liters, F,
¦The Rulsean prize essay
for the yee.r 1830,
Cambridge, 1831

Maa_ '

'I give t>ie/f ,".ic,'.-
../</}¦ tie,/pundmgn)f a Cvlfcgiin. I

1925

THE

FUTILITY OF ATTEMPTS

TO REPRESENT

THE MIRACLES RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE

AS EFFECTS PRODUCED IN

THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE.

THE

HULSEAN PRIZE ESSAY

Foil the Year 1830.

By FREDERIC MYERS,
SCHOLAR OF CLARE HALL.

*fl Ti/xodee, rrji/ TrapaKaTCtdiJKtiv (pvKatjov, exTpeTro/iei/os rdi
fief$ri\ov<; Kevo(f>mvla<:, na\ avriBeaeit; rrj<s \j^euSuswnov -yi/Wffeio?" r\v
Tii/fc eTrayyeWonevoi, irep\ rrjv tt'io-tiv tja-Toj£i]aaii. St. Paul's first letter.

CAMBRIDGE:
Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University;
AND SOLD BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE ;
C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON; AND J. HATCHARD, LONDON.

M.DOCC.XXXI.

THE REVEREND AND LEARNED
WILLIAM WEBB, D.D.
THE MASTER OF CLARE HALL,
&C. &c. &C.
THIS ACADEMICAL EXERCISE
is,
BY PERMISSION,
VERY RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED.

CLAUSES from the WILL of the Rev. JOHN
HULSE, late of Elworth, in the county of Chester,
clerk, deceased : dated the twenty-first day of July, in
the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-seven ; expressed in the words of the Testator,
as he, in order to prevent mistakes, thought proper to
draw and write the same himself, and directed that
such clauses should every year be printed, to the in
tent that the several persons, whom it might concern
and be of service to, might know that there were such
special donations or endowments left for the encourage
ment of Piety and Learning, in an age so unfortunately
addicted to Infidelity and Luxury, and that others
might be invited to the like charitable, and, as he
humbly hoped, seasonable and useful benefactions.
He directs that certain rents and profits be
paid to such learned and ingenious person, in the Uni
versity of Cambridge, under the degree of Master of
Arts, as shall compose, for that year, the best Disser
tation, in the English language, on the Evidences in
general, or on the Prophecies or Miracles in particular,
or any other particular Argument, whether the same be
direct or collateral proofs of the Christian Religion, in
order to evince its truth and excellence; the subject of
which Dissertation shall be given out by the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and the Masters of Trinity and Saint John's, his
Trustees, or by some of them, on New Year's Day
annually; and that such Dissertation as shall be by
them, or any two of them, on Christmas Day annually,
the best approved, be also printed, and the expence

IV

defrayed out of the Author's income under his Will,
and the remainder given to him on Saint John the
Evangelist's Day following; and he who shall be so
rewarded, shall not be admitted at any future time as
a Candidate again in the same way, to the intent that
others may be invited and encouraged to write on so
sacred and sublime a subject.
He also desires, that immediately following the last
of the clauses relating to the prize Dissertaion, this
invocation may be added: 'May the Divine Blessing
for ever go along with all my benefactions ; and may
the greatest and the best of Beings, by his all-wise
Providence and gracious influence, make the same
effectual to his own glory, and the good of my fellow-
creatures ! '

That every age has some distinguishing
error in matters of religion will readily be admitted
by those who have paid the slightest attention to
the history of the Christian Church. That a spirit
of bold speculation, both at home and abroad,
touching things of high and holy import, is the
striking characteristic of our own times, must be
evident to the most careless observer. As in
science, the mind of man is incessantly eager to
extend the limits of it's past attainments, so in
religion, by a continual craving after something
new, the daily manna which the Church has fed
upon so long palls on the mental appetite, and
nothing suffices it but to be ever feasting on fruits
snatched fresh from the tree of knowledge. The
novelty of any opinion seems, now-a-days, a suffi
cient atonement for it's absurdity, and he receives
the greatest applause from the Many who casts
farthest from him whatsoever has commanded the
veneration of ages. The direct interposition of
Jehovah's power in the affairs of men, as related
in our Holy Writings, has always been a subject on
which the talents and ingenuity of the infidel and
the sceptic have been assiduously exercised. Since
the days of Celsus and Porphyry, all the virulence
of man's ' poisoned' nature has been in vain em-
A

INTRODUCTION.

ployed in bold attempts either to disprove the
truth, or explain away the mystery, of the wondrous
workings of the Almighty. And now, scarcely
have the subtle errors of Hume, and of his less able
copyists, been fully confuted and exposed, before
other errors have sprung up, different, indeed, in
their nature, but not less dangerous in their effects.
In Germany, one of the most learned, or at least
most laborious, of the nations of Europe, there has
arisen an order of men, who in casting off the
mysticism of the school of Schelling, have almost
rivalled the extravagancies of that dangerous Theory
of Accommodation which was first proposed by the
celebrated Semler. They reject with contempt
whatever in Scripture partakes of a character either
mysterious or supernatural, and rest their creed
upon gratuitous assertions, and groundless hypo
theses, which require a greater exercise of credulity,
than the miracles themselves do, of faith. They
renounce, as inconsistent with the supremacy of
reason, every thing which they cannot fully com
prehend, and all that they cannot explain they
labor to explain away.
The causes of this unwearied opposition, were
it our duty, it would not be difficult to assign.
It might in some measure, indeed, be accounted
for by attentively considering the constitution of
the human mind, and it's tendency to exalt and
magnify it's own powers; but it might more
especially be traced to the lamentable corruption
of man's nature, which is ever at enmity with God

INTRODUCTION.

and the things of God. Man knows full well
that miracles are some of the strongest pillars
on which the evidence for Revelation rests, and,
therefore, in order to get rid of that which is so
contrary to his wishes, and so humbling to his pride,
he has employed his every effort either to sap their
foundations, or to refine aWay their strength. But
to the pride and arrogance of man, assuming to
himself the knowledge of every thing, when his
faculties are so imperfect, and his information so
scanty, the doctrine of miracles is diametrically
opposed. And therefore it is that theories of
interpretation, strange and new (not new indeed
in substance, but only in form) have sprung up
around us — systems whereby it is attempted by
natural causes to account for the extraordinary
operations of Divine agency. And though the
substance of their arguments be not entirely of
modern date, yet we do venture to assert that it is
a new thing to witness among their advocates men,
who, in the stations which they hold in the Pro
testant Churches and Universities of Europe, had
hitherto been regarded at least with satisfaction,
and whose talents and learning had hitherto se
cured for them respect, if not admiration. It is
chiefly against such men — against those who admit
the authenticity, preservation, and, to a certain
extent, the inspiration of Holy Writ — against
those who, possessed of a strangely Athenian spirit,
by introducing ' a more rational latitude of exposi
tion' incalculably weaken the evidence for Reve-
A 2

INTRODUCTION.

lation, that we would attempt to vindicate the
vulgar, and, as it would seem to some, the * narrow,'
system of interpreting the Sacred Writings. For
with those who strive to build their reputation on
the hardihood which they display in assaulting the
strong holds of our most holy Faith — with those
who unblushingly doubt, or deny, the very funda
mental truths on which every Christian man rests
his hopes of an hereafter, we have no concern.
Such men we can only pity and pass by ; for if as
to the truth of Revelation their reason be not
satisfied, or subdued, by the weight of evidence
already brought forward, it would be worse than
fruitless to argue with them on a subject such as
that about to be discussed. Besides, we should in
that case be obliged to enter upon the considera
tion of points which have so often been treated
of before, and to retrace ground, every step of
which has been so carefully examined by men whose
very names will keep the name of our venerable
Church respectable throughout every other on the
globe. General topics, therefore, of the nature
alluded to, we shall studiously endeavour to avoid,
since their discussion is both unnecessary, and
quite incompatible with the limits prescribed by
the nature of our Essay. By the method we are
about to adopt, we may seem perhaps to some to
be taking our stand on lower ground than the
nature of the question would allow ; but, on
mature consideration, they will probably find reason
to believe that the examination of individual

INTRODUCTION.

miracles which modern writers have endeavoured
to explain away, will be calculated to make a more
permanent impression on the mind than any ab
struse, though conclusive, reasonings of moral or
metaphysical science.
Passing over, then, the arguments for miracles
in general, we shall attempt to prove, with as
much brevity and patience as the conduct of our
opponents will permit, that those facts recorded in
Scripture as professedly miraculous, are so in the
strictest sense of the word, and therefore cannot be
accounted for by assigning to them natural causes.
For the most part, we shall treat. of the miracles in
the order in which they occur in the Sacred History,
separately or in classes ; and though one may afford
an illustration to another, yet in their several
proofs we shall endeavour to preserve an entire in
dependence: so that if the proof of one be deemed
inconclusive, it may be passed over without injury
to the rest. As we lay no claim to originality, we
shall bring forward no new system of interpreta
tion, but rather endeavour ' to tread in the tracks
of our forefathers, where we can neither wander
nor stumble.' And though we do, in some mea
sure, subscribe to the authority of the maxim that
' as antiquity cannot privilege error, so novelty
ought not to prejudice truth,' yet we cannot but
wholly dissent from that class of writers who, in
their ill-directed attempts to explain in a new and
'rational' way what it was never intended they
should fully comprehend, have oftentimes emanci-

6 INTRODUCTION.
pated themselves from all the restrictions of com
mon sense. But lest we should seem to be betrayed
into declamation on a subject to which argument
and research are the rather due, we will not trust
ourselves with any further prefatory remarks, but
hasten at once to show The futility of attempts
to represent the miracles recorded in Scripture
as effects produced in the ordinary course of
nature. All who have given their attention to the sub
ject of miracles in the perusal of the Bible, have
probably noticed the difference in their introduc
tion in the Old and New Testaments. In the
gospels these occurrences are spoken of by the
writers as miraculous. Saint John mentions " the
beginning of miracles which Jesus did," and
"the signs and wonders" which he and his dis
ciples performed are appealed to as such. Saint
Luke says that the Lord worked " special miracles"
by the hand of Paul ; and numberless other in
stances might be adduced. But in the Old Testa^
ment the historian often proceeds from the narra
tion of ordinary events without giving the reader
the least notice of the change. This difference
the opponents of miraculous interposition have
been shrewd enough to observe; and hence they
have varied their mode of attack accordingly. In
the one case, they found that they could not admit
the fact without also admitting the miracle ; in
the other, while they allowed the fact, they con
ceived it possible to explain away it's miraculous

