صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

465

SECTION II.

Remarks on some circumstances which have occasioned doubts as to the reality of some of the Mosaic miracles—General remarks on the improbability of objections which affect only some one miracle, not the entire series-Miracles in which the magicians appeared to imitate Moses; Mr Farmer's opinion on this subject, and the arguments by which he supports it—The passage of the Red Sea attempted to be accounted for without a miracle, from a passage of Josephus-true import of this passage-supplies no evidence against the miracle-it is represented by Moses, and was believed by the Jews to be clearly miraculous-inference from thence—improbability of the Jews being able to escape by an extraordinary ebb of the sea-Dr Geddes's observations on this subject The pillar of cloud and fire which accompanied the Israelites-attempted to be accounted for without a miracle-account entirely inconsistent with the circumstances of the history, and with probability—Objection, from Moses's application to Hobab-inconclusive-Miraculous preservation of the raiment of the Jews in the wildernessobjected to why necessary-Review of the mode in which Dr Geddes accounts for the whole series of Mosaic miracles, without admitting any supernatural interposition his account unphilosophic and incredible.

In the preceding Work, Part I. Lect. VI. I have adduced such arguments as appear to me to prove satisfactorily, that the whole series of the Mosaic miracles is established by the clearest evidence; and if these arguments are conclusive, it may seem unnecessary to enter into any refutation of such objections as are raised, not against the reality of the entire series of miraculous interpositions, or the general truth of the history of the Mosaic miracles, but against some minute circumstances of them, some individual instances of supernatural interference ; for, admitting any miraculous power to have clearly manifested itself on the occasion, and for the purposes recorded by Moses, the exercise of that power on the particular instances alluded to, becomes perfectly credible. In this case, the remark which Bishop Butler makes as to our Savour, is strictly applicable to Moses. "Supposing it," says he, " acknowledged, that our Saviour, (or that the Jewish Lawgiver) spent some years in a course of working miracles: there is no more presumption, worth mentioning, against his having exerted this miracu"lous power, in a certain degree greater, than in a certain degree less; " in one or two more instances, than in one or two fewer; in this, than "in another manner.' ."* Nay, I may add, that the supposition of some particular facts, recorded as miraculous, being frauds and delusions, becomes improbable, in proportion as it is improbable either that fraud should be practised to effect some parts of a system, by a messenger empowered to establish the remaining parts of it by miracles; or that delusion and error should be permitted to blend with and de

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

base (even at its first introduction) a scheme evidently supported by a divine interference.

These considerations might, I conceive, justify me in omitting to notice the objections and doubts raised as to some particulars of the Mosaic miracles; but as this might seem to cut the knot, rather than to untie it, I will proceed to consider such as appear to be of any serious importance. They regard, as far as I can find, the miracles of Moses which the Egyptian magicians appeared to imitate-the passage of the Red Sea-the pillar of the cloud and fire that accompanied and directed the Israelites in their journeyings-and, the preservation of the raiment of the Jews during their abode in the wilderness, recorded Deut. viii. 4. On each of them I shall beg leave to offer a few remarks.

The circumstance of the magicians of Egypt having appeared to imitate some of the miracles performed by Moses-has by some writers been considered such as to discredit the entire history of the Mosaic miracles; Dr Geddes, amongst others, observes, "We are now come "to the famous plagues of Egypt, the prelude to which, in my opinion, warns us to beware of implicit credulity, and greatly weakens the "literal credibility of all that follows."* Let us consider how justly.

[ocr errors]

On this subject, after the best consideration I can give it, I cannot avoid adopting the opinion of the able and learned Mr Hugh Farmer, in his Treatise on Miracles.† I do not believe that any real miracle, or such an exertion of power or foresight, more than human, and producing effects different from or contrary to the established course of nature, was ever performed, but by the direct interposition of God, or of such beings as act by his immediate power and commission. And I am also with him persuaded, that the magicians did not perform works really supernatural, nor were assisted by any superior invincible being; but were merely impostors attempting to imitate the real miracles of Moses by secret sleights or jugglings; which to a certain degree, and in a small extent, they succeeded in doing, so as to deceive the spectators, until at length, unable any longer to imitate the effects of divine power, and feeling in their own persons its chastisement, they were compelled to confess, "this is the finger of God;" and thus to give glory to God before Pharaoh and his servants, and to evince the futulity of their own boasted magical arts, and the impotence of those base idols, and those invisible spirits or demons, on whose aid they relied, more clearly and convincingly than if they had never entered into the competition, or had not been permitted to succeed to such a degree, as proved that they had exercised freely and fully whatever arts or power they possessed, and had carried them to their greatest extent; but yet were baffled and overcome by the resistless power of Jehovah, their imposture detected, and their impious arrogance chastised. So that we can thus assign a probable account for the Deity's having selected such a kind of miracle, in the first instance, as might encourage the magicians to attempt its imitation, and for his permitting them to succeed in that, and even in a second or third attempt, because thus the Divine Power

Critical Remarks on Exod. vii. 5. p. 131.

Vide Farmer's Dissertation on Miracles, ch. iv. sect. 1, p. 409.

was ultimately more clearly manifested, and the imposture of magic, as well as the absurdity of idolatry more decidedly exposed.

