man; but the more he charged them, fo much the more a

great deal they published it, and were beyond measure "astonished, saying, he hath done all things well, he maketh "both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."

These three are the only inftances where a deliberate external application is related to have been used, and in all these cafes the reafon for ufing it feems to have been one and the fame, even to convey to the individuals, on whom the miracles were performed, a clear affurance that Jefus was the perfon at whofe command, and by whofe agency the cure was wrought, and to enable them to flate to others the grounds of this affurance fully and circumftantially.

For this purpose our Saviour used such a mode of application as was best calculated to make an impreffion on the senses thefe men poffeffed, unimpaired, antecedent to the miracle, and fuch as led them to obferve, that he was about to interpofe, in order to perfect those organs which were defective. A little attention will fhew that every circumftance in the different modes of application had this tendency.

A blind man can know another only by the voice or the touch. The blind man near Bethfaida our Lord led out of the town remote from the crowd, that he might be sure of the perfon who spoke to or touched him; he then spat on his eyes, and laid his hands on him, and reftored him to fight, though imperfectly-after that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and he faw clearly. What poffible mode could give him a more full afsurance that the cure was wrought by the interpofition of an external agent, and that Jefus was that agent. The deaf man could judge of the intentions of another only by feeing what he does, him therefore our Lord took afide from the multitude, that he might fix and confine his attention to himself, and then he put his fingers into his ears, and touched his tongue, thus fignifying to him that he intended to produce fome change in these organs; he then looked up to heaven, at the fame time speaking, to fignify the change would proceed from a divine power, exercised at his interposition.

The very fame purpose was equally anfwered by our Lord's application to the eyes of the man born blind; it affured him that the person who came close to him, and spoke to him, and anointed his eyes, was the fole agent, by whofe interpofition

the

the cure was wrought. Immediately, on approaching our Saviour, after receiving his fight, he must have recognized him by his voice. Had the grounds of his affurance been lefs full and circumstantial, he never could have fo unanswerably filenced the objections, and replied, to the captious queries of the Pharifees-" What did he do to thee? how opened he thine "eyes?—He answered, and faid, “a man that is called Jesus "made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and faid unto me, go to "the pool of Siloam, and wash, and I went and washed, and "I received fight."

We may be confirmed in believing this to have been the defign of these external applications, by obferving, that they were used in no instance except those of blindness and deafness, when a defect of the fenfes rendered them neceffary to convey fuch affurance of Jesus having been the author of the miracle. And ftill more, by obferving that it does not appear that any of these three men had any previous knowledge of our Saviour's power and character. The man born blind he healed without any folicitation. The blind man at Bethfaida, and the deaf man, do not appear to have come of themselves, they were brought by their friends; more precaution was therefore neceffary to call their attention to the perfon by whom the miracle was wrought, and give them full evidence that it was his fole work. When the two blind men at Capernaum, and two others near Jericho, applied to our Saviour to be healed, it was with a declared previous conviction of his divine power, they followed him, crying, "Son of David have mercy upon us.' Here therefore a lefs remarkable external application was fufficient, as they profeffed their belief; Jefus only required that this profeffion fhould be fincere. "Believe ye, faid he, that I "have the power to do this? and they faid, yea Lord: then he "touched their eyes, faying, according to your faith be it unto " you; and their eyes were opened.”

If these remarks are juft, they exhibit one of thofe numberlefs cafes, where incidents apparently minute and objectionable, when well confidered, difplay the miraculous nature of the facts, and the admirable propriety of our Lord's conduct in every circumstance; and every fuch inftance confirms ftrongly the conclufion, that our Lord's miracles were not delusive vifions, or the extravagancies of a wild and fenfelefs fanatic, but

plain proofs of a divine power, exhibited with the sobriety and dignity becoming his divine character. This their close connection with the subject of the foregoing difcourfe will, it is hoped, apologize for the length to which these remarks have extended.

..

P. 44. They had been chofen as peculiar wit"neffes of the refurrection of their Lord."

Mr. Paine having revived this objection, of our Lord's not appearing publicly to all the Jews, and ftated it as unanfwerable, I wish briefly to obferve that the apoftles were furely the beft poffible witneffes; they were perfectly familiar with him, and could not be deceived as to his identity; they facrificed every temporal intereft in confirming their teftimony, and must have been fincere; but yet their teftimony has been fometimes fet afide as nugatory, because our Lord did not appear publicly to all the Jews; that is, fufficient evidence is rejected because we are not gratified with evidence of a quite different nature. But had our Lord appeared publicly, let us for a moment confider what would probably have been the effect? The Jews faw Lazarus publicly raised, yet they were not convinced; they were not influenced by our Lord's multiplied miracles, because he did not appear as a temporal Meffiah. Had this difpofition remained, either they would have rejected our Lord, though convinced of his refurrection, and their rejection would have been cited as evidence directly contradictory to that of the apoftles; or if they receiv ed him, it would have been as a temporal Redeemer, and this would have been imputed to temporal motives, to the artifice of the rulers, and the national prejudices of the people favouring the views of a political deceiver. Or if we take a third fuppofition, and fuppofe the whole nation to have received Jefus in his true character of a fpiritual Redeemer, yet here alfo their affent would be imputed to national pride, flattered by being the authors of an univerfal religion. Weould have no proof of the reality of the miracles wrought by our Lord, and his apoftles, becaufe they would have undergone, no fcrutiny, fince all the fpectators would have been friends. Weshould have no certainty that the prophecies were not altered to ac