DEFINITION.

character. Sensible men, therefore, attacked the
miracles of our Saviour and his apostles, by such
arguments as those of Hume and his school.
Unlike a Paulus, or a Henke, a Nitzsch, or an
Eckermann, such men perceived at once the futi
lity of admitting the occurrence of the incident,
and accounting for it by ordinary causes. The
miracles, however, of the Old Testament, have been
thus treated with greater plausibility, arising from
the manner in which they are related.
Before we can contrast with precision the cha
racter of a miracle with the ordinary course of
nature, we must define the term, and point out a
distinction which it will be of advantage to bear
in mind. Though we may be adding one more
to the numerous unsatisfactory definitions which
have been already attempted, yet we cannot but
diffidently suggest the following as one which,
to our own mind at least, presents as few difficul
ties as any we have hitherto met with. A miracle
then, in the theological sense of the word, we define
to be, A sensible effect produced by an occasional
deviation from the apparently established consti
tution of things. The difficulty and importance
of the subject will be a sufficient apology for the
following brief remarks.
The first idea which the term presents to the
mind is that of some wonderful effect which we
instinctively ascribe to a supernatural cause. The
occurrence itself is always indicated to us" by
one or other of our senses, and our marvel arises

DEFINITION.

from a belief that some power superior to that of
man must have produced it. As long as we con
ceive that such power has been exerted, to us the
event appears miraculous ; and conversely, the
moment we believe the cause of any event to have
been satisfactorily explained, and we find all re
duced within the compass of human agency, or
nature's ordinary operations, the event, though it
still may be marvellous, appears no longer mira
culous. A new and remarkable natural pheno
menon, or a striking effect produced by the opera
tions of science, as of chemistry, or electricity, or
magnetism, appears marvellous to the minds of the
multitude, and did they connect with it the belief
that it was produced by the agency of God, or of
any being superior to man, to them it would in
stantly be invested with a miraculous character.
It is evident that, as far as relates to us, the
effect must be palpable to our senses ; for though
the miracle might take place, we could not assure
ourselves of the reality of it's occurrence. Un
doubtedly God may produce extraordinary effects
even in the invisible world, but with these we
have no concern. It must, too, necessarily be occa
sional, otherwise we should be endeavouring to
trace a succession of extraordinary effects to the
operation of some similar causes, and these would
be included among the number of those established
laws according to which we think that we perceive
the system of the material universe to be constantly
regulated. It is equally clear that it must be a de-

DEFINITION.

viation from the apparently established constitution
of things, or those ordinary and uniform operations
of the Supreme Agent which are known to us, be
cause as Thomas Aquinas well remarks, ' Nobis
non est omnis virtus naturae nota, cum ergo sit
aliquid praeter ordinem naturae creatae nobis notae
per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam, est quidem
miraculum quoad nos, sed non simpliciter1.' We
are only able to judge of the existence of these
laws of nature by experiment and observation, and
hence an event may appear miraculous to our
limited capacities when it is really not so. This
restriction gives our opponents no small advan
tage. They have said, and we freely give them
the benefit of the remark, that events which ap
peared miraculous to the Jews on account of their
limited knowledge of science and nature, we may
be able to account for naturally by means of the
scientific discoveries of this enlightened age. If,
for instance, they can prove that the clay with
which our Lord anointed the blind man's eyes,
possessed any adequate medicinal properties, or

1 This view seems, according to Wegscheider, to have
been first stated by the great Augustin : " Primus inter Patres
Augustinus notionem miraculi sensu quodam subjectivo defi-
nivit, ita, ut quidquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel
facultatem mirantis appareat, miraculum vocaret, portentum
non contra naturam fieri, sed contra quam est nota natura,
diserte monens." Instit. C. Theol. Dogm. p. 175. Ed. 1826.
To Wegscheider, too, I would refer, for a great variety of
definitions of the term miracle, illustrating almost every degree
of descent in doctrine, from Luther to Spinoza.

10 DEFINITION.
that the rod which Moses stretched forth over
the waters of Egypt was possessed of any inhe
rent virtue to turn them into blood, so that they
can repeat the operation, then will we allow
the Jews to be mistaken, and will put away the
miracle from the story. But if no such virtues
can be proved to have existed either in the clay,
or in the rod, then must we confess that these are
events which cannot be accounted for by all the
inventions and improvements of modern science.
It should, however, be observed that many of those
miracles which they endeavour to explain away
have no connexion whatever with our improve
ments in knowledge, and that the solutions which
are offered are as free from any thing like science
as can well be imagined.
But the objection has been carried further.
It has been said that no effect can be proved
supernatural, since we do not know all the
laws of nature, and that the effect in question
may not have been produced by some of those
laws, or by some result of them. It by no
means follows, however, that because we are not
fully acquainted with all the laws of nature, we
cannot decide on the miraculous nature of any
event. For ' though we are unable to determine
in all cases how far the powers of nature may
extend, we can in many instances safely pronounce
to what cases they do not extend. Thus it has
been always universally allowed, that life once
destroyed cannot be naturally restored ; a re-

DEFINITION. 11
surrection, therefore, will be truly miraculous.'
(Bishop Conybeare.) Besides, whatever is natu
rally produced must be caused by the agency of
natural means ; consequently, whatever is produced
without the employment of natural means must be
supernatural ; as the healing of the sick by a word,
or by a touch. These involve no conditions which
have any connexion with improvement in science.
It is again argued, that what seems contrary to
one known law may yet be the effect of the inter
ference of some unknown law ; but we answer,
that if no probable reasons can be adduced for the
existence of such an unknown law, we may reason
ably ascribe the effect to a supernatural cause.
The definitions of Locke, Grotius, the learned
translator of Michaelis, Lemoine, and many others,
include the idea that miraculous effects can only
be produced by Divine agency. This position ap
pears to us very doubtful. We cannot see why a
miracle should necessarily be ascribed to a direct
exertion and interposition of the Almighty's
power ; for if we believe in the existence of an
order of beings superior to ourselves both in know
ledge and power, which is probable, even from the
principles of pure reason, there is surely nothing
unphilosophical, and certainly nothing unscrip-
tural, in supposing that they may be permitted to
perform actions which to us appear miraculous.
In any such event all that we are able to pro
nounce is, that it is above the power of man :
whether or not it is above the power of any other

12 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES.
order of created intelligences, we cannot decide.
Oftentimes indeed we must refer events to the
direct interposition of the Deity ; but we doubt
not that he delegates his angels to exert a power
with which they are naturally endowed. It ap
pears to us that the contrary hypothesis is based
upon the unwarrantable presumption, that we are
qualified to judge of what agency in administering
the government of the world, is, or is not, compa
tible with the moral perfections of the Deity.
It may be convenient to observe, that miracles
may be arranged under two great classes. First,
those in which all the circumstances are miracu
lous ; and secondly, those in which natural causes
are brought into action at unusual, or predicted,
seasons. In this latter case, the miracle consists,
if we may use the expression, in the timing of the
event. We propose to discuss,
I. The Mosaic Miracles.
II. ;The Historical Miracles.
III. The Prophetical Miracles.
I. In treating of the Mosaic Miracles, a term
which we use to express those recorded in the Pen
tateuch, we deem it most expedient to examine
(1) several of the most prominent miracles of which
Moses was a witness, or in the performance of which
he was personally engaged, and then (2) some of
those which, in the character of an historian, he

THE MIRACLES OF MOSES. 13
merely records. This arrangement has been pre
ferred, because if it can be satisfactorily proved that
Moses witnessed and performed any miracles, there
will be a general antecedent probability in favor of
those which he may relate.
Born at a period when his nation was groaning
under the most galling despotism that ever crushed
a people, and in his infancy wonderfully rescued
from a death to which he was exposed by the
relentless edict of the tyrant of Egypt, Moses
was ordained to be the deliverer of his oppressed
countrymen. Adopted by a king's daughter, and
educated in all the refinement of a court, had the
testimony of Saint Stephen been wanting, there
still would have been ample reason for the belief
that he was "learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians." Disgusted, however, as well with
the mysterious polytheism of Egypt, and the vices
of an imperial court, as with the revolting cruelties
exercised on his unfortunate brethren, it is not
improbable that he may have conceived the project
of rousing them against their oppressors, and res
cuing them from the power of Egypt. Animated
by this noble resolution, he seems to have attempted
the deliverance he hoped for. But betrayed by
his brethren in the very first attempt which he
made to relieve them, "he fled from the face of
Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian." Thus
exiled from his nation, he appears to have relin
quished every idea of carrying into execution the
lofty enterprise which he once had meditated.

14 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES.
He marries — two sons are born to him' — and so
entirely does he seem to have forgotten the insti
tutions of his fathers, that he neglects to initiate his
children into the family of Abraham by the great
national rite of circumcision. He devotes forty
years of the prime of his life and vigour of his
days to the peaceful, though humble, occupation
of tending "the flock of Jethro his father-in-law,
the priest of Midian." While thus engaged in
the deep solitudes of the desert, at the foot of
Horeb, the mount of God, apparently mindless
alike of the past and the future, his attention is
suddenly arrested by a singular phenomenon.
" The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a
flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush ; and he
looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire,
and the bush was not consumed1." At it's first
appearance he evidently deemed it nothing mira
culous, for his language was merely that of curio
sity. " I will now turn aside, and see this
great sight, why the bush is not burned." It
appears, indeed, that, conversant as he had been
with natural philosophy during his learned educa
tion at court, he was not a little surprised and
perplexed with the extraordinary object before
him, for he calls it a great sight, but still he seems
to have apprehended nothing properly miraculous.
What then induced him to change his opinion?
The voice of the Loud, truly, speaking to him out
1 Exodus, iii. 2.

