greater part of what has been attributed to this sort of magic, was "undoubtedly the effect of imposture and delusion, which have been "so apparent in several instances, as to tempt one almost to believe "the same of all the rest."

Anc. Univ. Hist, Vol. I. b. i. chap. 3. p. 587.

Upon the miracles in question their ideas are expressed in language still more explicit. They state the two following reasons as evidences generally produced in favour of the opinion, that these miracles were wrought by the agency of evil spirits: "First, because "the scriptures of the Old and New Testament seem to attribute "some such power to evil spirits; and secondly, because Moses ex"pressed himself in such terms as manifestly shew, that they really "imitated him in all those wonders they wrought." They go on to criticise the express phrases which he used in describing the miracles of the magicians. He says, that "they cast down every man his rod, "and they BECAME serpents." They assign three reasons why God suffered them thus to contend against the wonders wrought by Mosés, and to produce similar phenomena. "First, it was necessary that "these magicians should be suffered to exert the utmost of their "6 power against Moses, in order to clear him from the imputation " of magic." Secondly, it was necessary in order to confirm the "faith of the wavering and desponding Israelites, by making them see the difference between Moses acting by the power of God, and "the sorcerers by that of Satan. And lastly, in order to preserve "them afterwards from being seduced by any false miracles from the "true worship of God."

Anc. Univ. Hist. Vol. II. b. i. chap. 7. p. 562. note E. This representation appears to me to accord better with the Mosaic history, than the foregoing one.

Dr. HENRY HUNTER, with cloquence peculiar to himself, exhi bits a strong reason for the permission given to the magicians par tially to imitate the miracles of Moses. "Reasoning man will ask, "Why were not impiety and infidelity checked in their very first 66 attempt? Why were the demons of Egypt left in possession of the "slightest vestige of power, to oppose, or to imitate the mighty * power of God? Why grant to Pharaoh and his magicians, even "the momentary triumph of their incantations? The reason is ob ❝vious. Had the Egyptian enchantments been attended with no

"success and produced no effect, infidelity had it's plea at hand. **Your pretended miracle is mere illusion, an attempt to mislead «« our understanding, by imposing upon our senses. Though we «< cannot produce this particular effect, perform this particular «<trick, by our art, we can effect wonders equally or much more ❝astonishing.' But, by being permitted to succeed in their first "effort, and to rival Moses and Aaron so far, in power and repu❝tation, they are insensibly drawn in, to give their sanction to the «sign performed by the Hebrews, for the sake of their own credit; “and no sooner is it stamped for currency, with their image and *superscription, than they and their abettors are confounded, by

seeing the wretched impression of their art effaced, annihilated; * and no image remains visible but that of the living and true God. "The power which swallowed up the magician's rods, could as easily "have prevented the transmutation; but the confutation is much "more complete by the one than it would have been by the other. "Impiety has shut her own mouth, and infidelity stands stripped of « her fast, and only plea."

'

Hunter's Sacred Biog. Vol. III. Lect. V.

p. 115-117. The truly great and estimable SAURIN, with equal ability and success, in an admirable and compact chain of reasoning, which, however beautiful, cannot on account of it's copiousness, be admitted into this note, places the subject in four points of view. He tries it, first, by "the narrative of Moses:" secondly, by "the history of en«chantments transmitted by every age:" thirdly, by, "metaphysi"cal speculations;" and fourthly, "at the tribunal of religion;" and in each of these modes of discussion, proves that we shall find reasons for suspending our judginent on this mysterious subject.

'

Consult Saur. Discours, &c. sur la Bible: Tom. I. disc, xlvi. fol. To this modest and ingenuous confession, I do most cheerfully Subscribe.

After such a declaration, from such a man as Saurin, it would ill become me to attempt to determine upon so nice a point. But after so large statements of the views of others, and such free comments upon them, it may perhaps he expected that I should as frankly avow my own opinion. Dr. GEDDES, whose criticisms are often estimable, yet whose assertions are sometimes announced without à pretension to reasoning, and whose conclusions are almost always

66

levelled avowedly against the authority of Moses, has never disco vered the traits which I have described, more decidedly than in his remarks on the present subject. He notices the opinion of legerdemain, and says, "the text is expressly against all such interpre"tations: and we may as well say, that the rod of Moses was not a real rod, as that the rods of the magicians were not real rods."— He differs, however, from every solution which ever has been, or perhaps ever can be, given; and declares, "It would be wiser, perhaps, although not so honest, to say nothing at all; but that is not my manner: I must say what I think; let others think and speak "as they please." And what is this opinion, which a professedly christian divine could entertain, and which his fidelity prompted him to publish to the world? "I am clearly of opinion that neither the magicians of Pharaoh, nor the legislature of the Hebrews, changed "their rods into serpents, any more than the sorceress Circe turned "the companions of Ulysses into swine: but that either the Hebrew "historian, whoever he was, invented the whole story; or that, if ever any such trial of magical skill took place, the deception was equal on both sides."