commodate

commodate them to events which that nation, the principal depofitary of these predictions, univerfally wifhed to per fuade mankind formed their accomplishment, and we should lofe the chief proof of the difinterestedness and steadiness of the apoftles' teftimony, for they would have had the whole body of the nation to fupport their pretenfions to the high rank of divine teachers, and to guard them from the hazard of persecution, or confole them by fharing their martyrdom as the glory of their race. How truly may we here apply what my learned friend already quoted has advanced on another similar argument. "When will the failure of every attempt at con"triving a fyftem of evidence, better adapted to the support of "Christianity than that on which it refts, convince its adversa"ries that it derives its origin from more than human wisdom?” Elrington's Sermons, p. 185. Vide, on this fubject, Randolph's Chriftian Faith a Rational Affent, from p. 173 to 178. The Trial of the Witneffes, p. 76 to 82. Sequel to the Trial, p. 136. Macknight's Harmony, fect. 158. The Commentators on Acts x. 41, particularly Dodd's useful Compilation. If the reader wishes to confult more authors on this fubject, he will find them enumerated in Doddridge's Lectures, part 6, prop. 108, Schol. 1, p. 471 of the 1ft vol. of Dr. Kippis's edition.

For answers to objections against the refurrection, from our Lord's feeming to appear or disappear fuddenly, &c. as in Luke xxiv. 16-31 and 36. John xx. 17-19 and 26, confult Weft on the Resurrection, p. 140 to 147, 3d Dublin edition-and the Commentators on these paffages.

To reconcile the apparent discrepancies in the accounts of the evangelifts, concerning the refurrection, confult the Harmony of Dr. Benfon, adopted and confirmed by Primate Newcome, in his Review of Difficulties concerning the refurrection.

Weft, Lardner, Townfon, and many others, have written largely on this fubject; let me add the name of a student of this University, Thomas Cranfield, A. B. who, in 1795, pub lifhed a fenfible tract on this fubject.

P. 47.-The converfion of St. Paul.

Lord Lyttleton has treated the fact of St. Paul's own con verfion fully, and has proved fo clearly, it could not be accounted for, on the fuppofition, either of fraud or fanaticifm, that I have not dwelt on this fact in particular; I only quote fuch of his arguments as illustrate the general nature of the evidence, which the miracles of the apoftles fupplied. Vid. Littleton's Converfion of St. Paul, p. 55.

P. 49.

Give directions for their more orderly "ufe in their affemblies."

For a full account of the nature of the spiritual gifts of the firft-converts, their neceffity and their certainty, confult the Effay on the Teaching and Witnefs of the Holy Spirit, in Lord Barrington's Mifcellanea Sacra, vol. 1ft. re-printed by Bifhop Watfon, in the 4th vol. of his Theological Tracts. Vide particularly from p. 375 to 413, and 436 to 454.

The great difficulty and importance of this fubject prevents me from attempting to give any abridgement of this excellent effay, which I ftrongly recommend to every serious enquirer. One paffage 1 will quote, for the purpose of adducing a remark on it more peculiarly connected with my present fubject. Lord Barrington* diftinguishes, I think very justly," the "working of miracles, healing difeafes, and cafting out devils, "from those which were more strictly termed, gifts of the Holy Ghoft, which St. Paul fums up under the heads of knowledge and utterance. But though † I apprehend, fays he, "all the gifts of the Holy Ghoft in their ftrict acceptation, or "the gifts that were peculiar to the difpenfation of the fpirit "confifted in illumination, yet I apprehend that that illumina"tion was of two kinds; the one was an illumination of fuch a nature as conveyed a fyftem, an art, or skill; the other was an illumination in a particular instance, pro re nata, and that "only ferved the prefent purpofe and occafion."

This distinction feems to me exceedingly juft, as well as extremely important. I conceive with Lord Barrington, that the power of healing difeafes, and cafting out devils, was, in the

* Vid. Watfon's Tracts, vol. 4, p. 400 to 404. Vid. Lord Barrington, p. 406.

Ibid. 402.

apoftles