dentally appealed to, it is exactly so much as ought to take place, supposing the history to be true.

As a further answer to the objection, that the apostolic epistles do not contain so frequent, or such direct and circumstantial recitals of miracles, as might be expected, I would add, that the apostolic epistles resemble in this respect the apostolic speeches, which speeches are given by a writer who distinctly records numerous miracles wrought by these apostles themselves, and by the Founder of the institution in their presence: that it is unwarrantable to contend, that the omission, or infrequency, of such recitals in the speeches of the apostles, negatives the existence of the miracles, when the speeches are given in immediate conjunction with the history of those miracles: and that a conclusion which cannot be inferred from the speeches, without contradicting the whole tenour of the book which contains them, cannot be inferred from letters, which, in this respect, are similar only to the speeches.

it

To prove the similitude which we allege, may be remarked, that although in Saint Luke's Gospel, the apostle Peter is represented to have been present at many decisive miracles wrought by Christ; and although the second part of the same history ascribes other decisive miracles to Peter himself, particularly the cure of the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts iii. 1.), the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1.), the cure of Æneas (Acts ix. 34.), the resurrection of Dorcas (Acts ix. 40.); yet out of six speeches of Peter, preserved in the Acts, I know but two in which reference is made to the miracles wrought by Christ, and only one in which he refers to miraculous powers possessed by himself. In his speech upon the day of Pentecost, Peter addresses his audience with great solemnity, thus: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know*:" &c. In his speech upon the conversion of Cornelius,

* Acts ii. 22.

he delivers his testimony to the miracles performed by Christ, in these words: “We are witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem*." But in this latter speech, no allusion appears to the miracles wrought by himself, notwithstanding that the miracles above enumerated all preceded the time in which it was delivered. In his speech upon the election of Matthias, no distinct reference is made to any of the miracles of Christ's history, except his resurrection. The same also may be observed of his speech upon the cure of the lame man at the gate of the temple; the same in his speech before the sanhedrim§; the same in his second apology in the presence of that assembly. Stephen's long speech contains no reference whatever to miracles, though it be expressly related of him, in the book which preserves the speech, and almost immediately before the speech, "that he did great wonders and miracles among the people." Again, although miracles be expressly attributed to

Acts x. 39. i. 15. i. 12. § iv. 8. vi. 8.

Saint Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, first generally, as at Iconium (Acts xiv. 3.), during the whole tour through the Upper Asia (xiv. 27. xv. 12.), at Ephesus (xix. 11, 12.); secondly, in specific instances, as the blindness of Elymas at Paphos*, the cure of the cripple at Lystraf, of the pythoness at Philippi, the miraculous liberation from prison in the same city§, the restoration of Eutychus, the predictions of his shipwreck, the viper at Melita**, the cure of Publius's father†; at all which miracles, except the first two, the historian himself was present; notwithstanding, I say, this positive ascription of miracles to Saint Paul, yet in the speeches delivered by him, and given as delivered by him, in the same book in which the miracles are related, and the miraculous powers asserted, the appeals to his own miracles, or indeed to any miracles at all, are rare and incidental. In his speech at Antioch in Pisidia++, there is no allusion but to the resurrection. In his discourse at Miletus||||, none to any miracle;

* Acts xiii. 11. † xiv. 8. xvi. 16. § xvi. 26. § xx. 10. ¶ xxvii. 1. ** xxviii. 6. †† xxviii. 8. ‡‡ xiii. 16.

xx. 17.

none in his speech before Felix*; none in his speech before Festus; except to Christ's resurrection, and his own conversion.

Agreeably hereunto, in thirteen letters ascribed to Saint Paul, we have incessant references to Christ's resurrection, frequent references to his own conversion, three indubitable references to the miracles which he wrought, four other references to the same, less direct yet highly probable§; but more copious or circumstantial recitals. we have not. The consent, therefore, between Saint Paul's speeches and letters, is in this respect sufficiently exact: and the reason in both is the same; namely, that the miraculous history was all along presupposed, and that the question, which occupied the speaker's and the writer's thoughts, was this: whether, allowing the history of Jesus to be true, he was, upon the strength of it, to be received as the

* Acts xxiv. 10.

+ Ib. xxv. 8.

↑ Gal. iii. 5.; Rom. xv. 18, 19.; 2 Cor. xii. 12. § 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.; Eph. iii. 7.; Gal. ii. 8.; 1 Thess. i. 5.