THE MIRACLES OF MOSES. 15
of the midst of the bush, and the miracles which
he was not only permitted to witness, but to work.
The truth of the narrative of Moses being admitted,
as we have not seen, we cannot imagine any plau
sible explanation of these circumstances by natural
causes. The truth, however, of the whole story has
been attacked by insinuating that he was either
deceived by some optical and auricular illusions :
or that laboring under a temporary derangement
of his mental faculties on one particular subject,
(the emancipation, namely, of his enslaved country
men) his imagination led him so to magnify the
extent, and exaggerate the importance, of some
extraordinary, yet natural, phenomena which were
accidentally presented to him, that at length he
persuaded himself that what he had witnessed was
really miraculous. It is supposed that while brood
ing over the wretched condition of his brethren,
and inwardly indulging a hope of their deliverance,
his mind, tinctured, as it is presumed to have been,
in no slight degree with an enthusiastic supersti
tion, would require but a little matter to make it
believe what it so eagerly desired. On the first
hypothesis we shall not make a single remark :
since to those on whom assumptions, unsupported
by a shadow of either evidence or argument, can
make the slightest impression, it would be useless,
and to those who will reflect for a moment on the
circumstances of the case, it would be superfluous.
As to the second, however, we cannot but remind
if s advocates that there is nothing in the after-life
of Moses which can possibly lead us to infer that he

16 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES.
possessed a disposition in which enthusiasm was the
chief ingredient ; but on the contrary, that there are
many circumstances in his history which exhibit him
in a character quite the reverse. If, however, their
hypothesis be admitted, it will still remain with
them to account for that evidence of his Divine
mission which Moses was enabled to afford to all
the assembled people of Israel. That they were
little disposed to credulity their whole behaviour
testifies ; that they were convinced of his being a
divinely commissioned messenger is certain l ; that
they were not all under the influence of mental
derangement may, we think, be fairly presumed.
A further argument for the reality of the miracle
may be deduced from the consideration that it seems
to have been entirely unexpected by Moses, and that
it's object is represented as directly opposed to his
inclination2. And truly so great was his reluc
tance to assume the character of a special delegate
from heaven, that on account of it " the anger of
the Lord was kindled against Moses," and in order
to inspire him with resolution to undertake so
great an enterprise, he is endowed with the power
of working two double miracles, and receives a
promise of performing a third, the change of water
into blood. At the Divine command, he cast
his rod upon the ground, "and it became a ser
pent ;" he caught the serpent, and it immediately
reverted to it's original form. Again, he was com
manded to put his hand into his bosom, and when
" he plucked it out of his bosom, behold, his hand
1 Exod. iv. 30, 31. 2 Exod, hi. 11. iv. 1, 10, 13.

THE MIRACLES OF MOSES. 17
was leprous as snow." " And he put his hand
into his bosom again, and plucked it out of his
bosom, and behold it was turned again as his other
flesh1." These remarkable miracles conviction or
prudence has, as far as we know, induced our oppo
nents to pass by in silence. If in either or both of
these cases we exclude the immediate interposition
of God's power, the conduct of Moses is wholly
unaccountable. We must believe that at the end
of forty years of his exile, without any change of
outward circumstances, or any additional qualifica
tion, he resumed a project which in the full vigour
of manhood, and at the height of his influence, he
renounced as desperate. We must believe that at
the decline of life, when the stimulus of supersti
tion, or the love of adventure, could have had but
little influence, he forsook his family and his home,
influenced only by a vague and visionary idea of
rescuing his countrymen from the thraldom in
which they were held by a despotic and powerful
monarch. We must believe, too, that he under
took all this against his will — without a friend at
court or among his brethren — urged on, we must
suppose, by some blind, and indefinible, and irre
sistible necessity. By such an hypothesis we
should do equal violence to the character of Moses,
and to common sense2.
1 Exod. iv. 7-
2 I am anxious to acknowledge great obligations to two
admirable works on the Pentateuch — Dean Graves's Lectures
on the last Four Books — and Dr. Faber's " Horse Mosaicee."
B

18 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES
Associated with his brother alone, he appears
before Pharaoh, and delivers his most remarkable
message: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Let my people go, that they may hold a feast
unto me in the wilderness." The haughty tyrant,
unacquainted with the name, and despising the
majesty of Jehovah, rejected the demand with
contempt. Roused by anger and by fear, he
commanded the tasks of the slaves to be doubled.
They murmured against Moses — Moses com
plained unto the Lord. "Then the Lord said
unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do
unto Pharaoh — say unto the children of Israel,
I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from
under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will
rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem
you with an outstretched arm, and with great
judgments1." Such language as this would at
least lead us to expect miraculous interference.
" And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel,
but they hearkened not unto Moses, for an
guish of spirit and for cruel bondage." God
commanded Moses and Aaron to go again into
Pharaoh's presence, and said, " When Pharaoh
shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for
you, then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy
rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become
a serpent." " And they did so as the Lord had
commanded ; and Aaron cast down his rod before
Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a
' J Exod. vi. 1, 6, 7-

AND OF AARON IN EGYPT. 19
serpent." J. G. Eichhorn states (we cannot
trace the sources of his information) that Aaron
did not cast down his rod, but a serpent which he
had so trained as to assume the appearance of a
rod. Were we to admit this sagacious suggestion,
we should still have to account for the turning of
this serpent into a rod, as we see must have been
done from ver. 15. "And the rod which was
turned into a serpent thou shalt take in thy hand."
The word nsnQ of the preceding verse which, as
Kimchi rightly notices, is never used in the Penta
teuch but to signify a miraculous effect, precludes
any doubt that it was a true miracle which was
performed on the part of Aaron, how doubtful
soever it may be whether the "magicians with
their enchantments" were also permitted by God
to work miracles. Since we have to include so
many subjects within so small a space, it will not
be expected, perhaps it would not be endured, that
we should enter into a discussion of the question
whether the magicians did, or did not, perform true
miracles. For arguments supporting the latter
opinion we can only refer to the dissertations of
Farmer and Lemoine, and to the remarks of
Sir W. Drummond, Dean Graves, and Bishop
Stillingfleet. It is also, we believe, generally
advocated by the Mohammedan interpreters of
the Koran. Our own opinion is ably supported
by Justin Martyr1, Humphreys, Dr. S. Clarke,
1 In his Dialogue with Tryplio, the Jew.

20 THE MIRACLES OF THE MAGI
and many others. The inferences which may be
drawn from the following considerations appear to
us conclusive. 1. We learn that miracles may be performed
by false prophets1, and by evil daemons2. Be
lieving this doctrine, the Pharisees accuse our
Saviour of casting out devils by the prince of the
devils5 ; and He in his reply4, not only does not
confute them by denying that miracles may be
wrought by daemons, but lays down the principle
that the end or purpose of a miracle is that by
which we are to judge of its origin. " If Satan
cast out Satan, he is divided against himself;
how "then shall his kingdom stand ?" He says, too,
in another place5, " There shall arise false Christs
and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders : in so much that, if it were possible,
they shall deceive the very elect." The ripara
yj/evSovs of Saint Paul, as Grotius rightly observes,
do not mean false miracles, but miracles wrought
in the confirmation of false doctrines.
2. That Moses, gifted as he was with the
spirit of Jehovah, and educated as he had been
in all 'the wisdom of the Egyptians,' did not
detect and expose them in a matter which con
cerned so deeply the honor of his God.
1 Deut. xiii. 1, 2. Matt. vii. 22. xii. 27. xxiv. 24. 2 Thess.
ii. 9- 2 Matt. x. 8. xii. 27. Markiii. 15. ix. 38.. Luke x. 17.
xiii. 32. and cf. Rev. xiii. 13, 14. xvi. 14. xix. 20.
' 3 Matt. ix. 34. 4 Matt. xii. 26. 5 Matt. xxiv. 24.

AND OF MOSES IN EGYPT. 21
3. Notwithstanding all that has been written
npon it, we think that it has not been clearly made
out that the phrase )3 W}$_ " and they did so" is
not to be taken in its obvious signification. " And
it became a serpent," applied to the rod of Aaron,
" and they became serpents," applied to those of
the magicians, are surely synonymous expressions.
Moses lets fall no hint that he believed the won
ders of the magicians to be impostures, but relates
both his own and theirs in similar terms.
4. In this particular case no doubt could arise
that Moses was acting under the guidance of a
power superior to that by which the magicians were
enabled to work their wonders, " for Aaron's rod
swallowed up their rods," and his serpent was again
turned into a rod. The magicians appear to have
been ignorant of their powers, and were probably
much surprised at finding themselves successful.
Uninfluenced, however, by the superiority of
the miracles which Aaron had wrought, Pharaoh
was hardened in his heart, and " hearkened not
unto them as the Loud had said." Early on the
ensuing morning, the two delegates of Heaven,
by the command of their God, take their station
on the brink of the Sacred River. Pharaoh ap
proaches, about perhaps to perform some ceremo
nial ablution in it's waters, or to watch the progress
of the rising flood. Their demand is renewed and
rejected. The judgment is denounced and exe
cuted, and, behold, " there was blood throughout

22 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES
the land of Egypt." The magicians were permit
ted to succeed in this also, for having obtained
some water that had not undergone the change,
they converted it into blood.
It has been attempted by Eichhorn, a specimen
of whose sagacity we have before exhibited, to
account for what are usually termed the Ten
Plagues of Egypt, by assigning to them natural
causes1. He says, that at the time of the year
at which the miracle was performed, the end of
June or beginning of July, the Nile always as
sumes a reddish tinge, supposed to be occasioned
by the immense quantities of insects of that color,
which are then immersed in it, or from the red
sands of Aethiopia being washed down into it.
And this circumstance he affirms that Moses dex
terously turned to his own advantage. The fact
we admit, the inference we deny. It is quite
incredible that Pharaoh or his people could have
felt the slightest apprehension at an ordinary and
annual occurrence, which they had been accus
tomed to witness from their infancy, and it is
absurd to suppose that Moses could imagine that
they would. Eichhorn, too, is unwilling to believe,
and positively denies, ' quod olim superstitio vo-
luit,' that all the waters of the land of Egypt
were turned into blood, as is expressly asserted4,
1 His scheme may be seen drawn out by himself in his
tract 'Deanno mirabili' in Commentt. Societatis Reg. Scien-
tiar. Gott. recentior. Vol. iv. 1820, or apud Rosenmtiller in
Exod. vii. He is also supported by J. Bonsdorf.
2 See Exodus vii. verses 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24.

