"were expelled Egypt for leprosy, he adds, let every one consider this as "he pleases; did he therefore intend to say that this was also uncertain, "it being no other than that impudent calumny which he himself vehemently confutes and exposes at large in his first Book against Apion, page 25 to 31." And Reland adds many other instances of his using this expression, where it is quite certain that he most firmly believed the fact to which he applies it.

Thus utterly ill founded is the objection to the miracle, from the supposition of its having been confessed incredible by Josephus. But after all, this objection is in its very nature futile and inconclusive; for, how can the truth of the Mosaic history, or the miraculous nature of any event which it records, be either materially confirmed or weakened by a writer who lived near two thousand years after the event, and who confessedly derived all his knowledge concerning it, from the very same sacred volume which still remains for our examination? Most certainly the reality and the miraculous nature of the fact must be decided by the credibility of the original narrative, and of the concurring testimonies which either oppose or confirm it, if any such can be found. To these, therefore, let us direct our attention.

On this subject, it is in the first place an obvious remark, that the Sacred History itself represents this transaction as a clear and stupendous miracle, and declares that it was recognized as such in the hymn of thanksgiving composed at the very time by Moses, and from that period constantly preserved by the whole Jewish nation, and that every allusion to it in the subsequent parts of the Jewish history, the psalms or the prophets, presupposes and affirms its miraculous nature.

66

"Fear ye not," (says Moses to the multitude, panic-struck at the sight of the Egyptian army)" stand still and see the salvation of the "Lord, which he will show you to-day; for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. The Lord "shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace." What language can declare more expressly the certain expectation of a miraculous interposition?

66

This interposition was manifested in three things: the first, in protecting them from the attack of the Egyptians before their passage through the sea; the second, in opening that passage; and the third, in destroying the Egyptians. As to the first, the sacred historian gives this account: " And the angel of God which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud "went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came "between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of the Israelites ; "and it was a cloud of darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these; so that the one came not near the other all the night.' Now it is scarcely credible any historian should invent such a circumstance as this, so unlikely to occur even to the most fertile imagination. It is still more incredible he should hope to persuade a whole nation of the truth of such a fiction, and utterly impossible that such a fact, if real, should not be miraculous. The historian proceeds: "And Moses stretched out his hand over

*Exod. xiv. 19, 20.

*

66

"the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were "divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left."* Now this description is utterly inapplicable to any thing like an ebb of the sea. This would carry away the whole body of the waters, and leave a dry space, but it could never divide them; it could never make them stand like a wall upon their right hand and on their left. Or, even admitting Dr Geddes's remark, that we need not suppose them to stand upright like real walls, but only that they were deep enough on each side of the shoal to prevent the Israelites from being flanked or attacked from any quarter "but from behind;" it is not conceivable how an ebb of the sea alone could produce this effect. The history plainly ascribes it to a divine interposition; and we must either pronounce that totally false, or the event it relates decidedly miraculous.

66

The third part of this transaction is the destruction of the Egyptians; this is also described in terms which imply a decided miracle. The "Egyptians," says the history, " pursued, and went in after them, to the "midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen." He adds, “And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord "looked unto the host of the Egyptians, through the pillar of fire, and "of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off "their chariot wheels," (or as Dr Geddes translates it, so entangled them) "that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee "from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them, against the "Egyptians."+

Here is another circumstance perfectly consistent with, and as it were regularly connected with, the former part of the narrative, concerning the miraculous cloud which divided the two armies ; but yet so unlike any thing mere human imagination would have conceived, that it is scarcely credible any thing but reality could have suggested it. The narrative proceeds: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out "thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And "Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea; and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared, and the Egyptians fled against it and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the "" sea. There remained not so much as one of them. Thus the Lord "saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians: and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: and the people "feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses."+

Nothing can be more clear than that Moses ascribes the sudden return of the waters, at such a critical moment as to destroy the whole host of the Egyptians to a supernatural power; and states it to have been recorded and believed as such by the whole nation of the Jews, from the moment the event took place; and preserved in their perpetual recollection by that sublime hymn of triumphal thanksgiving, which

* Exod. xiv. 21, 22.

+ Ibid. xiv. 23-25.

