Lectures on the four last books of the Pentateuch

"could not design to represent their works as real miracles, at the very time he was branding them as impostures.

"Fourthly. It remains only to show, that the works performed by "the magicians did not exceed the cause to which they are ascribed; or in other words, the magicians proceeded no farther in imitation "of Moses, than human artifice might enable them to go (while the "miracles of Moses were not liable to the same impeachment, and "bore upon themselves the plainest signatures of that divine power "to which they are referred.) If this can be proved, the interposition "of the devil on this occasion will appear to be an hypothesis invented "without any kind of necessity, as it certainly is without any authority from the sacred text.

First, With regard to the first attempt of the magicians, the "turning rods into serpents: It cannot be accounted extraordinary "that they should seem to succeed in it, when we consider that these

men were famous for the art of dazzling and deceiving the sight; "and that serpents being first rendered tractable and harmless, as they easily may, have had a thousand different tricks played with them to "the astonishment of the spectators.* Huetius tells us,† that amongst "the Chinese there are jugglers who undertake to turn rods into ser "pents; though no doubt they only dexterously substitute the latter "in the room of the former. Now this is the very trick the magicians "played: and as it appears by facts, that the thing in general is very "practicable, it is immaterial to account particulary how the thing was done; since it is not always easy to explain in what manner a common juggler imposes upon our sight. Should it be suggested, that "Moses might impose upon the sight of the spectators, as well as "the magicians; I answer, that as he ascribes their performances to legerdemain, and his own to God, so there might and must have "been a wide difference in their manner of acting; the covered arts of "the magicians not being used by Moses, the same suspicion could "not rest on him that did on them.-What an ingenious writer asserts “is not true, that, according to the book of Exodus, the outward appearance on both sides was precisely the same. The book of Exodus "specifies a most important difference between the miracle of Aaron, "and the impostures of the magicians; for it says, that Aaron cast "down his rod, before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent; but with regard to the magicians, it uses very dif"ferent language, for at the time it says, They cast down every man "his rod, and they became serpents. It expressly declares that they

6.6

"Those who desire to see instances of this from modern authors, may consult Dr. Sykes on Mi"racles, pp. 166, 168. Many pretended to render serpents harmless by charms, (pp. 58, 5, Bochart, "Hieroz. part post, 1, 3, c. 6; Shaw's Travels, pref. p. 5. also, p. 429. and Supplement, p. 62.) though "more probably they destroy the teeth, through which they ejected their poison. Herodotus men"tions certain serpents which were quite harmless; Euterpe, c. 74. Antiquity attributes to the "Psylli, a people of Africa, the extraordinary virtue of rendering themselves invulnerable by ser-> "pents, as well as of curing those who were bit by them. See Dr. Hasselquist's Voyages and Travels, "cited in the Monthly Review for February, 1766, page 133."

"Alnetan Quæst. 1. ii. p. 155."

66 DID THIS BY THEIR ENCHANTMENTS OR COVERED ARTS; and "what in the most effectual manner prevented any apprehension, that "the serpent of Aaron was (like those of the magicians) the effect "only of a dexterous management, not a miraculous production, God "caused his rod to swallow up theirs, in which there was no room for "artifice, and which for this reason the magicians did not attempt to "imitate. This new miracle was not designed to establish the superiority of the God of Israel to the idols of Egypt; nor was it capable of answering that end: but in the view here given of it, had "much wisdom, by vindicating the credit of the former miracle* (which might possibly be more open to suspicion, than any of the "rest) as well as by affording new evidence of a divine interposition "in favour of Moses. God considered this evidence as fully decisive "of the point in question, between his messengers and the magicians: "for from this time he proceeded to the punishment of Pharaoh and "the Egyptians: which affords a new demonstration, drawn from the "justice of the Divine Being, of the falsehood of the common hypo"thesis, according to the representation given of it by those who "maintain that the magicians were not plainly vanquished till they were restrained from turning the dust into lice. Had this been the case it would have been right in Pharaoh to suspend his judgment "till that time; nor would God have punished him by the two inter"vening plagues, that of turning the waters of the Nile (to which "Egypt owed its fecundity) into blood, and covering the land with "frogs: punishments so severe as to imply the most criminal obstinacy on the part of Pharaoh.