AND OF AARON IN EGYPT. 23
and triumphantly asks, ' If this was the case, whence
did the magicians obtain pure water which they
might turn into blood? for we read, that before the
earth was dug up, as mentioned in the twenty-fourth
verse, the magicians had pure water. Therefore in
order that Moses may not contradict himself, we
must bring to our aid the passage in the fourth
chapter, where God says, " thou shalt take of the
water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land,
and the water which thou takest out of the river
shall become blood upon the dry land.'" He thus
sums up : ' Quid impedit, quo minus statuamus,
praesente etiam rege Aegyptio, vas tantum oppletum
esse Nili aqua, eaque rubefacta Mosen baculo per-
cussisse Nilum, additis verbis male ominosis, his
ex parvis auguria majorum capiant : quemadmo-
dum ipse aquam vasis flavam in rubentem permu-
taverit, arte a Jova sibi tradita, sic Jovam proxime
effecturum ut omnes Nili, rivorum et lacuum
Aegypti aquae rubefiant.' We pass by the im
piety of the passage, and pass on to it's argument.
It is evident that he has conjured up difficulties
which do not really exist, and possessed not either
the sagacity or the candour to remove them. Had
he reflected for a moment, he would have seen
that the magicians most probably obtained pure
water by using the same means by which the
people afterwards obtained it for general use,
namely, by digging trenches round the river.
For there is not the slightest hint, expressed
or implied, that the people were the first that

24 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES
digged for water, or that the magicians had not
done so before them. We can see no necessity
for supposing, as some have done, and Le Clerc
among the rest, "that Moses and Aaron changed
some water back again to it's original purity, for
the magicians to make their experiments upon.
But in that part of his argument, which, if it
had been true, would have carried the greatest
weight with it, he has overlooked a distinction
which renders the matter perfectly clear. In the
passage he refers to, Moses objects to undertake
the deliverance of his brethren, first, on the ground
of his own inability, and then upon that of their
unbelief. "And Moses answered and said, But,
behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto
my voice, for they will say, The Lord hath not
appeared unto thee1." Now Moses could not sup
pose that this language would be addressed to him
by the Egyptians, (for that they were ignorant of
the name and existence of the God of the Hebrews
is evident from the language of Pharaoh, " Who
is the Lord, that 1 should obey his voice? I
know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go"),
but by his brethren. And this is clear, because
Moses was to show before them three, signs only,
and this cannot apply to the Egyptians : and God
said, " It shall come to pass, that if they will not
believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto
thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the
1 Exod. iv. 1.

AND OF AARON IN EGYPT. 25
river, and pour it upon the dry land, and the
water which thou takest out of the river shall
become blood upon the dry land." Connecting this
with the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of the
same chapter, the proof is complete. "And Moses
and Aaron went and gathered together all the
elders of the children of Israel: and Aaron spake
all the words which the Lord had spoken unto
Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the
people" Again, the turning of a vessel full of pure
water into blood (or much more, as Eichhorn would
have it, of yellow water into red), must indeed be
considered as a miracle, but it cannot surely be
deemed a plague. It could not be one of the
" great judgments and sore," wherewith " the Lord
afflicted the Egyptians." Eichhorn, too, is obliged
to deny the generally received interpretation of
the twenty-fifth verse, which is expressed by Abar-
benel and Jarchi, as 'seven days elapsed before
the river returned to it's natural state.' Now the
shortest time which the natural phenomenon has
been known to continue, exceeds twenty days.
The rest of his remarks are merely gratuitous
assertions, in direct contradiction to the obvious
meaning of the Sacred History. We are willing
to allow, indeed, that there are many expressions
in Scripture which we cannot receive in their literal
sense, but when they involve no contradiction, and
imply no absurdity, it is criminal to pervert them,
or explain them away.

26 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES
A third time the Hebrew Brothers appeared
before the hardened Pharaoh, and repeated their
former message, " Thus saith the Lord, Let my
people go, that they may serve me." But no sooner
had the king again refused, than a second judge
ment followed, for " Aaron stretched out his hand
over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up
and covered the land of Egypt." Eichhorn's
objections we shall suffer to remain veiled in the
decent obscurity of German Latin. " Moses, igitur,
artificio nobis incognito, ranas catervatim ex vicina
aliqua palude elicuisse credendus est, quo tamen
Pharaonem non convicit, Jehovam hujus rerum
ordinis auctorem esse, quandoquidem sacerdotes
Aegyptii artem idem praestandi callebant. Unde
colligimus, Mosen, praesente rege Aegyptio, ex
una tan turn palude ranas elicuisse, nee totam
earum copiam simul, ut superstitio adhuc credi-
dit, ad ejus nutum ex aquis erupisse, quod si
factum esset, sacerdotes Aegyptii loco omnino ca-
ruissent, et opportunitate Mosen aemulandi. Hos
autem Mosis et Aegyptiorum sacerdotum artibus
in terram pellectos ranarum primos quasi pilos
subsequutae sunt reliquae catervae, post nactam
perfectam formam insecta ex instinctu suo quae-
siturae." It would be an insult to the under
standing of any reader seriously to attempt to
confute such reasoning, if reasoning it may be
called, which has so few principles in common with
any ordinary method. We will only say that
the miracle of destroying the frogs was as great

AND OF AARON IN EGYPT. 27
as that of producing them, but no attempt is
made to show how they all died so suddenly at
the intercession of Moses. Had Pharaoh not
been convinced of the superior miraculous powers
of Moses, why did he entreat him to remove them ?
The magicians would have done as well.
Thus far the Lord permitted the Egyptian
magicians to succeed, but no farther. They at
tempted to continue their rivalry with Moses, but
they could not. " Then the magicians said unto
Pharaoh, This is the finger of God." Such re
luctant, yet express, testimony as this to the mira
cles of Moses and Aaron, from men whose interests
and reputation were deeply involved in the trial,
renders it superfluous to examine any more of the
objections of an Eichhorn or a Bonsdorf. Suffice it
to say, that they rise in regular gradations of absur
dity, till, as if to complete them all, Eichhorn has
wrought himself into the following opinion on the
slaughter of the first-born. 'Est flumen Caleg,
canalis Josephi, antiquis fossa Tanis dicitur, quad-
raginta saltern milliaria longus, qui quum totam
Aegyptum perfluat, pestifera sua exhalatione,
foetori lini putrescentis haud absimili, potuit pueros
Aegyptios per totam terram pestilenti morbo inficere.
Inter quos quum regni haeres primo-genitus Pha-
raonis filius, cum aliis pueris nobilioribus confice-
retur, Israelitae quam primum possent Aegypto
excedere jussi sunt.' Such language can only be
equalled by that of Dr. Geddes, who has recorded it

28 THE MIRACLES OF MOSES.
as his opinion that all the plagues of Egypt were
the natural consequences of too great an overflow
of turbid water. ' While Moses and Aaron were
soliciting the Egyptian king for leave to go with
the Israelites into the wilderness to sacrifice to
their God, but in reality to escape altogether from
their tyrannical masters, it might very well happen
that an extraordinary inundation of the Nile
should take place, and should be followed by an
uncommon brood of frogs, gnats, and other most
troublesome animals, a tremendous hail, a prodi
gious flight of locusts, an unusual darkness, and
finally a ravaging pestilence. And all these cala
mities might, in the course of nine months or so,
have succeeded one another, and been in a great
measure the consequence of the first calamity, too
great an overflow of turbid water ; but that these
happened exactly according to the Scripture ac
count, requires great faith, or rather credulity, to
believe1.' In none of the attempts, which we have seen,
to explain away the plagues of Egypt, do we
remember any plausible account, on the prin
ciples of the Rationalists, of the singular facts] of
the first-born only of men and cattle being slain,
and of the land of Goshen being exempted from
many of the plagues. Nor can they ever get
rid of the awkward circumstance, that all these
plagues occurred at the identical point of time,
1 See his Commentary on the xiith of Exodus.

THE PILLAR OF CLOUD AND OF FIRE. 29
when it had been foretold that they should
occur. The same kind of reasoning which we have
employed in the preceding miracles might be used
in the remaining ones ; and, as after all, it is but
a cursory view of the futility of the arguments of
our opponents that the limits of our Essay will
admit of, were we to dwell longer on these, we
should be compelled to pass over others of equal
importance. The Lord having thus afflicted Pharaoh and
the Egyptians, He brought his people out of bond
age " with a stretched out arm and with great
judgments." " And it came to pass, when Pharaoh
had let the people go, that God led them not
through the way of the land of the Philistines,
although that was near ; for God said, Lest perad-
venture the people repent when they see war, and
they return to Egypt ; but God led the people
about, through the way of the wilderness of the
Red Sea .... And the Lord went before them by
day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way ;
and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light ;
to go by day and by night. He took not away the
pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by
night, from before the people1." This miraculous
phenomenon has been variously explained. It has
1 Exod. xiii. 17, 18. 21, 22.

30 THE PILLAR OF CLOUD AND OF FIRE.
furnished an opportunity for Von der Hardt to
bring forward much ingenious conjecture and un
founded assertion, and for Dr. Geddes to concen
trate in a single remark, a more than usual pro
portion of flippancy and impiety. Forster and
Toland think it resembled the sacred fire carried
before eastern armies and caravans, of which we
have accounts in Quintus Curtius, Vegetius and
Frontinus. But we can stop only for one moment
in our rapid sketch of the Mosaic miracles, to
notice an objection to it's miraculous nature, de
duced from what has been considered a contradic
tion between the verses above quoted and the
anxiety Moses showed for his brother-in-law
Hobab to accompany him in his journeys through
the wilderness. If the cloud, it is said, was really
miraculous, and continually guided them in their
marches, what need was there for the earnest en
treaty of Moses to Hobab, " Leave us not, I pray
thee, for as much as thou knowest how we are to
encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be
urito us instead of eyes1." We cannot do better
than transcribe the elegant remarks of the late
Dean of Ardagh. ' It will not be thought too
minute an observation, that Moses tells Hobab
that he would be useful to them, not in directing
them where to encamp, or how long to remain in
any station, (for this the guidance of the miraculous
cloud pointed out), but how to encamp in the
1 Numbers x. 30.

PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 31
wilderness ; i. e. as it appears to me, how to arrange
their encampment in each appointed place, so as
to embrace the circumstances of water, shelter,
supply of fuel, medicinal or nutritive plants, or
substances, &c. &c. in, or near, that station to the
greatest advantage. See in the twenty-sixth chapter
of Genesis how the Philistines stopped up the wells
which had been dug by Abraham, and how Isaac
searched for, and dug them again, and it will
convince us how useful such local knowledge in
Hobab may have been to the Jews1."
There is no miracle recorded in Scripture which
has more experienced the cavils of the sceptic, or
called forth more ingenious criticism, than the mi
racle of the Passage of the Bed Sea. The various
accounts which have been handed down to us by
Arrian, and Strabo3, and Livy, and others, of what
1 For full information on the subject of this miracle cf.
Rosenmiiller's Schol. in. loc, in which there is the following
passage, " Tolandus non Jovam fuisse putat qui per nubis et
ignis columnam Israelitis viam monstravit, sed eundem ilium
Chobabum quern Jethronis filium fuisse autumat, Mosis affinem,
solitudinis Arabicae, fontiumque in ea et pascuorum, gnarum,
qui si non perpetuo, maxima tamen ex parte, castra Israelitarum
tanquam dux itineris praecesserit, et fumi ac ignis signo universo
exercitui tempus profectionis, ac viam, qua eundum esset,
significaverit." 2 Far too much has been written to explain his account
as not being any argument against the miraculous passage
of the Israelites, for it gives it an importance which it by
no means deserves; and by the anxiety displayed, there is
left a doubt in the mind whether there be not some weight

32 PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.
are deemed parallel passages, have always been
favorite themes with those who would fain account
for the passage through the Red Sea by natural
means. Josephus's compromising testimony1 has
also been a strong point of which our opponents
have eagerly availed themselves. But what a
Josephus may choose to believe, or disbelieve, can
neither confirm, nor weaken, the miraculous nature
of an event of which he possessed no better means
of judging than ourselves.
The slightest acquaintance with the nature of
the country over which Moses, by the leadings of
Jehovah, conducted the children of Israel, will
show at once that the course he adopted was the
most imprudent that could be devised, had he
relied merely on his own powers. On quitting the
land of Goshen, his obvious line of march was
across the isthmus of Suez, and then, by turning to
in an assertion which has been so perseveringly brought for
ward; but every doubt will vanish on a perusal of the passage
which is generally kept out of sight, neph tpatri]\ilu d eo-Ti rd
Kara BdXarTav wreva, 81 tov' AXejjavopos Traptjya'ye Tt]U GTpaTUav
ca-Ti 8e opoi \i.Xip.a£ Ka.Xovp.6voW eViKeirai Se t<» fla/i^vAiM ire\dyei,
fnevrlv airoXeiirtav irapotov eiri tu alyiaXm rats jueV vrjvepiais yvfx-
vovpevrjv, wctt£ elvcti pa<ri^ov Tot's ooevova-i* TrXripfivpouToi 06 tov
ireXdyovs vtto twv kv^otwv KaXvirTofjievrjv €7n iroXu  6 Be
AXe^avipoi eli ^et/xepiov epireo-uv naipov, Kal to irXeov eiriT^eVroi/
Tfj Tfyp, nrpiv avewai to Kvpa wpprjtre koa oXrjv Trjv tfpepai/ eV
uoavi yeveadai Ttji/ iropeiav <ruve/3t] f*C)(P' o/t(paXov fiair-rilCpixeviev.
Let any one read Arrian's account of the same event, and he
will find that it is described by him in a way from which
nothing can be gathered to prove either that it was miraculous,
or that he thought it was so.
1 Lib. ii. cap. 16. § 5. of his Antiq.

PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 33
the right hand, he might enter the desert, or to
the left, the land of Palestine. God commanded
him not to lead them into Palestine, because,
though it was a fertile and pleasant country, they
would have to engage in war with men distin
guished for their military bravery, viz. the Philis
tines, who were nearly related to the formidable
race of shepherds, and the Canaanites, who inha
bited the other districts, and who were by no means
disposed tamely to submit to their invasion. He
therefore directed his march to the southern side
of the isthmus, and thence skirted what Herodotus1
calls the Arabian mountain, keeping it on his
right hand. He encamped first at Succoth, then
at Etham, which is situate nearly on the edge of
the wilderness, and not far distant from the point of
the western tongue of the Red Sea. Hence, in
stead of marching in a south-easterly direction, as
we should naturally have supposed, the pillar of
cloud and of fire led them back again round the
northern extremity of the gulf, and hence into a
narrow plain along the western side of the Red
Sea, to " Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the
sea, over against Baal-zephan," which was on the
opposite coast. In this situation he had the sea on
his left, the Arabian mountain on his right, and
Pi-hahiroth, or mouth of Hahiroth, directly in his
front. ' This mouth, or aperture, of Hahiroth,'
Faber says, ' by Ptolemy and Antoninus is deno-
1 Lib. ii. cap- 8.
C

34 PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.
minated Clysma ; by the Arabs Al Kolsum ; and
by the modern natives of the country Bede, or
Bedea, words universally expressive of it's having
been once covered with water.' Hence, as Jose-
phus remarks, he was hemmed in on every side ;
by the sea, by the mountains, by the enemy in the
rear : and this accounts for Pharaoh's being repre
sented as saying, " They are entangled in the
land." Now we would ask by what motive could
Moses have been influenced so as to bring his
people into such gratuitous danger ? Why did he
turn back again from his straight line of march, and
voluntarily put himself into a situation of the most
imminent peril, from which there was no proba
bility of escape by any ordinary means ? That he
did it through ignorance has never been asserted.
We must suppose him, then, possessed either of
the most senseless infatuation, or the most consum
mate generalship. On the latter supposition, we
must imagine that he purposed to have decoyed his
enemy to pursue him to the brink of the sea, and
to have so nicely calculated the time, that the
lowest ebb should be exactly at the hour of his
greatest danger. He must have anticipated that
his enemies would have been so infatuated, or so
ignorant of the tides, as to have followed him with
out any regard for, or apprehension of, the returning
flood. In fact, he must have hazarded the ex
istence of his people on a mere manoeuvre. This
supposition is as inconceivable as it is unwarrant
able : but all is plain if we allow the clear narrative

PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 35
of Moses, that all this was done by the command
and the teaching of the Almighty, that he might
get himself honor upon Pharaoh and all his host \
and that the Egyptians might learn that He was
Jehovah. The exact spot where the passage was effected,
at the distance of more than three thousand years,
cannot be very accurately ascertained. Many, fol
lowing Arabic traditions, think, with Faber and
Bryant that it was at Bedea, about twenty-four
miles from Suez, between the mountains Wadi
Rammelie and Ghobeibe. This opinion appears
countenanced by the sacred text, and presents no
insurmountable difficulty to those who believe in
the miraculous interposition of Jehovah. Here
the sea is twelve miles broad, and, in the time of
Diodorus, was three fathoms deep. Hence, if this
be admitted as the place of their passage, the mi
racle is too evident to require comment. The
most forcible objection against this hypothesis is
founded upon a supposition that, allowing a clear
space, the river was here too broad for so great a
multitude to pass over in so short a time. But, on
Michaelis' supposition that they began to cross at
eight o'clock in the evening, and continued till the
morning appeared2, it does no great violence to
reason to believe that they could make a forced
march of about twelve miles in seven hours, urged
on as they must have been by two powerful motives,
the hope of escape, and the dread of pursuit.
1 Exod. xiv. 17, 18. 2 Exod. xiv. 27-
c 2

36 PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.
The opinion which we believe was first sug
gested by Le Clerc, in his learned ' Dissertatio de
Maris Idumaei trajectione,' and which receives the
approbation of Niebuhr, Michaelis, Rosenmuller,
and several other learned men, is that the passage
was effected near the modern Suez, at what was
called by the ancients the Sinus Hieropolitanus,
and is marked in the admirable maps of D'Anville
as Bahr-Assuez. This is supported by a tradition
of the Arabs, preserved by Ishmael Abulfeda,
which says that Pharaoh and his army were drowned
near a city called *fi\\, ul Qulsum1. The water
here is only about fifteen hundred paces wide, and
very shallow. This agrees very well with the
wishes of those who propose it, but not at all with
the context ; for in this situation they could not be
said to be entangled in the land, nor does the top
of the gulf present any mouth, or aperture, from the
sea through the mountains, which in any way cor
responds with that of Hahiroth. Again, a narrow
space, only fifteen hundred paces in length, could
not have contained nearly all Pharaoh's host, with
his six hundred chosen chariots, and therefore they
could not all have been destroyed by the returning
waters. Besides, this spot is so near the extremity
of the gulf, that there would have been no necessity
1 There is some doubt whether it was at the town of
Colsum, or the bay of Colsum, which, as Bryant has ingeniously
attempted to prove, from certain astronomical observations of
Ptolemy and Ulug Beigh, made at Heroun, commences nearly
fifty miles lower down.

PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 37
for their crossing the sea at all ; they might have
gone round it in a shorter time than that in which
they could have expected to have gone through it.
But for the best refutation of Niebuhr's hypothesis,
we would refer to Niebuhr's map.
But granting that this was the place at which
the passage was effected, we allow that without a
direct interposition of the power of the Deity, it is
within the limits of possibility that the Israelites
might have passed over, though Niebuhr confesses
that even here it could not have been accomplished
without ' a prodigy;' yet it is perfectly inconceivable
that the Egyptians, who followed immediately after,
in chariots too, in such shallow water, and on
such firm footing1, should have been so entirely
overwhelmed that " there remained not so much as
one of them." They are compelled to resolve the
expressions " The Lord made the sea dry ground,
and the waters were divided;" " and the chil
dren 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
left1," into poetical figures. But no man in his
senses could write thus in his narrative of an
ordinary passage of a river. There is no poetry in
1 To this we have the express testimony of Niebuhr and
Forskal. An objection has been raised that the Red Sea is full
of coral reefs and weeds. Niebuhr says, he never saw any coral
till he came between Hammam-Faraun and Tor, and Bruce.
declares, that he never discovered a weed in the whole of the
sea, though he had been all round it.
3 Exodus xiv. 21,22.

