But whither am I rambling? farewell; redeem time; remember thy latter end; and when thou worshipest before the mercy-seat, be mindful of a miserable sinner,

Thy unprofitable, but sincere Friend,

and weary fellow Pilgrim,

H.

P.S. I desire you would not impart to any one what I have said concerning the offers made to me. I hate to be tossed on the tongues of men.

I wish you could procure me Austen's Devotions, which we had at Mr. Jennings's; I cannot get it in London.

TO MR. RICHARDS,

DEAR SIR,

April 8, 1727.

My last, which I fear you have not read over, was like that tedious tragedy of Orestes, with which Juvenal was so much disgusted;

Summa plena jam margine libri

Scriptus et in tergo necdum sinitus Orestes.

I am now going to make an end of it, and that I may be sure to conquer my almost invincible inclination to scribble, when I am writing to so candid a friend, and to one whom I so sincerely value, I have taken but half the quantity of paper which I took

before, and yet I fear I shall find a way of tiring you in quarto, as well as in folio.

I was very well pleased with what you said to my third query, and do verily believe that the command of going to wash in the pool of Siloam, was intended to exercise the faith of the blind man. I am, however, ready to imagine that there was another reason of considerable importance, and perfectly consistent with those you mention. It is observable that we seldom find our Lord at Jerusalem except at the public feasts; and that at the beginning of his public ministry he did not work many considerable miracles there: compare John, vii. 21, which, as Mr. Locke observes, refers to the cure of the impotent man, John, v. 1-7, performed, as it seems to the best harmonists, about a year and a half before. Now our Lord might think it proper to supply what might seem deficient in the number of the miracles wrought at Jerusalem, by adding some circumstance to those few which he performed there, which might render them peculiarly impressive. This effect would, beyond question, arise in the case of the blind man, by suspending his cure on the circumstance of his going to wash at this public place. It appears by John, ix. 2, that when Christ saw these afflicted creatures, he had a train of disciples with him; and it is more than probable that when they heard Jesus give the man this command, they would be curious to know the event, and to see whether sight would be bestowed; or if they took it for granted that it would, at least to see how he, who had been born blind, would behave on such an

event as the recovery of his sight. As Jerusalem was a populous city and crowded with sojourners at this solemn feast, and as the hearers of these facts would discover eagerness and impatience, no doubt many would take the alarm; and the same principle that engaged the first attendants to accompany the blind man would engage many others to join with them; so that though he should have passed through but a few streets of the city, yet there would be a vast number of people surrounding the pool when he went in to make the important experiment, not to mention those who might have come there on other occasions; and as by these means the number of spectators was greater than it would have been if Christ had immediately performed the cure; so the suspense, in which their minds had been held for a while, would make the miracle still more impressive: nay, perhaps I may add, that the exertion of such a surprising power at a distance, would strike them more than if Christ himself had accompanied the man to the pool, and stood by while the cure was realized. All these circumstances were uncommonly well adapted to raise attention and admiration; and accordingly we find that the miracle was in fact taken notice of; and what nature of discourse ensued we see by John, ix. 37, and that, though Christ had retired for some considerable time at the performance of it. I imagine that all these considerations will make it probable that Christ intended such an effect, by the circumstance which we have here inquired into.

It is very possible that he might have some such

design, in ordering the lame man, whom he cured at Bethesda, to carry his bed on the Sabbath day. Such a sight would and did raise inquiry into the reason of so unusual an action; and that examination would naturally bring on an account of the miracle in all its surprising circumstances, and we find by the story that it had such an effect, see John, v. 8, &c.

Your solution of the fourth query is very solid, and has given me good satisfaction. I have since met with it in a new book, which I believe you have not seen, called the Life of Christ, where, among many impertinencies, there are some solid, rational, and useful observations. The only real difficulty is, how to reconcile the open declaration, John, ix. 37, with the cautious maxims upon which the Messiah acted. I apprehend the answer is plainly this-that the declaration was made to the blind man alone, or at least only before some particular persons with whom Christ could use such a freedom. We were indeed, immediately before reading of Christ's speaking to the Pharisees, but they might come in after the abovementioned dialogue, and there seems a great deal of reason to believe they did, for surely Christ would not make such a confession before his opponents, while he thought it necessary to stand upon his guard among his friends, as we find he frequently did for a considerable time after this. Besides, the Pharisees themselves, had they heard this declaration, under the sting of that rebuke which he immediately gave them, would probably have gone to the sanhedrim with an accusation against him; at least, when he was

arraigned before the high-priest a few months afterwards, they would have come in as witnesses against him, and not have been put to such sorry shifts as we find they were, to pick up any shadow of an

accusation.

I know the great objection against all this seems to be John, x. 29-36, where it may be said that our Lord made the declaration before a whole congregation; the passage is almost parallel to this that we are now inquiring into, and all that I can think of in answer to it is, that the declaration is more forcible in the ninth chapter. In the tenth he only calls God his father, and declares such a union with him as might be a defence to his people, and justifies himself by alleging that Princes were called, not only children of the Most High, but gods. But in the ninth chapter he professes, without any such preface or apology, that he was the Son of God, and as such received an act of worship. Now when we consider how strongly the people resented what he said in the tenth chapter, we may probably enough conclude that neither they, nor the Pharisees knew any thing of the former conversation, since we find no such expression of resentment, and since the blasphemy, as they called it, seemed to be new.

This observation may, perhaps, justify or excuse my conjecture as to the absence of the Pharisees, John, ix. 37; but still some difficulty will remain in reconciling x. 36 with his usual caution, for there he plainly calls himself the Son of God, and vindicates that title, and here I must recur to a hint, which, if