TRACINGS FROM THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES
MURMURINGS AND
MARTYRDOM.
ACTS vi., vii.
THE hostility of the ecclesiastical power was now
pronounced. No doubt could be entertained that it would strain every nerve to
crush the movement. But the great opponent and the determined enemy was one
unseen, though ever active. Power from without the Church should still then be
exercised against it, and efforts from within to break up the harmony and
disintegrate the community were not to be neglected. Of these last we are now
first to read.
Murmurings. Community of goods, as we have seen
(Acts v. 4), was never enjoined by the Apostles, though it displayed, in a way
not to be mistaken, the feeling of oneness among the saints engendered by the
baptism of the Spirit. Poverty was from the outset a marked feature of the
Church in Jerusalem. To relieve that, daily ministrations were carried on.
Through this the enemy now sought to work, and to sow dissension among the
converts. A cry was raised that the widows of the Grecian Jews were neglected
to the advantage of the native-born Hebrews. Hence there began a murmuring
against the Hebrews - i.e., the native Jews - on the part of the Grecian Jews,
called Hellenists, because speaking Greek.*
* "Dost thou know Greek?" -
Hellenisti (Acts xxi. 37) - were the words of the captain to Paul. A
Greek-speaking Jew was therefore called Hellenistes - i.e., one who spoke
Greek.
Hellenists. A few remarks on this class may be
acceptable to the reader. Here for the first time are they mentioned. In ix. 29
they are mentioned a second time bv the historian, who never again speaks of
them by name. In Jerusalem there must have been no inconsiderable number of
them. They had several synagogues, of which it is thought by some that five are
mentioned (vi. 9): that of the Libertines or Roman freedmen; that of the
Cyrenians of North Africa; that of the Alexandrians; then another for those
from Cilicia; and a fifth for those of Proconsular Asia. These different
synagogues, and the fact that the Hellenists had synagogues of their own in the
capital of Judaism, showed that there was some cleavage between them and the
natives - whether caused simply by language or not, it is not easy to say. At
all events, they had synagogical interests apart, and probably each synagogue
cared for its own poor. To these Greek-speaking Jews, Stephen, perhaps one of
them, was exceedingly obnoxious. They disputed with him. And later Paul, who
certainly had been one of that class, disputed against them, and stirred up at
Jerusalem their animosity to such a pitch that they went about to kill him (ix.
29).
Understanding, then, that the Hellenists had synagogues of their
own, it might well happen in the Christian assembly that the widows formerly of
that class found themselves neglected by those who had been native-born Jews.
Was the community, then, to be broken up by this matter? Were strife and
jealousy to get a footing, to mar the peace and joy which had so conspicuously
reigned? It was a wily plan of the enemy indeed. Natural feeling is soon
stirred, unless grace is active. Parties would then be quickly formed, and the
once united company of Christians would be hopelessly rent asunder. This
threatened danger was averted by apostolic wisdom under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost.
Deacons appointed. For the Apostles at this juncture
interposed, and called a public meeting of the disciples. Had they taken the
responsibility of distributing to the necessities of saints, doubtless all
would have been satisfied, assured of their impartiality. More important work,
however, than serving tables devolved on them. So they thus addressed the
assembled disciples: "It is not reason [or, fit] that we should leave the Word
of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out from among you seven
men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to
the ministry of the Word" (vi. 2-4). The advice accepted, seven men with the
above-named qualifications were quickly found and unanimously elected.
Instruments fitted for the work were at hand, and all residents in
Jerusalem.
"Men of honest report," this was one qualification for
the service: the testimony and judgment of others were not to be esteemed of no
account. "Full of the Holy Ghost" was another qualification: full, not filled,
thus marking the general walk of the individual. Full "of wisdom," - this was
the third suggested qualification. Seven men, in whom all these were found,
were soon selected. Their names were Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor,
Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. Some, if not the most, of
these, if their names are any index, must have been Hellenistic Jews. Of two of
the seven - Stephen and Philip - our historian will have more to tell us. The
others who here come on the scene do not appear on the face of the narrative
again.