Ibid. verse 26, &c.

ance;

he himself composed, and has transmitted to posterity in the next chapter. And it has been well remarked, that it is totally inconceivable that such a history could have gained credit with the Jewish nation, as we certainly know it did, had the facts on which it is founded been the consequences of natural causes, or of mere human contrivWho can imagine," say the authors of the Universal History, "that in such a case any credit could have been given to his relation, "when he declares that God, who alone knew what passed in Egypt, "did unexpectedly make them take this new route ; when he describes "his own surprise and the people's consternation at the sight of the Egyptian army; above all, when he describes the sea miraculously dividing to let them pass, and suddenly returning to overthrow their "enemies? What opinion must they have had of his sincerity, if these " events, thus ascribed to God, were entirely owing to his own cunning and policy? On the other hand, what must they think of his conduct, that could be guilty of such an oversight as to lead them “into such a danger, though under the pretence of miraculous direc"tion? And finally, Moses must have been the most impudent and "the most vain man alive, to attempt making such a vast and not "over-credulous multitude believe that their passage was altogether as "miraculous as he affirms it to have been, when they could not but have been well assured of the contrary, much less appoint a solemn "festival of seven days, and enjoin it to be observed by them and their posterity to all future ages in memory of their pretended miraculous passing through the sea, when the experience of a much shorter time than they continued along that coast, could easily have con"vinced them that there was nothing in it but what was natural, and "what happened every day."*

Thus unaccountable are the existence and the reception of the Mosaic history of this event, if this deliverance be ascribed to mere natural causes, directed by human contrivance, and misrepresented by artful exaggeration.†

* Universal History of the Jews, Book 1. chap. vii, note P.

As I wish to take the objectors to this miracle on their own statement, I have not judged it necessary to enter into a critical discussion of the spot where this passage took place; particularly as absolute certainty on such a point may not be easily attainable, at the distance of three thousand three hundred years.

"the

I refer on this subject to the learned Mr Bryant on the Plagues of Egypt, (p. 358) who, in a dissertation on the place of the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and their subsequent journey and passage over the Red Sea, brings many strong arguments and authorities to show that the passage took place at Bedea, about six German miles, or about twenty-four English, from Suez, "where and where only there is a defile, which consisted of a long extended coast, and was "bounded by the Sinus Heroopolitanus to the East, by the extremity of the Arabian Mountain to "the West; at the end was the inundation or inlet of the sea called Clymax, and now by the "Arabians Colsum: here were they situated, exactly as the text describes they were, by the sea, "and entangled by the land; the wilderness had shut them in." "But," says Dr Geddes, "sea is here near four leagues broad by fifty feet deep; to have dried up a passage through such a "mass of waters would have been a prodigy indeed; for my part, who believe there was nothing "miraculous in the event, I am positively for the pass at Suez, where at this day there are shal"lows fordable at low water, and which might in former times have been frequently dry: we all "know what changes happen in the bed of seas, as well as in the bed of rivers, especially where "that bed is sand, which the Gulf of Suez certainly is." There certainly have been such changes, but, unfortunately for the Doctor's system, in this instance the changes have been such as to prove that the spot where the Doctor supposes the Jews to have passed, instead of being for

But let us for a moment set aside all the particular circumstances of the history, retaining only the two great facts, even that the Israelites escaped from the Egyptians by passing in some mode or other through or along an arm of the sea, in which their pursuers were destroyed, and try the probability of the explanation given of those facts by those who set aside all miraculous interference.

Moses, say they, took advantage of an ebb of the sea, which, aided by a favourable wind (not as the original states, an East wind, for this, though it corresponds to the history, as it blows across the Gulf of Suez, and therefore if supernaturally increased might divide it across, yet could not answer this hypothesis) left a dry strand to a great extent, and dry long enough for the Jews to pass, (perhaps by ebb succeeding to ebb) while the Egyptians, attempting to follow them, a sudden and violent reflux of the sea destroyed them.

66

66

66

But," says Dr Geddes,* “as for the ebb upon ebb, it is now never observed to happen at Suez, where the tides are very regular, " and the difference between high and low water only about three feet " and a half." Those who have examined the tides here most accurately, assure us, "that the greatest distance that it falls from the place "of high water is about three hundred yards, and these can continue entirely uncovered but during the space of half an hour at most, for during the first six hours the sea doth only retire by degrees, and in "less than half an hour it begins again to flow towards the shore; the "most therefore that can be allowed, both of time and space, of passable ground, in a moderate computation, is about two hundred paces during six hours, or one hundred and fifty paces during eight hours. "Now it is plain that a multitude, consisting at least of upwards of "two millions and a half of men, women, children, and slaves, en"cumbered besides with great quantity of cattle and household stuff, "could never perform such a march within so short, we may say within even double that space, though we should allow them also double "the breadth of ground to do it on. This argument will hold good against those who suppose that they only coasted along some part of the sea, and those who maintain that they crossed that small arm or part of it which is towards the further end near the port of Suez, as "six or eight hours could not have been sufficient for the passage of so

