Wesley Corpus

Was all this ‘an effectual proof of the truth of their presences’ to the Israelites themselves It was not. ‘They were’ still ‘disobedient at the sea, even at the Red Sea.’ Was the giving them day by day ‘bread from heaven’ ‘an effectual proof’ to those ‘two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown,’ who said with Dathan and Abiram, ‘Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men we will not come up’ (Num. xvi. 14); nay, when ‘the ground crave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up’ (verse 32). Neither was this an 'effectual proof' to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit; but the very next day they ‘murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord’ (verse 41). Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Prophets that followed several of whom ‘stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,’ did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet ‘they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword’; they were ‘destitute, afflicted, tormented’; --utterly contrary to the commonly received supposition that the working real, undoubted miracles must bring all controversy to an end and convince every gainsayer. Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord Himself and His opposers Did He not work ‘real and undoubted miracles’ And what was the effect Still, when ‘He came to His own, His own received Him not.’ Still ‘He was despised and rejected of men.’ Still it was a challenge not to be answered, ‘Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him’ After this, how can you imagine that whoever works miracles must convince ‘all men of the truth of his presences’