Important Points. Two points here call for attention :
the one is, by whom these men were chosen; the other is, by whom they were
appointed. Those who appointed them did not choose them ; those who chose them
could not appoint them. "Deacons" they are commonly called, yet the historian
never so designates them. Clearly it was to an office they were appointed -
that of serving tables (Acts vi. 1, 2). But the qualifications needed for their
selection mark them out as different from the deacons of later years (1 Tim.
iii. 8-10). Their service, too, was a special one, and restricted to the
assembly in Jerusalem; for elsewhere such a difficulty, as was met by their
appointment, could clearly not have arisen.
Appointed to administer the
funds furnished by the saints, it was only fitting that the company of
believers should select them. Similarly, at a later time, when St. Paul was
making collections in different Churches for the poor saints at Jerusalem, he
left it to those assemblies which contributed to choose the delegates by whom
their alms should be carried to Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19).
Those who contribute may justly look that they should have a voice in the
selection of the channel through which their bounty is to flow. But though
selecting the men, the Apostles it was who appointed them to their office; for
appointment to office in the Church of God by ordination, whatever the office
might be, was vested in the Apostles, or in those to whom they delegated that
power, as to Titus (i. 5), and probably, though that is not stated, to Timothy
also.
To exercise ministry in the Word, it needed no apostolic
authorisation. Ministers of the Word are gifts from the ascended Christ to men
(Eph. iv. 11, 12), and are set in the assembly by God Himself (1 Cor. xii. 28),
who has in that chapter given us, as it were, the table of precedence in the
assembly of all who are called to minister to those within it.* On the other
hand, to fill an office as that of an elder or a deacon, apostolic authority,
direct or indirect, was required (Acts xiv. 23 ; Titus i. 5). So the Apostles
told the assembly to select the men "whom we may appoint over this business."
We should mark the "we" here. It spoke of an authority which none of the
company save the Apostles could exercise. The seven selected men set before the
Twelve, they prayed and laid their hands on them - an act expressive of their
recognition of the duties these were called to discharge, and surely of
fellowship with them in it. Here we have the first ordination in the Christian
Church - an ordination, we would repeat, not to preach, but to discharge the
office of serving tables. In prayer and in the ministry of the Word the
Apostles would continue. The serving of tables the seven selected men were to
undertake.
* This explains the absence of evangelists in the passage. Their
sphere is especially outside the assembly, though equally with teachers gifts
from the ascended Christ.
Thus was this danger averted. Grace worked in
all. The suggestion of the Apostles was readily accepted. The men were chosen
by the assembly, and then set apart solemnly for their work. Did it appear a
small service ? True, the Apostles declined to undertake it. They, however, set
the seven apart by prayer. They turned to God about them, and doubtless looked
up for the grace and wisdom they would need in the discharge of their important
work. It concerned the welfare of the assembly. It was no trivial matter in the
estimation of the Apostles. It was, we may surely say, no small matter in the
eyes of God.
Onward now went the movement, like a rolling river, which
ever and anon carries away some fresh objects. This attempt to disintegrate the
Church completely failed. The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem
greatly, and even the ranks of the priesthood furnished recruits to the
increasing host, for a great company of the priests became obedient to the
faith (Acts vi. 7). Converts from the populace, converts from the priests, and
that in no small number - such was the report which the missionary record of
that day could have furnished.
Stephen. Hitherto the ministry of
Peter is all that we have been furnished with. Another one now comes on the
scene, not an Apostle, but one, and the first named of the seven, chosen to
serve tables. To minister in temporal things was one thing; but he could labour
in the Word as well. And that he did. The service to which he was appointed did
not prevent his testimony to the Lord Jesus going forth, and that in a powerful
way. But in character with the Gospel work amongst the Jews, the first thing
that we have is a notice of the great wonders and miracles which he wrought.
Yet though full of grace and power, a vessel chosen, and wonderfully used, we
have no detailed account of any wonder or miracle that he was empowered to
perform.