38 PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.
any other part of the simple narrative, nor is there
any in this. It is the plain statement of a fact.
Let us observe how this same fact is expressed in
the song of Moses, " With the blast of thy nostrils
the waters were gathered together, the flood
stood upright as a heap, the depths were con
gealed in the heart of the sea1." This is indeed
poetry, and beautiful poetry too, but it has fact for
it's basis. With singular unfairness, the opponents
of a miraculous passage reason on this verse as if
it were the only one in which this circumstance was
mentioned, (whereas it is twice asserted in the
prose account,) and adduce as a parallel expression
the eighth verse of the third chapter of Nahum.
"And art thou better than populous No, which
was situate among the rivers, that had the waters
round about, whose rampart was the sea, and her
wall was from the sea." It is conceivable that
a strong wind, continually blowing, might keep
up the sea as a wall on one side ; but how is it
possible for the same wind to raise a wall of waters
on the other? But if the Etesian winds, as is
supposed, had done this once, it surely must have
often happened since; but of such second occur
rence we have no account. If we were to allow
then, that a strong wind and an extraordinary
reflux of the tide were sufficient to account for
the laying bare of the bottom of the sea 2 (which
is purely impossible if they crossed at Bedea,)
1 Exod. xv. 8.
2 See Dr. E. Clarke's Travels, Vol. t. p. 324..

PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. 39
the timing of the event is still sufficient to
give it a miraculous character, as well as it's
occurring according to the prediction of Moses.
" Fear ye not, 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."
Diodorus Siculus1 says, that the Troglodytes,
the indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had
a tradition handed down from father to son, from
the earliest ages, that once this division of the sea
did happen there, that the ground was bare to the
bottom of the gulf, and that on a sudden the sea
rushed back again with great fury. Now it is
remarKable that he makes no mention of Moses or
Pharaoh, and therefore there can be no supposition
that he is a prejudiced authority. Again, in the
Bible history, it is said that a strong easterly
wind was the instrument which the Almighty
employed; (it was not necessary to employ any
instrument here any more than at Jordan) ; and
surely this seems introduced for the sole purpose
of anticipating the natural agency that might in
aftertimes be suggested : for it is remarkable that
the monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer
half of the year from the north, and the winter
half from the south ; neither of which could pro
duce this miracle". There is also a tradition pre-
1 Lib. iii. p. 122.
2 Some of the preceding remarks, I think, are Bruce's.

40 PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.
served by one Artapanus, who lived about a century
and a half before Christ, and who wrote a history
of the Jews, which confirms, in several important
points, the Mosaic account1.
A copy of the queries which Michaelis gave
to Niebuhr, respecting the Red Sea, was also
sent to Bruce. On these, he observes, 'I must
confess, however learned the gentleman were
who proposed these doubts, I did not think
they merited any attention to solve them. This
passage is told us by Scripture to be a miracu
lous one, and if so, we have nothing to do with
natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we
need not believe the transaction at all, seeing
that it is from his authority alone we derive it.
If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we
must believe that he could divide it when he
sees proper reason, and of that he must be the
only judge.' He adduces further similar argu
ments, and we conclude our detailed examination
of this most important miracle in his words.
' Were all the difficulties surmounted, what could
we do with the pillar of fire? The answer is,
we could not believe it. Why then believe the
passage at all? We have no authority for the
one but what is for the other; it is altogether
contrary to the ordinary nature of things, and if
not a miracle, it must be a fable2.'
1 See Euseb. Praepar. Evang., as quoted by Dr. Hales,
Shuckford, or Rosenmiiller.
2 Bruce's Travels, Vol. n. pp. 135—137- Edin. 1813.

PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN. 41
We are not aware of any sensible, or even
plausible, attempt being made to reduce the pas
sage of the Jordan into an ordinary occurrence.
According to Maundrell, the Jordan is about
sixty feet wide, and, during the floods, is no where
fordable. The current, too, then is so strong that
there is no swimming against it. The testimony
of Pococke also agrees with this. But in the
months of March and April it is so swollen by the
early rains, and by the melting of the snows on
Mount Lebanon and Hermon, that the over
flowings extend to a considerable distance. And
yet this was the very time which the Lord chose
for the Israelites to pass through it. No sophistry,
no suggestion of poetical figures, can possibly get
over the plain language of the narrative. Joshua
predicted it — he proclaimed it as a test of God's
driving out the people before them, saying,
" Hereby shall ye know that the living God is
among you, and that he will without fail drive
out from before you the Canaanites, and the
Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites,
and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the
Jebusites....It shall come to pass, as soon as the
soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark
of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest
in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan
shall be cut off from the waters that come down
from above, and they shall stand upon an heap."
Let us hear what follows, " And it came to pass
as the feet of the priests that bare the ark were

42 PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN.
dipped in the brink of the water, (for Jordan over-
floweth its banks in the time of harvest), that
the waters which came down from above, stood
and rose up on an heap, very far from the city of
Adam, that is beside Zaretan, and those that
came down from the sea of the plain, even the
salt sea failed, and were cut off: and the people
passed over right against Jericho. And the
priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the
Lord stood firm on dry ground in the midst
of Jordan ; and all the Israelites passed over on
dry ground, until all the people were passed clean
over Jordan." It is idle for men to assert, as
some have done, and those not unfavorable to
miracles, that this phenomenon might have been
produced by natural causes, and that the timing
of these natural causes was the miraculous part
of it. It might, they say, have been produced by
an earthquake. It must, then, have been a mira
culous earthquake, for we assert that no ordinary
earthquake could have produced the effects de
scribed in the text. It would seem that the
suggestion of the occurrence of an earthquake is
generally the last resource of baffled ingenuity ;
but we would hint that this extraordinary natural
agent should be introduced more sparingly, for
how powerful soever it may be, it will not solve
every kind of difficulty. Others suggest a strong
south, or south-west wind, which might keep back
the waters above Jericho from flowing down,
while those below more easily found their way

PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN.

into the Dead Sea. As an instance of this, they
bring forward a phenomenon which is said to
have occurred at Geneva about the year 1640.
A strong wind laid dry the bed of the im
petuous Rhone, above the bridge1, so that many
passed over dry on foot. But before they should
adduce this as a parallel case, they should be
prepared to show that " the waters which came
down from above stood and rose up on a heap."
We do not read of any wind blowing, that is a
gratuitous supposition ; but simply that as soon
as the feet of the priests " bearing the ark of the
Lord" were dipped in the brim of the water, then
the phenomenon took place, and that instantly,
and not gradually. The dividing of the waters
occurred, too, exactly when it was predicted that
it should occur, as was the case at the Red Sea.
" And it came to pass, that when the priests that
bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord were
come up out of the midst of Jordan, and the soles
of the priests' feet were lifted up unto the dry
land, that the waters of Jordan returned unto their
place, and flowed over all his banks, as they did
before." " And they took twelve stones out of
the midst of Jordan, out of the place where the
priests' feet stood firm, and set them up as a
1 If the Rhone here was as rapid in the year 1640, as I have
seen it in the year 1830, I at least must be allowed to be
sceptical as to the extent of an occurrence which I believe is
related by only one contemporary writer.

44 PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN.
memorial: and Joshua said, When your children
shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying,
What mean these stones ? Then ye shall let your
children know, saying, Israel came over this
Jordan on dry land. For the Lord your God
dried up the waters of Jordan from before you
until ye were passed over, as the Lord your God
did to the Red Sea, which he dried up before us,
until we were gone over ; that all the people of
the earth might know the hand of the Lord, that
it is mighty, that ye might fear the Lord your
God for ever." (vers. 21—24). Joshua, then it
appears, believed that there was a direct inter
position of God both in the passage of the Red
Sea and of Jordan. Could he be deceived ? Could
he deceive others ? " And it came to pass, when
all the kings of the Amorites which were on
the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings
of the Canaanites which were by the sea, heard
that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan
from before the children of Israel till we were
passed over, that their heart melted, neither was
there spirit in them any more because of the chil
dren of Israel." Thus much have we deemed it
necessary to quote, in order to show that the
words of the inspired narrative are of such a nature
that they cannot be explained away without doing
violence to every principle of interpretation, and of
language. And if the passage of the Jordan be
admitted to be a miraculous one, then we would

THE MANNA. 45
argue that the miracle in the case of the Red
Sea cannot be fairly denied.
Scarcely had fifteen days elapsed since the
Israelites had departed from Egypt, before they
murmured against Moses, on entering the wil
derness of Sin, saying, " What shall we drink ?"
because " when they came to Marah, they could
not drink of the waters of Marah, for they
were bitter." "And he cried unto the Lord,
and the Lord showed him a tree, which when
he cast into the waters, the waters were made
sweet." This we deem not so much a miraculous
exertion of God's power, as an instance of the
superintending and special care which the Lord
took of his chosen people. It is unnecessary to
suppose any direct agency of God contrary to
the usual course of things, otherwise there would
not have been any necessity to have pointed out
any particular tree, if there was no inherent virtue
in any. The rod of Moses would probably have
been employed here, as in other cases. Though
the Arabs are ignorant of any such plant, yet we
know, that in other parts of the world, trees pos
sessing such virtue do and have existed.
The giving of Manna and of Quails we
shall examine with more minute attention, since
by late writers the miracle in each case has
been treated but slightingly : and it may be
of advantage to consider a few the more fully,

46 THE MANNA.
that where the same method of reasoning may be
applied to others, they may be passed over without
any, or at least with but a cursory, notice.
The exact nature of the Manna with which
the Israelites were fed, we cannot now accurately
determine ; but that it was not a natural produc
tion, is evident from the scattered accounts of it
which Moses has left us. From Exod. xvi. 14,
we learn that it was a small round thing, as small
as hoarfrost on the ground. "And when the sun
was hot, it melted." (ver. 21.) Yet it was of so
hard a consistence when removed from the sun's
heat, that it was capable of being baked, (ver. 23.)
It was like coriander seed, white (or as in Numb.
xi. 7, of the color of bdellium), and the taste of
it like wafers made with honey (ver. 31). And
a similar account we have of it in Numb. xi. 8, 9.
"The people ground it in mills, or beat it in a
mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes
of it, and the taste of it was as the taste of
fresh oil," and "when the dew fell upon the
camp at night, the manna fell upon it." It
fell every day except on the seventh, but on
the sixth there fell a double quantity, and though
it corrupted1, if left until the morning next after
that on which it was gathered, yet on the sabbath
day there was no such alteration (ver. 24). So
great was the quantity that fell, that it was for
forty years, till they came to Gilgal, on the borders
of Canaan2, the daily food of a whole people, who
1 Exod. vi. 20. * Joshua v. 12.

