we dare not endeavour to make our views more palatable by concealing what appears to be the plain sense of holy writ. I, page 35.-These Wonders wrought by Demon Agency. HAVING in the preceding note given it as our opinion that the appearances produced by the magicians were real wonders, it is necessary to state our views of the agency by which these superhuman acts were produced. This becomes indispensable from the conflicting opinions which have been propounded on this point also. Shuckford, who is very earnest in refuting those who contend that the works of the magicians consisted only in deceptive appearances, nevertheless asserted "that the Egyptians had no reason to think that their incantations would produce serpents; but they would try all experiments, in order to judge further of the matter; and, upon their attempting, God was pleased to give an unexpected success to their endeavours, in order to serve and carry on his own purposes and designs by it. For the success they had was certainly unexpected." ("Connexion," vol. ii. p. 542.) That Pharaoh, if he had never seen any superhuman act, or heard of such being performed, should, in the presence of a great miracle, have sent for his wise men to attempt a similar prodigy; that they, never having performed any thing wonderful, should on an occasion of such importance, in the presence of the king, have attempted this achievement; and, stranger than all, that God should have given them miraculous power that they might the better oppose his own commissioned servants; appear altogether such improbable conclusions, the latter supposition especially, placing, as it does, the divine administration under the ban of our Divine Teacher's "house divided against itself," that we are compelled to seek a more consistent interpretation. That the conclusion to be placed before the reader may be given with the greatest brevity, it may be stated that, in our opinion, the magicians effected their superhuman works by demon-agency. Two or three brief observations in support of this opinion shall suffice. First. This appears, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to be the reasonable and natural inference. If a man is heard speaking Spanish or Dutch, without further information he would be regarded as a Spaniard or a Dutchman. If a person should be seen constructing a watch, it would be inferred that he was by trade a watchmaker. So, as we know that the great system of idolatry is the master-piece of satanic subtlety and power, that, in fact, the Heathen deities were devils; (Lev. xvii. 7; Deut. xxxii. 17; 1 Cor. x. 20, &c. ;)—when we find superhuman efforts put forth in support of this system, is it not reasonable to ascribe this power to demon-agency? In the absence, therefore, of direct scriptural information on the subject, this would be the natural and obvious interpretation of the difficulty. But it is alleged that these magicians were certainly a kind of conjurors; that it is notorious they often attempted to cheat and deceive. Be it so were they on this account less suitable instruments of demonagency? But the principal objection is this: "Miracles have been regarded as a great proof of the divinity of revealed truth. Do we not, then, by attributing these wonders to demon-influence, sap a great bulwark of scriptural evidence?" This subject shall be fully discussed elsewhere; but here it may be answered by saying, The truth of the Bible can never be sustained by rejecting its teaching, nor injured by admitting it. A case is presented to us in the damsel at Philippi, in which a soothsayer, whose powers were prostituted for gain, was actually enabled to exercise superhuman ability by an indwelling demon. This is proved by the fact, that when the spirit was cast out, "her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone." (Acts xvi. 19.) The fact, therefore, that diabolical agency has been exerted in this manner, is a scripture verity. That this was fully believed by the Old-Testament church, may be fairly presumed from the wicked assertion of the Jews respecting Christ, saying that he did "not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." (Matt. xii. 24.) Again: we meet this doctrine in the Apocalypse, where we hear of "the spirits of devils, working miracles." (Rev. xvi. 14.) This whole case is stated with equal ability and caution by Dr. Cudworth, who divides supernatural effects into two classes; the one, which, "though they could not be done by natural causes, might, notwithstanding, be done, God permitting only, by the ordinary and natural power of other invisible created spirits, angels, or demons." But "there is another sort of miracles, or effects supernatural, such as are above the power of all second causes, or any natural created being whatsoever, and so can be attributed to none but God Almighty himself." Hence the distinction which the philosophers make between wonders, or supernatural results of the first kind, and miracles, or those of the second. (CUDWORTH'S "Intellectual System.") Such wonders were the works of the magicians in opposition to Moses, God permitting them to manifest their utmost ability in support of idolatry as long as it seemed good in his sight. No other principle accounts for the phenomena. Why, then, should men persist in the most improbable expositions, when, as Dr. Adam Clarke says, it is so "much more rational at once to allow that these magicians had familiar spirits who could assume all shapes, change the appearances of the subjects upon which they operated, or suddenly convey one thing away and substitute another in its place?" It would not have been thought necessary to dwell at such length on this point, had it not been considered, that, next to the being and influence of the Spirit of God, the most disagreeable truth ever propounded to fallen man is the certain existence and evil agency of Satan. J, page 42.-Human Sacrifices of the Egyptians. Ir is but just to say that Sir Gardner Wilkinson discredits the statements of Manetho and Diodorus. But when any writer, however eminent, rejects the testimony of great historical authorities, we are not only at liberty to examine the grounds assigned for such rejection, but are bound to do so. In this case Sir Gardner's reasons are most unsatisfactory. He rejects the testimony of these ancient writers, because he regards it as "totally inconsistent with the feelings of a civilized people, and directly contrary to the usages of the Egyptians." ("Ancient Egypt," vol. v. p. 341.) But is this conclusive? Did the civilization of Greece or Rome in the best periods of their history prevent such immolations? And if not, why should such a result be expected in Egypt? Surely, then, when several credible witnesses distinctly state an historical fact, without any direct counter evidence, we ought not to pronounce it false for reasons which, when fairly tested in other countries, have not produced the results which are thus ascribed to them. K, page 46.