Much, how much, could surely have been recounted of the display
of the power of the Spirit by the early Christians. How little has been placed
on record! It was not the aim of the Church's first historian, guided as he was
by the Holy Ghost, to exalt men, or to hold them forth as prodigies of their
day. Besides, as miracles were to draw the attention of those who witnessed
them to something new taking place - the introduction of a new dispensation - a
full account of the wonders wrought would be out of place in a history designed
to instruct succeeding generations, not just in a record of displays of
almighty power, but in the character of the work which was going forward to win
souls to God and to His Son. Now, since the ministry of the Word in. the power
of the Spirit alone does this, we see Divine wisdom displayed in presenting
from time to time an outline of that ministry, whilst passing over very many
details of the exercise of miraculous power.
Besides, however, working
miracles, Stephen was a champion for the faith. Certain of the Hellenistic Jews
disputed with him. Some from different synagogues of that portion of the
nation, residents, we suppose, in Jerusalem, or at all events visiting there,
took part in this. Numbers were on their side. He alone is mentioned as
valiantly contending for the truth. But numbers did not overawe him. Alone he
could face his opponents, and discomfit them. "They were not able to withstand
the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake" (Acts vi. 10). An awkward
antagonist they had met with. For not merely did they not convince him, nor
could they silence him; but the wisdom he displayed, and the Holy Spirit by
whom he spake, they could not resist. "I will give you a mouth and wisdom,
which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist nor to gainsay" (Luke
xxi. 15), had been the Lord's promise. And the evangelist, who has preserved
that, here tells us how truly it was fulfilled. One man could confound a
multitude. Intellects of no mean order, if we may judge from Saul of Tarsus,
might be arrayed against him. But the Holy Ghost was with him, and all his
opponents felt themselves completely baffled.
Plots. Something,
however, they felt must be done to get rid of such a troublesome disputant.
Since arguments could not silence him, nor their dialectical powers confound
him, other means must be tried. Men were suborned who declared, "We have heard
him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God" (Acts vi. 11). It
is significant that the honour of Moses is here put in the foreground before
that of God. Like straw on water, it shows whence the current flowed. Would a
charge in that form have been dictated by the Holy Ghost? The accusation,
however, did work in stirring up the populace. A popular cry may be raised
without any demand on the part of the multitude for proof of the accusation. It
was thus, evidently, in this case. For the people, the elders, and the scribes
were aroused by the statements of those despicable people ready to commit
perjury to procure Stephen's condemnation. Seizing him, they hurried him before
the council.
Definite statements had now to be made. The council could
not convict him on such a general charge as these informers had propagated.
Witnesses must be forthcoming. And as in the Lord's case, so here - Stephen's
enemies could bring forward none but false ones. The charge of blasphemy was
now verbally dropped for the more precise statement, "This man ceaseth not to
speak words against the holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say,
that this Jesus of Nazareth [or, the Nazoreean] shall destroy this place, and
shall change the customs which Moses delivered us"(vi. 13, 14).
Such was
the indictment to which Stephen would have to answer. Naturally all eyes were
turned to the prisoner. What did they see? One pallid with fear? One trembling
for the consequences of his acts, and shrinking from punishment? No! A sight
they witnessed to which they were entirely unaccustomed. "Fastening their eyes
on him, they saw his face, as it had been the face of an angel." A criminal
about to die: was that the one who stood before them? Eather it was one like an
angel prepared to go to heaven. The high priest's voice was now heard saying,
"Are these things so?" Then in the midst, as we may well believe, of breathless
silence, the voice of Stephen was heard addressing the Sanhedrists, the
ecclesiastical judges before whom he was arraigned.
His Speech.
"Brethren and fathers," he began, the usual way of addressing such a company,
if treating them with respect (xxii. 1). "Brethren" would include his equals;
"fathers" would refer to the seniors in age, and to all in official position of
rule. Then starting with the first beginning of the nation's existence, dating
it from Abraham, he rehearses its history to the days of Moses, pointing out
that twice over their ancestors made the great mistake of rejecting the
instrument which God had designed for their deliverance. First it was Joseph.
