the Saints, and Rom. Martyrology, June 6. — S. Jerom says, his tomb, and that of his four daughters, the prophetesses, were to be seen at Cæsarea, in Palestine. Ep. ad Eustoch. — Of the rest, except Nicolas, nothing certain is known: their acts have perished. Nicolas, as appears from the text, was a proselyte, first to Judaism, then to Christianity. S. Epiphanius, and many others, accuse him of being, by his incontinency, the author, or at least the occasion of the impure sects of Nicoalites and Gnostics. Clement of Alexandria, and S. Augustin, acquit him of this, and attribute the above heresies to an abuse of some expressions, which he uttered in his simplicity, and which were susceptible of a good and bad sense. See Baronius and Tillemont.
*H These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them.
Ver. 6. And they, that is, the apostles, laid, or imposed hands upon them. These deacons, therefore, were designed and ordained for a sacred ministry, and not only to manage the common stock, and temporals of the faithful. This is proved, 1. By the qualifications required in such men, who were to be full of the Holy Ghost. 2. This is evident from their ecclesiastical functions mentioned in this book of the Acts, and in the epistles of S. Paul, and by the ancient Fathers. S. Stephen and S. Philip immediately preached the gospel, as we find in this, and the 8th chapter; they baptized those that were converted. In the first ages they assisted the bishops and priests at their divine office, and distributed the sacred chalice, or cup of the holy Eucharist. They succeeded as it were, the Levites of the old law. And in the chief Churches, the deacons, or the archdeacons in the first ages, had the chief administration of the ecclesiastical revenues, as we read of S. Laurence, at Rome. Wi. — Imposed hands upon them. Notwithstanding the opinions of some, that these deacons were only the dispensers of corporal food, and therefore very different from the ministers of the altar, who now bear that name, it must nevertheless be observed, that the most ancient Fathers, SS. Justin, Irenæus, &c. have acknowledged in them the two-fold character, and always style them the ministers of the mysteries of God. At the commencement of Christianity, the faithful generally received the holy Eucharist after a repast, which they took together, in imitation of our Saviour, who instituted the Sacrament after supper. Now the deacons, who presided over the first tables, after having distributed the corporeal food to the assembly, ministered also the food of life, which they received from the hand of the bishop. Thus were they ministers of both the common and sacred tables. Afterwards, they had assistants called sub-deacons, and as among the Gentile converts, there did not exist that community of goods, as at Jerusalem, their chief employment became to serve the bishop in the oblation of the holy sacrifice. Calmet.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 7, Article 10
[III, Q. 7, Art. 10]
Whether the Fulness of Grace Is Proper to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. For what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone. But to be full of grace is attributed to some others; for it was said to the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1:28): "Hail, full of grace"; and again it is written (Acts 6:8): "Stephen, full of grace and fortitude." Therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Obj. 2: Further, what can be communicated to others through Christ does not seem to be proper to Christ. But the fulness of grace can be communicated to others through Christ, since the Apostle says (Eph. 3:19): "That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God." Therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Obj. 3: Further, the state of the wayfarer seems to be proportioned to the state of the comprehensor. But in the state of the comprehensor there will be a certain fulness, since "in our heavenly country with its fulness of all good, although some things are bestowed in a pre-eminent way, yet nothing is possessed singularly," as is clear from Gregory (Hom. De Cent. Ovib.; xxxiv in Ev.). Therefore in the state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is possessed by everyone, and hence the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. On the contrary, The fulness of grace is attributed to Christ inasmuch as He is the only-begotten of the Father, according to John 1:14: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." But to be the Only-begotten of the Father is proper to Christ. Therefore it is proper to Him to be full of grace and truth.
_I answer that,_ The fulness of grace may be taken in two ways: First, on the part of grace itself, or secondly on the part of the one who has grace. Now on the part of grace itself there is said to be the fulness of grace when the limit of grace is attained, as to essence and power, inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest possible excellence and in its greatest possible extension to all its effects. And this fulness of grace is proper to Christ. But on the part of the subject there is said to be the fulness of grace when anyone fully possesses grace according to his condition--whether as regards intensity, by reason of grace being intense in him, to the limit assigned by God, according to Eph. 4:1: "But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ"--or "as regards power," by reason of a man having the help of grace for all that belongs to his office or state, as the Apostle says (Eph. 3:8): "To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men." And this fulness of grace is not proper to Christ, but is communicated to others by Christ.
Reply Obj. 1: The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace, not on the part of grace itself--since she had not grace in its greatest possible excellence--nor for all the effects of grace; but she is said to be full of grace in reference to herself, i.e. inasmuch as she had sufficient grace for the state to which God had chosen her, i.e. to be the mother of His Only-begotten. So, too, Stephen is said to be full of grace, since he had sufficient grace to be a fit minister and witness of God, to which office he had been called. And the same must be said of others. Of these fulnesses one is greater than another, according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher or lower state.
Reply Obj. 2: The Apostle is there speaking of that fulness which has reference to the subject, in comparison with what man is divinely pre-ordained to; and this is either something in common, to which all the saints are pre-ordained, or something special, which pertains to the pre-eminence of some. And in this manner a certain fulness of grace is common to all the saints, viz. to have grace enough to merit eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God. And this is the fulness of grace which the Apostle desires for the faithful to whom he writes.
Reply Obj. 3: These gifts which are in common in heaven, viz.: vision, possession and fruition, and the like, have certain gifts corresponding to them in this life which are also common to all the saints. Yet there are certain prerogatives of saints, both in heaven and on earth, which are not possessed by all. _______________________
ELEVENTH
*H Now there arose some, of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines and of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Ver. 9. Called of the Libertines. [2] That is, of the synagogue of those, whose fathers had been made slaves under Pompey, and the Romans, but who had again been restored to their liberty, and had been made free. There were other synagogues for the Jews of Cyrene, of Alexandria, &c. No doubt but S. Stephen had converted many of them; and the chiefs of the synagogues, not being able to dispute with him, or to answer the spirit of wisdom, which directed him, they suborned witnesses. Wi.
*H Then they suborned men to say they had heard him speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God.
Ver. 11. Who should say, that they heard him speaking words of blasphemy against Moses, and against God, against the law and the temple: that Jesus would destroy the temple. These accusations were forged; for the apostles themselves still frequented the temple, and Jesus came to fulfil the law, as to its moral precepts. Wi.
*H And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law.
Ver. 13. It was true that Jesus would destroy the place, and change their traditions, yet they were false witnesses, because they deposed, that Stephen had made these assertions, which he had not, purposely to excite the Jews to rise up against him, and put him to death. Besides, had Stephen spoken what was advanced against him, they still would have been false witnesses, for the words were in fact words of truth, which these suborned men called, words of blasphemy. See v. 11.
*H And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel.
Ver. 15. Saw his face, as it were the face of an angel. All in the council, or sanhedrim, saw an extraordinary and charming brightness in the countenance of Stephen, which struck them with admiration and fear. Wi. — Angel. His face shone with a wonderful brightness, an emblem of his interior perfection. In this he was like Moses, whose countenance was so bright, that the Jews could not steadfastly behold it. By this the beholders had an opportunity of being converted, had they so wished, or were rendered inexcusable for their neglect. It is also a testimony of the great sanctity of the deacon. This same miracle is not recorded to have happened to any other but Moses, and our Lord at his transfiguration. D. Dion. Carthus. — Although this appearance, in an inferior degree, has been not unfrequently observed in the constant and cheerful countenance of the martyrs before their persecutors, and of privileged saints, whilst they were happily employed in their intimate communications with heaven.