"Second, With regard to the next attempt of the magicians to imi“ tate Moses, who had already turned all the running and standing "waters of Egypt into blood, there is no difficulty in accounting for "their success in the degree in which they succeeded. For it was "during the continuance of this judgment, when no water could be procured, but by digging round about the river, that the magicians "attempted by some proper preparations to change the colour of the "small quantity that was brought them (probably endeavouring to persuade Pharaoh, that they could as easily have turned a larger quantity into blood.) In a case of this nature imposture might, and, as we learn from history, often did take place. It is related by Va"lerius Maximus,† that the wine poured into the cup of Xerxes was "three times changed into blood. But such trifling feats as these could "not at all disparage the miracle of Moses; the vast extent of which "raised it above the suspicion of fraud, and stamped upon every heart, "that was not steeled against all conviction, the strongest impression "of its divinity. For he turned their streams, rivers, ponds, and the

"We learn from hence how little occasion there was for Moses to detect the artifices of the "magicians, who did not so much as pretend to any peculiar divine assistance, and who sunk into ❝contempt of themselves. 2 Tim. iii. 9. The nature of the works of Moses, and the open unsuspi"cious manner of their performance, served sufficiently to disgrace the attempts of his rivals."

"Lib. i. c. 6."

"water in all their receptacles, into blood. And the fish that was in "the river (Nile) died; and the river stank.*

"Third, Pharaoh not yielding to this evidence, God proceeded to "farther punishments, and covered the whole land of Egypt with frogs. Before these frogs were removed, the magicians undertook to bring into some place cleared for the purpose a fresh supply; "which they might easily do, when there was such plenty every where 66 at hand. Here also the narrow compass of the work exposed it to "the suspicion of being effected by human art; to which the miracle "of Moses was not liable; the infinite number of frogs which filled "the whole kingdom of Egypt (so that their ovens, beds, and tables, "swarmed with them) being a proof of their immediate miraculous

production. Besides, the magicians were unable to procure their "removal which was accomplished by Moses, at the submissive appli"cation of Pharaoh and at the very time that Pharaoh himself chose, "the more clearly to convince him that God was the author of these "miraculous judgments, and that their infliction or ‡ removal did not "depend upon the influence of the elements or stars, at set times or in critical junctures.

"Fourth, The history of the last attempt of the magicians confirms "the account here given of all their former ones. Moses turned all "the dust of the land into lice; and this plague, like the two preceding ones, being inflicted at the word of Moses, and extended over the whole kingdom of Egypt, must necessarily have been owing, 66 not to human art, but to a divine power. Nevertheless, the motives upon which the magicians at first engaged in the contest with Moses, "the shame of desisting, and some slight appearances of success in "their former attempts, prompted them still to carry on the imposture, "and to try with their enchantments (or secret arts) to bring forth lice; “but they could not. With all their skill in magic, and with all their dexterity in deceiving the spectators, they could not even succeed so "far as they had done in former instances, by producing a specious "counterfeit of this work of Moses. Had they hitherto performed "real miracles by the assistance of the devil, how came they to desist now? It cannot be a greater miracle to produce lice, than to turn "rods into serpents, water into blood, and to create frogs. It has in"deed been very often said, that the devil was now laid under a re"straint: but hitherto no proof of this assertion has been produced. "The Scripture is silent, both as to the devil being now restrained "from interposing any farther in favour of magicians, and as to his having afforded them his assistance on the former occasions. But if with Moses, in ascribing to the magicians nothing more "than the artifice and dexterity which belonged to their profession; we shall find that their want of success in their last attempt, was

we agree

*"Exod. vii. 19–21.

"Exod. viii. 6-8. Nor indeed can it be imagined that after this or the former plague had been " removed, that Pharaoh would order his magicians to renew either.”

Ch. viii. 8. Had they been able to inflict this plague miraculously they might have removed it "in the same manner."

❝owing to the different nature and circumstances of their enterprise. "In all the former instances, the magicians knew beforehand what they 66 were to undertake, and had time for preparation. They were not "sent for by Pharaoh, till after Moses had turned his rod into a ser pent and previous notice had been publicly given of the two first "plagues. But the orders in relation to the third, were no sooner "issued than executed, without being previously imparted to Pharaoh. "So that in this last case they had no time for contriving any expe"dient for imitating or impeaching the act of Moses. And had they "been allowed time, how was it possible for them to make it appear "that they produced those animals, by which they themselves and all "the country were already covered and surrounded? or what artifice "could escape detection, in relation to insects, whose minuteness "hinders them from being perceived till they are brought so near as to "be subject to the closest inspection ? Now therefore the magicians "chose to say, this (last work of Moses) is the finger of God.