66

merly more dry than at present, was entirely overflowed by the Red Sea, which at that time flowed into the country, probably thirty miles higher than it does at present, and overflowed a considerable basin or lake which has been since separated from the Red Sea by a bank of sand gradually accumulating near Suez, and has been dried up, partly by sand and partly by exhalation. While this lake existed, and the communication between it and the Red Sea was open, it would have been more impracticable than now to effect a passage where Dr Geddes and the other authors, who are only for a half miracle, or for no miracle, placed it. In proof of this former extent of the Red Sea, consult Memoires sur L'Egypte, publies pendant Les Campagnes Du General Bonaparte, par L'Institut. d'Egypte, Tom. iv. p. 218. The gentlemen of this Institute (as might be expected) will have the passage not to be miraculous, for, like Dr Geddes, they think that the Red Sea at Suez has a strand that is passable at low water, while at the same time it is deep enough, particularly when agitated by tempests, to destroy a considerable army. Quare-If the Red Sea communicated with the Lake, as these writers have proved it did, was this strand so large? But these gentlemen have not pretended to account for the wonderful difference between the fortune of the Jews and of the Egyptians. It was a mere accident from tempests, &c. &c. &c.

*Note upon Exod. xiv. 21,

"immense a multitude, allow them what breadth of room you will; "much less for Pharaoh to have entered it with his whole host."*

In addition to this, how extremely improbable is it, that none of the Egyptians should know any thing of the ebbing and flowing of the sea, so as to foresee the danger they were exposed to; and how incredible, that they should all obstinately persist in pursuing the Israelites through it, when they saw it gradually returning upon them until they were all swallowed up by it.

But Dr Geddes has examples enough to render all this credible. "At the Washes between Norfolk and Lincolnshire, or the great estu ary between Lancaster and Hooksborough, but for guides hired by government, passengers would often be swallowed up by the returning tide." How unfortunate that the Egyptian government never thought of hiring guides! True it is, these tides are in the Bristol Channel, which, according to Newton,‡ are of an extraordinary height, from the nature of the channel, rising sometimes to forty-five feet, whereas in the Gulf of Suez they rise only three and a half.

But then the Egyptians were "on a shoal between two masses of "water, a deep stagnation on the left hand, and the sea on the right, "both agitated with a vehement wind, which blew almost directly in "their faces." This deep stagnation of water on the left hand is a new circumstance; the Egyptians, we must suppose, had never suspected the existence of this, or they would have known their danger better. But they may have laboured under other very unfortunate accidents, according to Dr Geddes, " for if, while they were on such a shoal, thunder and lightning attended the tempest, it would be ter"rible indeed. Besides, extraordinary tides have been always attended "with danger and death, An instance occurred at Maranopolis, when "the Emperor Valens was there; and lately at the river Plata in South "America; and those great commotions are not unfrequently attended "with earthquakes;" (and what is most of all to the point, because it happened in Egypt and Palestine)" in the year 1034, on a dreadful "earthquake, which obliged the inhabitants to live in the open air eight days, the sea receded three parasangs, and on its return destroyed the people who had gone out to pick up cockles and shells." Here is then precisely a parallel case. Thus we see how the entire matter happened without any the least miracle; only an unprecedented succession of fortunate accidents, which occurred here to the Jews, and by which, with tide and wind in their favour, a calm sky and firm footing, they escaped along this shore, while the unhappy Egyptians instantly after were intercepted by a stagnation of water on one side, and a tide on the other, both unexpected; a storm with thunder and lightning in their faces, and an earthquake perhaps to close all, and produce a resistless reflux of the sea, which overwhelmed them; all * Universal History of the Jews, chap. vii. note P.

+ Critical Remarks on Exod. xiv. 28.

Vide Newtoni Principia, lib. iii. prop. 37, where he notices the great tides at Bristol, the "magnitudinem æstus" in that port, and accounts for its being impossible that there can be full tides in the Red Sea, " etenim ut plenus sit æstus latitudo maris ab oriente in occidentem non "minor esse debet quam graduum nonaginta." Now the Red Sea is extremely narrow from East to West; but Newton may not seem to Dr Geddes good philosophic authority; he certainly was so credulous as to believe in miracles and prophecies, witness his Commentary upon Daniel.