-The Borrowing of the Israelites from the Egyptians. Of those numerous writers who take every opportunity of depreciating the Bible, many have been careful to dilate upon the impropriety of the Israelites borrowing goods of the Egyptians, when about finally to leave the country, and, consequently, without any intention of repayment. In addition to what is said in the text in explanation of this conduct, and on the justice of this requital, it will be quite sufficient to observe that the idea of borrowing arises entirely from the English translation, and has no place in the original, which is literally 66 to ask." So the Septuagint reads: " Every woman shall ask of her neighbour," &c. Should any one still contend for rendering the word "borrow," let him try to render it so in Psalm cxxii. 6, "O borrow the peace of Jerusalem." (KENNICOTT.) : L, page 47.-Number of the Hebrews on leaving Egypt. DR. ADAM CLARKE gives the following calculation of the number of persons who left Egypt in the Israelitish host at the exodus :Effective men 20 years old and upward Two-thirds of these we may suppose were married; in which case their wives would amount to....... These, on the average, might have 5 children under 20 years Levites, probably not included as effective men.. Their children.. The mixed multitude, probably not less than 600,000 400,000 2,000,000 45,000 33,000 165,000 20,000 3,263,000 besides a multitude of old and infirm persons who would be obliged to ride on camels and asses. Exclude even the Levites and their families, and upwards of three millions will be left. M, page 48.-Chronology of this Period. THE statement in Exod. xii. 40, that "the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years," is clearly contrary to fact and other portions of holy writ. The passage has therefore greatly embarrassed chronologers and commentators. Dr. Kennicott has given a satisfactory explanation: "That the children, or descendants, of Israel did not sojourn or dwell four hundred and thirty years in Egypt, may be easily, and has been frequently, demonstrated. Leaving others in their endeavour to extract the true sense of Moses out of words not his own, or rather out of a sentence not now found in the Hebrew text as he expressed it, let us see what the Samaritan text, that valuable copy of the Pentateuch, gives us in this place,- Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.' All here is truly consistent, and worthy the pen of Moses. This same sum is given by St. Paul, (Gal. iii. 17,) who reckons from the promise made to Abraham (when God commanded him to go into Canaan) to the giving of the law, which soon followed the exodus of the Israelites: and this apostolical chronology is exactly concordant with the Samaritan Pentateuch. For, from Abraham's entering Canaan to the birth of Isaac was twenty-five years. (Gen. xii. 4; xvii. 1, 21.) Isaac was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob. (Gen. xxv. 26.) Jacob was one hundred and thirty at his going down into Egypt; (Gen. xlvii. 9;) which three numbers make two hundred and fifteen years; and then Jacob and his children having continued in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years more, the whole sum is regularly completed." ("Dissertations," p. 398.) N, page 50.-Route of the Israelites from Egypt, and miraculous Passage of the Red Sea. MANY conflicting opinions have been put forward respecting the route of the Israelites from Egypt; and these necessarily involve the question of the situation of the Land of Goshen. Dr. Robinson places this district in the present province of Eth-Shŭrkîyeh, on the east of the Delta, along the Pelusiac arm of the Nile. On the contrary, Major Rennell, who is followed by Dr. Wilson, supposes Goshen to have been "in the district of Heliopolis, on the apex of the Delta, on the east extending as far as Cairo." It is not necessary to attempt a decision between these opposing authorities, inasmuch as it appears sufficiently evident, that in either case the neighbourhood of Suez must have been in their line of march. Dr. Wilson supposes them to have passed through the Wady Ramliyah, to the south of Jebel Mukattam and Jebel Reibun; but there appear to be insuperable objections to this hypothesis: while, on the contrary, Etham, which is said to have been on the edge of the wilderness, was, in all probability, very near Suez; for after the Israelites had passed the Red Sea, they are said to have travelled through the desert of Shur; but in the Book of Numbers the same tract is called the desert of Etham: a fact which seems to prove that Etham was not far from Suez, and therefore gave its name to a part of the wilderness beyond the Red Sea. Thus far, whether the Hebrews came from the neighbourhood of Heliopolis or of Zoan, their course would have been that which was likely to have been taken; but at Etham their course was altered by divine command: instead of passing into the wilderness by leaving Suez to the right hand, they turned to the south; and, leaving Suez to the left hand, took their way between the Red Sea and Jebel 'Atákah. By this movement they were perfectly enclosed as in a net; a range of mountains lay before them, a valley on their right led back to Egypt, and might have been full of Egyptians, while Pharaoh followed in their rear. Here the Lord wrought deliverance for his people; and it is remarkable, that at this place, Ras 'Attákah, where the Red Sea is about ten or twelve miles wide, every circumstance seems to favour the opinion that the passage was made. Here the valley expands into a considerable plain, bounded by lofty precipitous mountains on the right and left, and by the sea in front; and is sufficiently ample to accommodate the vast number of human beings who composed both armies. An east wind would act almost directly across the gulf. It would be unable to co-operate with an ebb tide in removing the waters: no objection, certainly, if we admit the exercise of God's miraculous agency; but a very great impediment in the way of any rationalistic hypothesis. The channel is wide enough to allow the movements described by Moses; and the time, which embraced an entire night, was sufficient for the convenient march of a large army over such a distance; while the depth of the waters, and all the other circumstances, exactly harmonize with the scripture account. And, "so far as aversion to miracle has had an influence in the hypotheses which have been given, all we shall remark is, that in a case which is so evidently represented as the sphere of miracle, there is but one alternative: they who do not admit the miracle must reject the narrative; and far better would it be to do so frankly than to construct hypotheses, which are for the most part, if not altogether, purely arbitrary. A narrative obviously miraculous (in the intention of the writer) can be explained satisfactorily on no rationalistic principles: this is not to expound, but to wrest,' the scriptures." (KITTO's "Biblical Cyclopædia.”) |