صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

66

66

the door of the tabernacle) "and the elders of Israel followed "him; and he spake unto the congregation, saying: Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch "nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in their sins. So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side." Here they are united, as the people were to separate themselves from all three, as joined in a common cause. Yet they are again spoken of as still separate; for it is said: "Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in the door of their "tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children." On this circumstance turns the explanation, which seems to account for the final difference of the event. We here perceive that Dathan and Abiram collected their families round them, as their abettors in this rebellion, and as determined to abide all its consequences with themselves. But this is not said of the family of Korah, and the nature of the case shows the reason. Korah did not remain in his tent, but was at a considerable distance from it; the tabernacle being in the centre of the camp, the tents of the Levites surrounding it on every side, and outside them the tents of the other tribes; he had therefore no opportunity of collecting his children about him; he only had all the men of his family who supported his rebellion, along with them at the door of the tabernacle. Now it is not said, nor is it a natural supposition, that the wives and children of Korah and his followers should in their absence assemble of themselves, and stand at the door of their tents, in the same manner as Dathan and Abiram caused their families to do; hence they escaped from being so openly and contumaciously involved in the guilt of this rebellion, and hence they escaped its punishment. The tents of Dathan and Abiram, who both belonged to the tribe of Reuben, were probably together; and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up. The tent of Korah, as belonging to the tribe of the Levites, must have been remote from theirs; it displayed no such open rebellion as those of Dathan and Abiram, it therefore escaped. But Moses and the elders of Israel having quitted the door of the tabernacle, leaving there Korah and his rebellious company; at the same instant that the earth swallowed up the tents and families of Dathan and Abiram, a fire went out from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered up incense with Korah at their head. And when in the

66

thirty-second verse it is stated that the earth swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods, it can only mean Dathan and Abiram, to whose tents only Moses is said to have gone, and against whom only he has denounced this species of punishment. The word, appertaining to Korah," means only that they belonged to his party, and supported his cause. For in the third verse after it is said, that the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense perished by a fire from the Lord, amongst whom was Korah and all the men of his family. If indeed it had been said, that Moses went to the tents of Korah, and Dathan, and Abiram, there would have been a contradiction. But he only went to those of Dathan and Abiram, and could have no occasion to go to that of Korah, having just left him and all his company at the door of the tabernacle. Thus the narrative, though it seems to approach to contradiction, yet when examined accurately, it not only escapes it, but enables us to discover how the children of Korah, and they only, came to survive the punishment which involved their parents, and the entire families of Dathan and Abiram. Such a coincidence as this, so latent and indirect, is surely a character of truth. Such a narrative could scarcely have proceeded from any but the pen of an eye-witness. And what eye-witness can we suppose to have been its author, but that Moses, to whom the Jewish race have universally ascribed it, and therefore admitted it as a code of their law, and the rule of their religion, and the only true record of their history?

[ocr errors]

LECTURE V.

The common events of the Jewish history incredible if separated from the miraculous, but when combined with them, form one natural and consistent narrative. Instanced in the history of Moses before he undertook the deliverance of the Jews-In the difficulties attending that attempt, from the Jews and from the Egyptians-His conduct as leader of the emigration unaccountable if unaided by supernatural power-At the departure from Egypt-At the Red Sea-On the return of the twelve spies from Canaan-In the detention of the Jews in the wilderness forty years.

EXODUS, V. 22, 23.

"And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil-entreated this 66 people? why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy "name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all."

THIS was the expostulation of the Jewish legislator with the Deity, in the bitterness of his heart, at the severe disappointment he experienced, on his first application to the Egyptian monarch, in the name of the God of Israel, for permission to let his people go, that they might serve him.

