Peter says, as it would appear, the same thing twice over: 'His Name,
through faith in His Name, hath made this man strong.' And then, as
if he were saying something else, he adds what seems to be the same
thing: 'Yea! the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect
soundness.'

Now, note that in the first of these two statements nothing appears
except the 'man,' the 'Name,' and 'faith' I take it, though of course
it may be questionable, that that clause refers to the man's faith,
and that we have in it the intentional exclusion of the human
workers, and are presented with the only two parties really
concerned--at the one end the Name, at the other end 'this man made
strong.' And the link of connection between the two in this clause is
faith--that is, the man's trust. But then, if we come to the next
clause, we find that although Peter has just previously disclaimed
all merit in the cure, yet there is a sense in which some one's
faith, working as from without, _gave_ to the man 'this perfect
soundness.' And it seems very natural to me to understand that here,
where human faith is represented as being, in some subordinate sense,
the bestower of the healing which really the Name had bestowed, it is
the faith of the human miracle-worker or medium which is referred to.
Peter's faith did give, but Peter only gave what he had received
through faith. And so let all the praise be given to the water, and
none to the cup.

Whether that be a fair interpretation of the words of my text, with
their singular and apparently meaningless tautology or no, at all
events the principle which is involved in the explanation is one that
I wish to dwell upon briefly now; and that is, that in order for the
Name, charged and supercharged with healing and strengthening power