"It has been generally thought that the magicians here acknowledge "that the God of Israel was stronger than the gods of Egypt, who "had hitherto assisted them, but were now restrained from doing it by "his superior power. But the text makes no mention of their allowing "the God of Israel to be superior to the gods of Egypt, much less of "their admitting the former to be Jehovah and the only true God. Nor "do they refer to any supernatural restraint upon the Egyptian deities, "but to the last miracle of Moses, when they say, This is the finger "of God; or, of a God; for the original word admits this sense, and very probably was used in no other by the magicians, who believed "in a plurality of gods. But, unable to turn the dust of the earth "into lice (and even to seem to do it,) they allow that this surpassed "the science they professed, and argued the special miraculous inter"position of some deity. There is no sort of evidence that this lan"guage of the magicians proceeded from a desire of doing justice to "the character and claims of the God of Israel, or that it was not "merely designed as the best apology they were able to make for their "own failure of success, and to prevent Pharaoh from reproaching "them with the want of skill in their profession. Certain it is, that "this declaration of the magicians had no good effect upon Pharaoh, "but seems rather to be mentioned as an occasion of his continued "hardness. Nay, the history plainly intimates, that the magicians "themselves afterwards confronted Moses, till, in punishment of their

obstinacy, they were smitten with ulcers. I add, that the sense "here assigned to their language, is perfectly agreeable to the account "before given of the state of the controversy between them and Moses: "for it implies, that the magicians had not so much as pretended to any miraculous interposition of the gods in their favour, but relied

"There being lice upon man and upon beast, seems to be assigned as a reason of the magicians "being unable to counterfeit this miracle."

+ "The magicians could not stand before Moses, because of the boil; for the boil was upon the ma-` “gicians. Exod. ix. 11. Does not this imply, that till this time the magicians had in some method "or other opposed or disparaged Moses?"

"entirely upon the established rules of their art; and consequently "that Pharaoh's view in sending for them, was to enable himself to "determine, whether the works of Moses lay within the compass ❝ of it.

"I cannot conclude this subject without observing, that the strenuous but unsuccessful opposition to Moses added strength to his cause; as it seemed to manifest the divinity of his miracles, by clearing him from all suspicion of magic. This art was thought "equal to the most wonderful phenomena. In Egypt it was held in "the highest esteem, and carried to its utmost perfection. Pharaoh, "without doubt, on the present most important and interesting occa❝sion, engaged the assistance of the most able professors of it, who "from a regard to their own reputation and interest, would try every "possible method to invalidate the miracles of Moses. Nevertheless "their utmost efforts were baffled; and the vanity and futility of the "claims of magic were detected and exposed, agreeably to the censure "passed upon them by St. Paul; for, speaking of certain persons, "whose opposition to genuine Christianity was the sole effect of their 66 corrupt minds, without the least colour of reason, he compares them "to Jannes and Jambres,* who withstood Moses; and did it, he must mean, with as little pretence, or there could be no justice in the comparison. He adds, their folly was manifest unto all men ;† "and thus he taxes the conduct of the magicians with the most glaring “absurdity. He cannot therefore be supposed to admit, that they "imitated and equalled for a time the miracles of Moses, and then “desisted as soon as they found themselves unable to continue the con"test to advantage (which would have been a sort of prudence ;) but "to assert, that they wickedly and absurdly attempted to place the "feats of art on a level with the undeniable operations of a divine power; and so shamefully miscarrying in their undertaking, they exposed themselves to the contempt of those who had once held them "in high veneration."

The miraculous nature of the PASSAGE OVER THE RED SEA has been questioned by sceptical writers, chiefly on two accounts, as far as I can discover; one, because Josephus compares it with the passage of Alexander over the bay of Pamphylia, in his Persian expedition, and as this is allowed not to have been miraculous, it is contended the passage over the Red Sea was as little so; and another, that it is conceived Moses may have taken advantage of a strong ebb tide, aided by a correspondent wind, which may have left a large strand dry, long enough for the Israelites to pass, but which on the Egyptians attempting to pursue them, returned and destroyed them. And they labour to collect instances of such ebbs and refluxes of the sea in different

✶ "Jannes and Jambres, mentioned by St. Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 8. from the Chaldee Paraphrase on "Exod. vii. 11. are supposed to have been the two chiefs of Pharaoh's magicians.-Numenius, the "Pythagorean philosopher, (apud Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1. ix. c. 8.) says they were inferior to none in "magic skill, and for that reason chosen by common consent to oppose Musæus, for so the Hebrews "called Moses. See Le Clerc on Exod. vii. 12, and Pliny's Hist. lib. xxx. c. 1."

+"2 Tim. iii. 9."

« السابقة متابعة »

كتب