In the three last Lectures I endeavoured to deduce presumptive proofs of the authenticity and truth of the Jewish history, from the structure of the narrative in which it is presented to us : and to show, that these proofs apply with equal clearness to the miraculous as to the common facts; both being interwoven in one detail, and related with the same characters of impartiality, artlessness, and truth. This conclusion will receive great confirmation, should it be found that the common events of the history, if we attempt to separate them from the miraculous, become unnatural, improbable, and even incredible, unconnected, and unaccountable; while, if combined with the miracles which attended them, the entire series is connected, natural, and consistent.

In order to lead the way to this conclusion, I have directed the attention of my readers to the singular narrative from which

this passage is taken: as introductory to an inquiry, Whether it appears probable or improbable, that the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt, the promulgation of the Jewish Law, and the establishment of the Jewish nation in the land of Canaan, can be rationally and adequately accounted for, by unassisted human agency, using merely natural means, and taking advantage of natural occurrences? Or, whether on the contrary, the difficulties attending the accomplishment of these events, and the consequent establishment of the Hebrew polity, were not such as no mere human power could have overcome; and whether it be not indispensably necessary to admit the account which the Sacred History delivers of a divine interposition, as the only cause fully adequate, to the production of effects so important and certain, yet so extraordinary, as the deliverance of Israel, the legislation of Moses, and the settlement of the Hebrew nation in the land of Canaan? For this purpose, let us consider the objects to which this narrative naturally directs our attention; the character of the Jewish legislator, the resistance he encountered from the Egyptian government, the disposition and circumstances of the Hebrew people, and impediments which presented themselves to their settlement in the land to which they emigrated. Let us review the narrative of these events, separating the leading facts not miraculous, which form the basis of the history, from the miraculous; and consider whether it be rational to receive the former, and reject the latter.

Let us first contemplate the character and conduct of the legislator. Born at that period, when his nation groaned under the most oppressive and malignant despotism which ever crushed a people; rescued by a singular providence from that death to which he was destined by the cruel edict of Pharaoh; adopted by the daughter, and educated in the court, of that monarch; there is reason to believe, with the inspired martyr Saint Stephen, that he was "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and that he may have been "mighty both in words and deeds:"* that is, conversant in learning, skilled in writing, and judicious in conduct; for his own positive declaration prevents us from believing him eloquent. When commanded to act as ambassador from the God of Israel to Pharaoh, he pleads as an apology for his reluctance,

* Acts, vii. 22.

to undertake the dangerous task, the want of this quality so necessary for a popular leader. And that he did not possess, or at least that he did not display, any military prowess, appears from his employing Joshua to head the Jewish troops, in the very first battle they had occasion to fight, whilst he stood on an eminence to secure to them divine aid, by holding up his hands to heaven.† But, notwithstanding these defects, it is not improbable that, in the vigour of manhood, and the ardour of his honest indignation, at the sufferings of his people, he may have conceived the project of rousing them against their oppressors, and rescuing them from Egypt. His religious principles were shocked with the idolatry and vices of the Egyptian court, as his humanity and patriotism revolted at the cruelty exercised against his wretched countrymen. He trusted that God would assist his praiseworthy intentions, and by him accomplish the promised deliverance. By faith," says the Apostle," Moses, "when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of "Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with "the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a "season; esteeming the reproach of Christ" (the seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and to which he looked as the sure pledge of his nation's deliverance) "as greater "riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect unto "the recompence of the reward." Thus animated, he seems to have attempted that deliverance he hoped for. "When he was

[ocr errors]

"full forty years old," says Saint Stephen,§ "it came into his "heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing "one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him "that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: for he supposed "his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand "would deliver them; but they understood not." Indeed, this attempt, prematurely undertaken, and utterly unsuccessful, terminated in such a manner as seems to have banished every such idea totally from his thoughts, and to have rendered any such attempt in future, to all human judgment, desperate and impracticable. For, "the next day he showed himself unto "two of his countrymen, as they strove, and would have set "them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren: why do ye

*Exod. iv. 10. Ibid. xvii. 8-12.

Heb. xi, 24-26. § Acts, vii. 23-25.

« السابقةمتابعة »