Next it was Moses. Joseph's brethren sold into Egypt the one who turned out to
be their saviour and deliverer. By his own people Moses was refused in the land
of Egypt, and in the wilderness they thrust him from them, and turned back in
heart to Egypt. But more. They called Aaron to make for them gods. God then
gave them up to serve the host of heaven. Of this Amos is a witness, and
Stephen cites him for that purpose (Amos v. 25-27). Rejecting then Moses, they
also rejected God (Acts vii. 2-40). With these facts before them they might
well pause, and carefully consider what they were doing, and whither they might
be drifting. The mistake committed in connection with Joseph they had repeated
in connection with Moses. What were they doing now? They were repeating that
mistake. And in rejecting the Saviour in the person of the Lord Jesus they were
really turning from God, and will, as we know, be landed by-and-by in an
idolatry of a new and unheard-of kind. To pause then, and reflect, became them;
and all the more because Moses, for whom they professed such attachment, had
distinctly written of a prophet whom "God," said Stephen, would raise up unto
them like unto Moses.
Was Stephen denying Moses by preaching the Lord
Jesus Christ as the one to whom they should hearken? Groundless was such an
accusation with Deut. xviii. 18, 19 before them. And if they were to hearken to
that prophet in all he should say unto them, he might - could they deny it -
bring fresh revelations, which would effect a change as to the observance of
the customs on behalf of which they professed such zeal. Then as to the count
in the indictment of speaking against "the holy place," did they not remember
that the tabernacle had given place to the Temple; and long after the erection
of that latter structure God had declared by the prophet Isaiah that heaven,
not a material building on earth, was really His dwelling place? "The heaven is
My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet: what manner of house will
ye build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest? Did not My hands
make all these things'?" (Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2).
Well had Stephen met the
accusations. No wonder that his opponents could not resist the wisdom and the
Spirit by which he spake, if what we have in his speech was a sample of his
manner of reasoning, as doubtless was the case. Stephen dealt with Scripture,
and used that sword with effect, taught of the Spirit how to apply it. And now
having met the grave charges brought against him, except that referring to the
law, he turned and charged all before him with acting like their fathers in the
past, and boldly affirmed that the law, for which they professed such zeal,
they had not kept. With what consistency, then, could they ground a charge
against him with reference to it? We quote his words : "Ye stiffnecked and
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do alway resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?
and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of
whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers : who have received the law
by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it" (Acts vii. 51-53). A heavy
indictment this. Children of their fathers they prided themselves to be. What
answer could they make to this ? Stephen had met them by the Word. They would
reply to him by force. But ere carrying out that purpose, to one more testimony
on behalf of the Lord Jesus they had to listen : that would leave them without
excuse.
The Opened Heavens. Cut to the heart, they gnashed on him
with their teeth. So writes the historian, narrating what must have been
commonly known. Evidently Stephen's judges were in no condition to conduct a
calm and dispassionate inquiry. Anger dominated them, and they showed it. He,
perfectly calm, and undismayed by the marked token of their hostility, looked
up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the
right hand of God. The heavens had been opened on two previous occasions. To
Ezekiel they were opened, when a captive at the river Chebar (Ezek. i. 1,
26-28), and about to prophesy of the approaching judgment on Judah and
Jerusalem. He then saw visions of God, and the appearance of the likeness of
the glory of the Lord, even the likeness of a man on the throne. Six centuries
later the heavens were again opened, and the Holy Spirit like a dove descended,
and rested on the head of the latest One baptised by John in Jordan - the Lord
Jesus Christ (Mark i. 10). In a coming day they will again be opened, and the
Lord with His train of heavenly saints will come forth to establish the kingdom
of God in power upon earth (Eev. xix. 11). On the present occasion, when the
heavens were opened to Stephen, no one came forth; but the faithful witness saw
in heaven the One for whom he was suffering on earth. God was thereby
ministering to His servant, who was shortly to die as a martyr. Thus his faith
should be sustained, and his latest testimony be clear and unique. Whether he
had ever seen the Lord when on earth we know not. He knew Him, however, as He
beheld Him in heaven, and said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son
of man standing on the right hand of God " (Acts vii. 56).