THE MANNA. 47
amounted to more than a million persons, each
head of a family gathering about three quarts a
day (ver. 16).
From this account we shall attempt to prove
that the whole circumstances connected with the
manna were miraculous ; and that the miracle
was not confined, as has been asserted by many,
and especially by an elegant writer of some cele
brity1, ' idly and in his worst spirit of compro
mise,' to ' the immense and continual supply,
and the circumstances under which it was ga
thered, particularly its being preserved firm and
sweet only on the sabbath day.' There is still
found in some parts of Arabia, and it is said
elsewhere, a substance in some respects resem
bling the food of the Israelites, to which the
Bedouins give the name of ' Man.' Niebuhr, in
his description of Arabia, describes the manna
thus : ' Elle s' attache a Merdin comme une
farine sur les feuilles de certains arbres qu'on
appelle Balldt et Afs (a Haleb on disoit yj\ As)
et que je crois 6tre des chenes. Quelquesuns pre-
tendoient avoir trouve" de la manne entre Merdin
et Diarbekr sur des arbres nommes Elmas et
Elmaheh. D'autres a qui je demandois si la
1 See " The History of the Jews" — a little work, as far
from being orthodox as it is from being tedious. Many
remarks on this popular publication have been fortunately
anticipated by an admirable Sermon from the pen of the Lady
Margaret's Professor of Divinity in the other English Univer
sity.

48 THE MANNA.
chose etoit sure n'en avoient jamais vii sur ces
arbres : ou ne souvenoit pas non plus a Haleb
d'en avoir trouve' sur l'arbrisseau el Hadsje.
Tous accordoient a assurer qu'entre Merdin et
Diarbekr on la recueilloit principalement sur les
arbres qui produisent la noix de galle. c. a. d.
sur des chenes. La recolte de cette manne se fait
a Merdin en Aout, ou suivant d'autres en Juillet,
et on la dit plus abondante apres un certain
brouillard fort e'pais, ou pendant un tems hu-
mide que pendant les jours se'reins. . . .Quand on
ne la prend pas le matin, et qu'il survient de
la chaleur, la manne se fond aux rayons du so-
leil ; cependant elle n'est pas perdue pour cela,
car elle augmente et s'epaissit de jour en jour
sur les feuilles. Pour obtenir celle-la, on em-
porte a la maison autant de feuilles que Ton
peut, on les jette de l'eau (les uns disoient bouil-
lante), et on prend la manne qui surnage comme
une huile. Les orientaux ne croient point qu'elle
tombe du ciel : si cela etoit, on la trouveroit
vraisemblablement sur plusieurs autres sortes d'ar-
bres : on en recueille aussi en Perse et surtout
en abondance dans le Kiur-destan.' Era. F. C.
Rosenmuller1 says that the manna which is found
in Syria, Aegypt, Arabia, and the regions in
which the Israelites wandered, is collected from
the Egyptian tamarisk, ' et exiguis granis candidis

1 In his note on Bochart's very learned disquisition
Gen. ii. 12, and Num. xi. 7. Hieroz. Lips. 4to. 1796. p. 597.

on

THE MANNA. 49
constat.' Burckhardt bears similar testimony, and
most travellers mention it as a distillation from a
thorny plant called Ju^ Alhaj.
Let us compare now, the two kinds of manna.
1. We know not of any considerable quantity
of natural manna having ever been gathered in
the desert1, and we may infer that it did not
exist there at the time of the journeyings of the
children of Israel, because we read that "when
the children of Israel saw it, they said, What
is this? (marg. reading, supported by the lxx)
for they wist not what it was," and we cannot
suppose that there were not several among them
who were acquainted with the common produc
tions of the desert. From Deut. viii. 3, " He fed
thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither
did thy fathers know," we may conclude that the
Israelites had never seen it before2, and from the
Lord commanding a pot of it to be deposited in
the ark of the covenant3, "to be kept for their
1 Burckhardt, in his ' Travels in Syria and the Holy Land,'
London, 1822, p. 600, says, indeed, that at that part of the
desert west of Mount Sinai, in the month of June, manna is
still collected from a species of tamarisk called ^ j^ tarfa,
and that the Arabs preserve it in skins to the next year, and
spread it on bread, instead of honey. But he agrees that it is
found in very small quantities.
2 M. Saumaise is of opinion that the Hebrews well knew
manna, and said, fr^n ID man hu, ' this is manna/ and that it
was the same with the wild honey of Saint Matthew (iii. 4.)
on which John the Baptist fed. Charity would hope that he
forgot the passage just quoted.
3 Exod. xvi. 34. Hebrews, ix. 4.
D

50 THE MANNA.
generations, that you may see," saith the Lord,
"the bread wherewith I have fed you in the
wilderness, when I brought you forth from the
land of Egypt," it is probable that nothing of
the kind ever appeared again. If it was a natural
and common production, what occasion would
there have been for laying any of it up in so
sacred a place as the ark, or for Moses to describe
it with such particularity?
2. The natural manna is found in small quan
tities during two months of the year, and that
only after a wet season. The miraculous manna
fell in immense quantities, sufficient for the
daily food of a whole people, all the year round1,
and ceased, as Abarbenel well notices, about
the time when the natural manna begins to be
produced. 3. The food of the Israelites was no produce
of a plant, no distillation from a shrub, for " when
the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the
manna fell upon it." " And when the dew was
1 I have met with the following passage in Niebuhr's
Description of Arabia, extracted in the fourth part of Micha-
elis's Bibliotheque Orientale: 'On ne la trouve nulle part
dans tout le cours de I'annee; ainsi cette circonstance de
1'Histoire de Moyse demeure toujours inexplicable par des
causes naturelles, de meme que cette quantite de Manne, suffi-
sante a sustenir plus de six cents, mille ames, et la disette de
Manne au septieme jour,' &c. The manna was one of the
subjects which engaged the attention of the celebrated Danish
expedition. See < Recueil de Questions proposees a une
Societe de Savants par M. Michaelis.' Traduit de l'Allemand.
Amst. 4to. 1774.

THE MANNA. 51
gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness,
there lay a small round thing, as small as hoar
frost, on the ground."
Many more points of distinction might be
adduced, but to do so would seem to argue a
weakness in those already brought forward, which,
if they are of any weight at all, are decisive.
Aben Ezra says that the natural manna is not of
sufficient consistence to be made into cakes, as we
read in the eleventh chapter of Numbers ; but as
we have the testimony of Otter, that a kind of cake
is yet made of it in Persia, we do not urge this.
To insist on the fact of the manna now found
possessing medicinal properties1 which would render
it unfit for the daily food of a people, and that
the miraculous manna followed the Israelites
through all their journeys, that "it fell around
the camp," and many other similar distinctions,
would prevent us from bringing forward the most
philosophical, but the least tenable, objection that
we have met with, that of the very learned Micha-
elis 2. As the little argument which the passage
contains might possibly evaporate if presented to
the reader in a translation of a translation, we are
induced to transcribe from the French : ' La
1 Upon this most travellers are agreed, though some state
that they have seen those living about Mount Lebanon occa
sionally feeding on it. They acknowledge, however, that this
is not common manna.
2 See his ' Dissertation de l'influence des opinions sur le
langage/ &c. Traduit de l'Allemand. 8vo. a Breme. 1762.
pp. 108—110. D 2

52 THE MANNA.
manne a beaucoup avec la rose'e, son origine est la
meme, et elle n'en difere qu'en ce qu'elle demeure
lorsque la ros£e s'evanoui't. C'est par cette raison
que dans le pais ou Ton trouve la manne, on se Test
representee tombante du ciel, comme la rosee, et
cette opinion a passe dans les langues. Les
Arabes, les Hebreux disent comme nous qu'elle
vient d'en haut, ou qu'elle tombe a. II y en a une
espece a qui les Arabes, par maniere de distinc
tion donnent le nom de manne du cielb. Dans
l'ecriture sainte, nous lisons que la manne tomba
avec la rosee : et par la meme figure dont les
poetes profanes se servent en nommant cette der-
niere, un don celeste, le poete inspire a nomine le
pain celeste* ': les expressions que Ton entende
depuis sa premiere jeunesse ont confirme ces
peuples dans l'opinion que la manne descendoit.
Ce n'est qu'au milieu du siezieme siecle que Ton
commenca en Italie a en decouvrir la faussete et
que Ton apprit que la manne n'est qu'une gomme
qui perce au travers des herbes, des arbres, et des
buissons, lorsqu'ils sont pique's de certains insects.
Cependant cela n'empecha pas que l'expression ne
se conservat dans le langage aussi bien que celles
qui concernent la rosee, et le lever ou le coucher
du soleil, dont j'ai parte plus haut ; on la trouve
encore dans les livres Italiens longtems apres que
cette decouverte a etd faite 1 ; et cela nous montre
a TV * s\*uS\ ^ c Psalm lxxxiii. 34.
1 He quotes the following passage : ' Dalle frondi si rac-
coglie manna, che di notte dal cielo si distilla come la rugiada/

THE MANNA. 53
que Moise pouvoit l'employer aupres des Israelites
sans participer a l'erreur que l'a fait naitre. Dela
vient aussi que cette erreur subsiste encore dans
l'esprit de tous ceux qui ne connoissent point la
matiere medicale, c'est a dire, dans la plupart des
esprits : et quant a la manne donnee aux Israelites,
quoique Moise la decrive precise'ment comme notre
manne moderne, il y a peu de Theologiens, qui se
laissassent de"sabuser. Les Juifs du tems de Je*sus-
Christ alloient encore plus loin ; ils tiroient de
cette erreur des consequences pour rebaisser le
miracle de la multiplication des pains. Quel sign e,
disent ils, nous fais-tu voir qui doive nous engager
a te croire ? Qu'est ce que tu produis ? Nos Peres
ont manges de la manne dans le desert, comme il
est ^crit : il leur donna du pain du ciel a mangerd.
Rien n'est plus vrai en physique que la r^ponse de
Jesus-Christ, Certainement, je vous dis, que le pain
que Moise vous donna ne venoit pas du ciel. Mais
auroit-il pu le nier si la phrase hebrai'que devoit
etre entendue dans le sens propre ?' If the argu
ments which we have adduced above are of any
weight, they will render unnecessary any discus
sion of the ingenious, but not weighty, objections
refering for his authority to ' Guida de Forrestieri dell Abate
Pompeo Sarrelli' (Sarnelli?) Napoli. 1688, p. 594. I cannot
find any such passage in the edition of 1688. There is a
'Guida de Forrestieri per Pozzoli, Baia,' &c. (Nap. 18mo.)
and a ' Guida d. F. per Napoli.' (Nap. 18mo.) and several edi
tions of each ; but the pages in both together, if I remember
aright, would not amount to the number of that he has quoted.
d John vi. 30, 31.