66

Geddes' Crit. Rem. Vol. I. on Exod. vii. p. 181, &c.

And this is Biblical Criticism! And this is fair, candid reasoning! And this is learned and liberal research! What then is to be deemed arrogant, unqualified assertion? What can be accounted indecent levity, and disrespectful trifling? If he did not blush to write such a passage, I should blush to comment upon it, so as to attempt a serious refutation of it! It was not thus that Jesus Christ himself spoke, and thought, of Moses, of his writings, and of his authority. With no less of integrity, I will candidly avow the opinion which I am inclined to form upon a subject concerning which I dare not attempt to decide; and without presuming to press my sentiment upon any reader, I shall state it as briefly as possible, with the reasons upon which I hold it. Upon the whole, I think, 1. That both the miracles performed by Moses, and those wrought by the magicians, were real. For had not this been the case, would not Moses as easily have detected the imposition, as Elijah silenced the prophets of Baal? Has the Mosaic account given the slightest intimation that they were phantoms? On the contrary, has he not

6

spoken of them in the same terms, as he speaks of his own? I am also inclined to think,

2. That the magicians knew not the extent of their own powers. In making the experiment, they obeyed the command of Pharaoh: they were doubtless prepared to do their best, and to use whatever deception the circumstances of the moment might allow. It is evident that they tried all the miracles of Moses, and could succeed but in a few; a decisive proof that they knew not where their power would be stayed, or to what point it would be permitted to extend. Perhaps they were as much surprised at their success, as the spectators could be, in the first instance. So convinced were they of divine agency on the suspension of their partial power, that they confessed "this is the finger of God." But the miracle at which their agency ceased, was as easy to be performed, to all appearance, as those in which they succeeded; and the inference appears to be, that they were not effected by the power of art. It appears to me,

3. That they must have performed these miracles by the permission, and under the power of God. And when this power was withheld from them, and continued to Moses, they instantly acknowledged the hand of Deity.

4. Admitting that both Moses and the magicians wrought their respective miracles by the power or permission of God, when their capacity to effect them ceased, and that of Moses remained, a decisive evidence was afforded of the truth of his mission.

5. The phrase," they did it by their enchantments," does not appear to me to destroy this hypothesis, but only to mean, that they used some form and parade, to impress the minds of the spectators with veneration of their power and wisdom, and to secure to themselves the credit and fame of their success. This parade, however, availed them nothing, when their permission to work miracles expired, and they were compelled to acknowledge the interposition of divine power.

In respect to this opinion, which is submitted with diffidence, the reader will form his own conclusion, of it's probability or the contrary. I will not avouch that it is original, although if it be borrowed, I cannot recollect the source from whence I drew it, nor of course make my acknowledgments. It is more than probable that I have met with it in the course of reading, and treasured it up

from it's coincidence with my own views: but if I could trace it to it's author, I would not hesitate to give a full reference to his own statement. It is common to every man who endeavours to digest what he reads, to mingle the thoughts of others with his own: and it is not always easy to determine, which of our stores we may claim as original, and which we ought to acknowledge as borrowed: nor to distinguish between that which we conceive, and that which we only remember.

This whole discussion relates to page 332, of the preceding Lec

ture.

NOTE 2. Respecting the term of Israel's bondage, the writers of the Ancient Universal History, afford the following ingenious, and, as it appears to me, just solution.

"It is plain, that the four hundred years of Abraham's seed so"journing in a strange land, must be reckoned, not from their

coming into Egypt, but from the birth of Isaac. For all the time "of their sojourning in the land of Canaan, Gerar, or any other, "was still in a strange land, in which they had not a foot of ground, "if we except the cave of Machpelah. As to what is added, that "they shall likewis serve, and be ill-treated, it is commonly un"derstood to be spoken circumstantially, and might be put in a pa"renthesis, thus, they shall sojourn and be strangers (and likewise "serve and be oppressed) during the space of four hundred years, “ as St. Austin, and others, have fully proved. Accordingly we "find Isaac oppressed in Gerar, his wells filled up by it's inhabit

ants, and himself forced still farther from them; and Jacob served, ❝and was oppressed by Laban near twenty years, yet neither of "them laboured under a continual oppression. The Egyptian ser"vitude did not commence till after Joseph and all his brethren દ were dead; before that, the Israelites lived in peace and plenty. "Allowing, therefore, that Levi was forty-four years of age at his "first coming into Egypt, which is the most that can be supposed, " he must have lived ninety-three years in Egypt, because the text "tells us, that he died in the 137th year of his age. And these 93 " years being subtracted from 215, the time of their abode there, "there will remain but 122 years of thraldom, even supposing it to * have began immediately after his death. The natural sense there