The Son of
Man. Of this One Daniel had written, and in vision he had seen Him (Dan.
vii. 13). David, too, in the Psalms (viii.) had sung of Him. The Lord Jesus
also had distinctly applied this designation to Himself, intimating that He was
the one of whom the prophet had written (Mark xiv. 61, 62). Stephen now saw Him
as the Son of man and in heaven, and there standing in the place of honour - at
the right hand of God. Power, then, belongs to the crucified One, and as Son of
man He will one day exercise it; and all things must be placed under His feet
whom the Jews had crucified and slain. Many, probably, of the members of the
council had been present when the Lord Jesus declared of Himself that He was
the Son of man (Luke xxii. 69-71), and had part in judging Him worthy of death
for that. Now Stephen tells them to their face that he could see the One who
had once stood at their bar standing at the right hand of God. The inference
was plain - a child could draw it. Their guilt was undeniable. The weighty
charge just brought against them of murdering the Righteous One was but too
true (Acts vii. 52). Righteous He was. His presence in heaven attested that. No
room was left for any argument as to the validity of His claims. The case was
settled. The verdict was against the council. What would they now
do?
Martyrdom. Like others since their day, to an unanswerable
reply they would resort to force. And apparently without giving him any time
for reflection, they hurried Stephen off to execution. For, crying with a loud
voice, and stopping their ears, they rushed on him with one accord, and cast
him out of the city, and stoned him. No sentence, that we read of, was
pronounced. In a state of frenzy they had their way. Stephen was stoned,* the
witnesses laying down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. By
the law the witnesses were to cast the first stone at the criminal (Deut. xvii.
7). This was not overlooked at that moment.
* The Jews could only condemn to
death with the sanction of the Procurator. At this juncture, however, there was
none. Pilate had been ordered to Rome to answer charges made against him, and
no one was appointed in his place. The procuratorship was vacant. Further, just
at this time Tiberius the emperor died. Events thus favouring, the Sanhedrin,
taking things into their own hands, put Stephen to death without fear of being
called to account for it.
Would Stephen quail before death? Would he now
renounce the faith he had preached? Would he still confess the Lord Jesus
Christ as his Saviour and Master? He speaks. But not to his murderers. To One
in heaven he addresses himself. To Him who is God he spoke, yet not as the God
of Israel. All could hear what he said, and to whom he spoke. He called to One
in heaven by a title, and by that name which witnessed of His humanity - "Lord
Jesus." They stoned him. He was calling and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit " (Acts vii. 59). To the crucified One he committed himself in that
solemn hour. To Him who had not saved Himself from death the dying martyr
prayed, and entrusted to His keeping his interests in quiet confidence, - his
interests, his future, his spirit. What a testimony! How much was Christ to
him! What a confession was his! To Christ he committed himself, when absent
from the body. In dying, as in living, he confessed Jesus as Lord. The first
Christian of whose death we read has taught us what Christ could be to him in
his dying hour. And one who stood by, that young man named Saul, years after,
in the prospect of his death, could write: "I know whom I have believed, and am
persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against
that day" (2 Tim. i. 12). What is not Christ to the believer in the hour of the
dissolution of his body!
Again, though only once more, Stephen's voice
was heard, and that in accents clear and strong. He had spoken to the Lord
about himself. He now speaks to Him about his murderers. Familiar as he
doubtless was with the Old Testament, his language was not couched in the vein
of a saint under law. On his knees, in the attitude of prayer, and in a voice
loud enough for those around to hear, the last words from his lips were words
of prayer for those who had hurried him to his end. "Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge." Silence, the silence of death, now followed. He fell asleep.
Like his Master he prayed for his enemies, and like Him committed himself to
One in heaven. In the Lord's case it was to His Father; in Stephen's, it was to
his Saviour and Lord. With Stephen's death the message began to be sent after
the nobleman, "We will not have this man to reign over us " (Luke xix. 14). It
formed, therefore, an epoch in the history of the nation.
And now the
testimony in Jerusalem, as far as the Acts records it, comes to a close.
Intimidation (iv.), persecution (v.), and martyrdom had been tried (vii.) to
stop, if possible, the preaching of the Gospel; but, as we learn, without
success. Threats, beatings, and even death had no terrors for the Christians.
