"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 interIvening 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.

46

66

66

"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 "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 "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

*"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 unsus"picious manner of their performance, served sufficiently to disgrace the attempts of his rivals.' "Lib. i. c. 6." "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."

"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 "not to human art, but to a divine power. Nevertheless the motives 66 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 art) 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 we agree 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 owing to the different nature and circumstances of their enterprise. "In all the former instances the magicians knew beforehand what they were to undertake, and had time for preparation. They were not "sent for by Pharaoh, till after Moses had turned his rod into a serpent 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 "Ch. viii. 8. Had they been able to inflict this plague miraculously they might have removed "it in the same manner."

66

"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 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 interposition of some deity. There is no sort of evidence that this language 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 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 occasion, 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

66

66

"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 ?"

66

"whose opposition to genuine Christianity was the sole effect of their 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."

66

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 parts of the world. I conceive both these objections rest on so slight a support, that a very little reflection will be sufficient to overturn them.

As to the representation of Josephus, it is clear he believed that the deliverance of the Jews at the Red Sea was aided by Divine power. "The Egyptians (says he) were not aware that they went into a road "made for the Hebrews, and not for others; that this road was made " for the deliverance of those in danger, but not for those that were "earnest to make use of it for the others' destruction. As soon, therefore, as the whole Egyptian army was within it, the sea flowed to " its own place, and came with a torrent raised by storms of wind, and encompassed the Egyptians: showers of rain also came down from "the sky, and dreadful thunders, and lightning with flashes of fire; thunderbolts were also darted upon them; nor was there any thing

66

"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.-Numenus, 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.”

66

2 Tim. iii. 9."

That there was nothing miraculous in Alexander's passage, is evident from the account which the accurate geographer Strabo gives of it. Geog. xiv. p. 666. "Now about Phaselis is that narrow passage by the sea side through which Alexander led his army: there is a mountain called Climax, which adjoins to the sea of Pamphylia, leaving a narrow passage on the shore, which in "calm weather is bare so as to be passable by travellers, but when the sea overflows it is covered "to a great degree by the waves. Now then the ascent by the mountains being round about a "steep, in still weather they make use of the road along the coast; but Alexander fell into the

"which was to be sent by God upon man, as indications of his wrath, which did not happen at this time, for a dark and dismal night op"pressed them; and thus did all these men perish, so that there was "not one man left to be a messenger of this calamity to the rest of the Egyptians."

Assuredly then Josephus believed this event miraculous: writing however for the Heathens, he adduces the instance of Alexander's passage at the edge of the sea on the bay of Pamphylia, which by some was represented as supernatural (doubtless on as good grounds as those on which the hero was worshipped as a god.) As for myself,

66

66

(says he) I have delivered every part of the history as I found it in "the sacred books; nor let any one wonder at the strangeness of the narration, if a way were discovered to those men of old time who were free from the wickedness of modern ages, whether it happened by the will of God, or whether it happened of its own accord, while "for the sake of those that accompanied Alexander king of Macedonia, "who yet lived comparatively but a little while ago, the Pamphylian sea retired and afforded them a passage through itself when they had no other way to go, I mean when it was the will of God to destroy "the empire of the Persians; and this is confessed to be true by all "those who have written the history of Alexander. But as to these events, let every one determine as he pleases."

It is quite clear from comparing this passage with that immediately preceding, that the former period speaks the real opinion of Josephus; the latter is merely a mode of expression calculated to keep up the attention and conciliate the belief of his heathen readers, as if he had said, Do not immediately reject my history as fabulous and incredible, because it relates the miraculous passage of the Jews through the Red Sea; while you admit without hesitation an event stated by your own historians as of a similar nature, in the history of Alexander; in judging of these matters you can exercise your liberty. I have derived my history from our sacred books, to them I refer you to decide on its credibility.

66

Any supposition, of Josephus being a sceptic as to the truth of the Old Testament history, is clearly contradictory to the entire drift and tenor of all his works. The learned and judicious Reland, as quoted by Whiston in his first preliminary dissertation, justly observes, that Josephus uses the same manner of speaking (Book iii. ch. 10; after “ he had said that it was falsely believed that Moses and the Israelites "winter season, and committing himself chiefly to fortune, he marched on before the waves re"tired; and so it happened that they were a whole day in journeying over it, and were under "water up to the navel."-Arrian also describes it in such a way as to prove it was not miraculous: "When Alexander (says he) removed from Phaselis, he sent some part of his army over the "mountains to Perga, which road the Thracians showed him; a difficult way it was, but short. However, he himself conducted those that were with him by the sea shore; this road is impas"sable at any other time, than when the north wind blows: but if the south wind prevail there is "no passing by the shore. Now at this time after strong south winds a north wind blew, and "that not without a divine Providence, as both he and they who were with him supposed, and "afforded him a quick and easy passage." This supposed interposition of Providence, therefore, forms the entire of the miracle.-Calisthenes, indeed, who accompanied Alexander, represented the Pamphylian Sea, not only as opening for him a passage, but that, by raising and elevating its waters, it did pay him homage as its king; and surely it ought to have done no less, as he was not only a king, but a demigod. This Calisthenes was a true courtier.

66