Such appears to me to be the true account of this transaction; the distinct parts of which the able writer to whom I have referred has, as I conceive, fully established. I will exhibit his most important observations in as brief a form as is consistent with being intelligible, referring my more curious readers to the work itself, the perusal of which will, I think, amply recompense them, by the learning and judgment it displays, and the truths which it developes. I think it unnecessary to detail the various hypotheses employed by different commentators and divines to explain this part of Scripture history, as they have been fairly weighed, and, as I think, confuted by this able writer, whose opinion I adopt.*

[ocr errors]

"To this account," says Farmer,† "it may be objected, that Moses "describes the works of the magicians in the very same language as he "does his own, and therefore that there is reason to conclude that they were equally miraculous. To which I answer that if this were so, yet nothing is more common than to speak of professed jugglers,‡ as "doing what they pretend and appear to do, and that this language "never misleads, when we reflect what sort of men are spoken of, namely, mere imposers on the sight; why might not Moses then use "the common popular language when speaking of the magicians, with"out any danger of misconstruction, inasmuch as the subject he was treating, all the circumstances of the narrative, and the opinion which "the historian was known to entertain of the inefficacy and imposture of magic, did all concur to prevent mistakes?

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But, secondly, Moses did not affirm that there was a perfect con'formity between his works and those of the magicians; he does not "close the respective relations of his own particular miracles, with "saying the magicians did that thing,|| or, according to what he did so " did they,§ a form of speech used on this occasion no less than three "times in one chapter, to describe the exact correspondence between "the orders of God, and the behaviour of his servants; but makes "choice of a word of great latitude, such as does not necessarily express any thing more than a general similitude, such as is consistent “with a difference in many important respects, they did so or in like manner as he had.—That a perfect imitation could not be designed by this word, is evident from its being applied to cases in which such an imitation was absolutely impracticable; for, when Aaron had con"verted all the waters of Egypt into blood, we are told the magicians "did so, that is, something in like sort. Nor can it be supposed " that they covered the land of Egypt with frogs, this had been done already; they could only appear to bring them over some small

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*Farmer, from page 409 to 449.

+Ibid. page 449.

"When Moses describes what the magicians pretended, and seemed to perform, by saying "they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents, and they brought up frogs upon the "land of Egypt; he only uses the same language as Apuleius (Metam. I. 1.) where describing a person who merely played juggling tricks-Circulatorum aspexi equestrem spatham præacutam "Mucrone infesto devorasse ac mox eundem venatoriam lanceam-in ima viscera condidisse." "Vide in Exod. ix. 5. 6." "Ib. vii. 6, 10, 20.”

¶ "Vide in Exod. vii. 20 and 22."

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

space cleared for the purpose. But what is more decisive, the word imports nothing more than their attempting some imitation of Moses, "for it is used when they FAILED IN THEIR ATTEMPT: They did so to bring forth lice, but they could not.*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Thirdly. But further, so far is Moses from ascribing the tricks of "the magicians to the invocation and power of demons, or to any superior beings whatever, that he does most expressly refer all they did or attempted in imitation of himself, to mere human artifice and imposture. The original words, which are translated† enchantments are entirely different from that rendered enchantments in other passages of Scripture, and do not carry in them any sort of reference to sorcery "or magic, or the interposition of any spiritual agents; they import deception and concealment, and ought to have been rendered secret sleights or jugglings, and are thus translated even by those who adopt "the common hypothesis with regard to the magicians.§ These secret "sleights and jugglings are expressly referred to the magicians, not " to the devil, who is not so much as mentioned in the history.—Should 66 we therefore be asked,|| How it came to pass, in case the works of "the magicians were performed by sleight of hand, that Moses has "given no hint thereof? we answer, He has not contented himself with a hint of this kind, but, at the same time that he ascribes his own miracles to Jehovah, he has in the most direct terms resolved every thing done in imitation of them entirely to the fraudulent contrivances of his opposers, to legerdemain or sleight of hand, in contradic"tion from magical incantations. Moses, therefore could not design to represent their works as real miracles, at the very time he was "branding them as impostures.

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Fourthly. It remains only to show, that the works performed by "the magicians did not exceed the cause to which they are ascribed; 66 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

"Exod. viii. 18. Le Clerc observes, Nec raro Hebræi ad conatum notandum verbisutuntur quæ "rem effectam significant, Gen. xxxvii. 21, Consult him likewise on Exod. vii. 18. ch. 12, 48. p. "66, 2."

"The original word used Exod. vii. 11, is a belahatehem; and that which occurs ch. “vii. 22. and ch. viii. 7, 18, is onrub belutehem; the former is probably derived from v lahat, "which signifies to burn, and the substantive a flame or shining sword-blade, and is applied to the "flaming sword which guarded the tree of life, Gen. iii. 24. Those who formerly used legerde"main, dazzled and deceived the sight of spectators by the art of brandishing their swords, and "sometimes seemed to eat them and to thrust them into their bodies; and the expression seems "to intimate, that the magicians appearing to turn their rods into serpents, was owing to their "eluding the eyes of the spectators by a dexterous management of their swords. In the preceding "instances they made use of some different contrivance, for the latter word, belatehem, comes "from us or to cover or hide (which some think the former word also does) and therefore "fitly expresses any secret artifices or methods of deception whereby false appearances are im"posed upon the spectator."

§ "Bishop Kidder on Exod. vii. 11."

"As we are by Dr Macknight, in his Truth of the Gospel History, p. 372.”

"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.

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

:

:

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 serpents; 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 particularly 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 "ferent language, for at the same time it says, They cast down every man "his rod, and they became serpents. It expressly declares that they "" 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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

dif

"Those who desire to see instances of this from modern authors, may consult Dr Sykes on "Miracles, 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 "mentions 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 "serpents, 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."

« السابقةمتابعة »