The arrows in the quiver seemed exhausted. Nothing more terrible could be
devised than death. So, in spite of all that the ecclesiastical authorities
could do, the preaching of the Lord Jesus went forward in undiminished power,
the witnesses working with unflagging zeal. For Stephen's death, scattering the
company of disciples hitherto resident at Jerusalem, except the Apostles,
furnished the occasion for spreading the Gospel more abroad. The disciples
"went everywhere preaching the Word" (viii. 4). To this new development of the
movement the historian will now turn, beginning with the work in Samaria, and
going on to the spread of it among the Gentiles.
Who the Lord is.
But here one may conveniently pause, and review what has been brought out
relative to the Lord Jesus Christ. The theme of prophecy, as He unquestionably
was, He had been proclaimed by Peter as Lord and Christ, in accordance with
Psalms xvi. and ex. He had also been introduced as the Servant of Jehovah (Acts
iii. 13), a character in which Isaiah presents Him; and He had been twice
declared to be the Prophet of whom Moses wrote (iii. 22, vii. 37), as well as
the rejected corner stone, in accordance with Psalm cxviii. As the Prince (or,
Author) of life, Peter preached Him in Solomon's porch. As the Saviour for
Israel he proclaimed Him twice over before the council (Acts iv. 12, v. 31). To
His personal character, as righteous and holy, that same Apostle, as well as
Stephen, bore witness (iii. 14, vii. 52). Moreover, He is the Son of man. of
whom Daniel wrote, now in heaven (vii. 56), but who will come back to earth at
a future day (iii. 20, 21). One other important testimony to Him has still to
be unfolded. For though presented already as the Servant of Jehovah, He was
subsequently to be preached to the Jews as the Son of God. The vessel, however,
appointed first to set this forth had yet to be called out by the grace of
God.
Criticisms. Before passing on from Stephen's history, we
must advert to some objections brought against his speech, indications, it has
by some been supposed, of his want of acquaintance with the Old Testament
history to which he referred. The late Bishop Christopher Wordsworth enumerates
ten objections, with all which he professes to deal, and to refute - whether
effectively or not of course the reader must judge. But ten objections advanced
against Stephen's speech indicate that the martyr's historical statements are
regarded by some as very questionable. Had we verbatim shorthand writer's notes
of what he did say, the objections raised against his accuracy would have great
weight. But considering that no unical MS. can be traced back earlier than the
fourth century, it is evident that there had been time between his day and the
date of the earliest uncial of the New Testament for mistakes to have crept in,
before even the copies were in existence from which the Vatican and Sinaitic
MSS. have been transcribed. So of versions, as the Peshito Syriac, or the Latin
and others, made originally at an earlier date than any uncial MS. that we
possess, though they may, and often do, confirm the readings of the MSS. which
are supposed to be most correct, yet we have no certainty that some mistakes
may not have crept into the copies from which those versions were originally
made. Hence mistakes, if there be any really in Stephen's speech, may be due,
not to his lack of information or want of accuracy, but to some transcriber in
very early days. Without affirming the probability of this, we must admit the
possibility of it. Of some of these objections rational explanations have been
offered. Of others we are not in a position to offer a real solution. If there
are mistakes, how they arose we have no means in this nineteenth century of
determining. On the other hand, considering how limited is our knowledge of
matters to which he refers, it seems wiser, whilst confessing the difficulties,
to leave them, in the present state of our knowledge, without attempting their
removal; and this seems the more incumbent, because Stephen supplies us with
some information the accuracy of which we have no reason to doubt, though, not
met with in the Old Testament. He tells us, for instance, that Moses was
learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, and was mighty in his words and deeds (Acts
vii. 22). Of this Exodus has no record. He states also the lawgiver's age when
he began to visit his brethren (23). On this also the Old Testament is silent.
It may be that, had we more information, we should find that the statements
made by Stephen, assuming they are correctly reported, are not the blunders
which have been supposed. Till more information is forthcoming, we had better
leave the question there. (Or, better still, accept that our scripture is
the infallible Word by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT be wrong. Safer to say we do
not yet understand certain things than to accuse the Spirit of mistakes! -
Editor)
Go To Chapter Six