54 QUAILS.
which we have deemed it our duty patiently to
transcribe. Suffice it to say, that the Hebrews
and Orientals believe that the fall of the manna
was wholly miraculous. The Jews are affirmed
to be so jealous of this miracle, that they pro
nounce a curse against all those who presume to
deny the interposition of a miraculous power1.
The giving of Quails may be classed under
those occurrences, the miraculous nature of which
consists, so to speak, in the timing of the event.
God sent the Israelites quails upon two occasions'.
The first time was in the wilderness of Sin for a
day, and second, at the encampment at Kibroth-
Hataavah for a month. Both of these happened
in the spring. Forskal, in answer to a letter
which he received from Michaelis at Constanti
nople, says, that it is a thing well known there,
and of ordinary occurrence, that quails are so
fatigued with flying over the sea, that they fall
on the shore in immense quantities, and may be
taken with the greatest ease. Hasselquist, too,
met with them near the shores of the Dead Sea
and the Jordan, between Jordan and Jericho, and
in the deserts of Arabia Petraea. Such also is the
For fuller information on this very interesting subject,
see John Ern. Faber's De Manna Ebraeorum Opuscula, a
tract of about sixty pages, and the remarks of Burckhardt.
These two seem to contain all that is valuable in Scheutzer,
Buxtorf, Altomare, Biisching, Donatus, Salmasius, and Tour-
nefort. 2 See Exod. xvi. and Numb. xi. 32.

quails. 55
testimony of Diodorus Siculus, Prosper Alpinus,
and others.
Much discussion has arisen about the meaning
of the word ^>jp, and as it is of considerable
t :
importance to ascertain it's true signification, in
order to understand the nature of the miracle, we
will stop for a few moments to offer some sugges
tions. Job Ludolph1 takes great pains to prove
that Moses did not mean quails, but locusts. But
this, we think, cannot be allowed for the following
reasons. Though we have the testimony of many
modern travellers (and among them Niebuhr,
Shaw, Hasselquist, and Russell) that the Arabs
and Orientals do at this day eat locusts2 (and they
are included among the clean animals in the
eleventh chapter of Leviticus), yet the word
y?tp is not included among them, and it is
scarcely credible that it should have been omitted
if such were the meaning of the word. Bochart
enumerates ten terms applied to locusts in Scrip
ture. Selav is not one of them. It is translated
in the lxx. by opTvyofir/rpa, and. in the Vulgate
by ' coturnices.' Mahomet, in his Koran 3, men
tioning this miracle in favour of the Israelites,

1 Commentary on his Aethiopian History, lib. i. cap. 14.
Ed. fol. 1691-
2 The antiquity of the habit is confirmed by the respectable
authorities of Strabo and Aelian, Diodorus and Pliny. Confer
too, Aristophan. Acharn. 1116. et seq: (aKpi'Ses) and v. 871.
(TeTpaTTTepvXXtoes.) 3 Vid. Sale's Koran, cap. ii. p. 7, 4to. Ed. 1734, note.

56 QUAILS.
uses the word salwd, which is plainly the same
with the Hebrew salwim. Now D'Herbelot1,
quoting the passage, has this remark : ' Houssain
Vaez dit que le mot Arabe salva r^pond a 1' He-
breu Selav, que la plupart des interpretes ont
traduit des cailles, et qu'il signifie aussi du Miel.'
But Niebuhr's testimony2 is decisive : ' L'oiseau
salva est encore connu ; j'ai parte a plus d'un Arabe
qui en connoisoit le nom. Un marchand de Tunis
qui avoit fait plusieurs voyages entre Surat et
Dsjidda croyoit avoir vu en Arabie et en Barbarie
tant le salva que le Sumana. Peu de terns avant
son depart, M. Forskal avoit entendu un chasseur
d' Alexandrie parler du Salva, sans avoir pu obtenir
l'oiseau m^me : il ecrivit pour cet effet a M. Marion,
qui lui repondit, que le salva A^ etoit le meme
oiseau qui s'appelle en France JRoi de Cailles, et
qu'on le trouve au printems pres d' Alexandrie. II
avoit entendu dire a Constantinople, et M. Schu
macher qui a sejourne plusieurs annees dans cette
capitate assure la me'me chose, qu'au commence
ment de Septembre il vient une fort grande quantity
de cailles par dessiis la mer noire, et qu'au bord
de l'eau aussi bien que pres de la ville, on peut
les prendre avec la main, quand fatigue"es du
voyage elles se reposent pour la premiere fois.'
In Psalm lxxviii. 27, they are expressly called

1 Bibliotheque Orientale, Vol. m. p. 188, 4to. a la Haye,
1778. 2 Description of Arabia, 4to. p. 155.

QUAILS. 57
1ND. flesh, which surely can hardly apply to
loeusts. They are called too by the Psalmist,
" feathered fowls," and it should be recollected that
this miracle was performed in compliance with the
desire of the people, that they might have flesh
to eat. Compare Exod. xvi. 8. 12. Numb. xi. 4,
13, 18, &c. That Moses expected flesh, is evident
from the language which he addresses to God.
" Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them, to
suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be
gathered together for them, to suffice them ?"
The answer of the Lord warrants us in expecting
some extraordinary interposition. " Is the Lord's
hand waxed short, that it cannot save ? thou shalt
see whether my word shall come to pass to thee
or not1." Having then, as we think, clearly proved
that our venerable Version is correct, we boldly
assert that the miracle is made out : for although
quails are often found in abundance on the coasts,
they have never been met with in any considerable
numbers in the heart of the desert. Besides the
immense supplies which were afforded to the Israel
ites (the objections to which, by Bishop Patrick,
are ably met by Harmer), and their being sent
in answer to the prayer of Moses, is sufficient to
prove that it was from the Lord that " the wind
went forth, and brought up quails from the sea."
Rosenmiiller has expressly stated, and the
.poetic historian of the Jews has, as usual, softened
1 Numbers xi. 22, 23.

58 THE DESTRUCTION OF KORAH.
his statement into an insinuation, that the plague
which was sent by God among his people, in con
sequence of their lusting after flesh, and loathing
the food which He had provided for them, was
occasioned by natural causes. That, in fact, as
' it is well ascertained that quails feed on helle
bore, and other poisonous herbs,' it was produced
by the ' change of diet.' Unfortunately, however,
for them, Moses seems to have anticipated this
insinuation, for he says, " And while the flesh
was yet between their teeth, ere it was yet chewed,
the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the
people, and the Lord smote the people with a
great plague1."
We have no space to touch on any of the other
miracles of Moses. The senseless remarks which
used to be made about the giving of the law on
Mount Sinai, have, we understand, been aban
doned except by a few of the most wild of the
Rationalists. The opinions which some have put
forth on the rebellion of Korah will bear out and
illustrate some of our former remarks on the
German Commentators. Michaelis thinks that
the destruction of Korah and his company — the
earth opening, and swallowing them up — was
occasioned by an earthquake which Moses was
enabled to predict. Others account for the oc
currence by supposing that Moses took care that
the place where the tents of Dathan, Koran, and
' Numbers xi. 33.

THE DESTRUCTION OF KORAH. 59
Abiram were situate, should be secretly under
mined ; which being done, there was nothing won
derful that these men with their tents should have
sunk down into the earth, and that this should
have been predicted by Moses. The only diffi
culty in this case lies in the supposition. Eichhorn,
with his wonted sagacity, suggests another method
of explaining away this miracle. He thinks that
these three very seditious persons were seized by
some of Moses' body-guard (qui Mosen custodien-
di caussa stiparent) and by others in his train, were
burnt alive, together with their tents, &c. The
thirty-first and thirty-second verses of the sixteenth
chapter of Numbers he considers as not at all
militating against his rational view of the subject,
if we interpret them according to the method of
speaking and thinking of men of those days. " If
these men die the common death of all men, or if
they be visited after the visitation of all men, then
the Lord hath not sent me. But if the Lord make
a new thing, and the earth open her mouth and
swallow them up with all that appertain unto
them, and they go down quick into the pit; then
ye shall understand that these men have provoked
the Lord." He understands, or at least interprets,
verses 29, 30, thus : ' since you have committed
against me the delegate of Jehovah, a crime of so
great a magnitude, you must be punished by a
method entirely new and unheard of: which sen
tence being pronounced, Moses ordered the men
then in custody to be buried alive. The other two

60 THE DESTRUCTION OF KORAH.
hundred and fifty men concerned in the sedition
were ordered to be slain, and afterwards to be
burnt1.' Next to the absurdity of using such a
system of interpretation, would be that of refuting
it. It is a melancholy instance of the truth of the
remark, that when men begin to abuse their under
standing, it often leaves them; that when they
wilfully blind themselves against the light of
truth, their errors multiply at every step, until
their extravagance confutes itself, and the mis
chief of their principles works it's own antidote.
1 I cannot trust myself with an account of this exposition
without fortifying it with the words of Rosenmiiller : ' Aliam
igitur hanc historiam explicandi modum instituit Eichhornius
in der allgemeinen Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, P. I.
Fasc. V. pp. 911,912. Ex eo, quod Israelitae (Cap. seq. ver. 6.)
clamant, a Mose et Aarone Dei populum esse perditum, colligit
Vir ille Doctissimus, poenam qua rebellium duces affecti
essent, a Mose et Aarone esse decretam. Existimat, tres viros
istos seditiosos a nonnullis eorum, qui Mosem custodiendi
caussa stiparent, arreptos, et ab aliis Mosis stipatoribus vivos
esse defossos, una cum eorum tentoriis et facultatibus, tanquam
rebus ad homines devotos pertinentibus. Quae vs. 31, 32,
leguntur, Eichhornius huic explicatione non adversari putat, si
ea ex priscorum hominum loquendi et sentiendi modo inter-
pretemur. Versibus 29, 30, hunc sensum inesse existimat:
' quoniam in me, Jovae legatum, tam grave delictum commis-
sistis, supplicio plane novo et inaudito afficiendi estis ;' qua
sententia pronunciata, Mosem jussisse ut homines isti jam in
custodia retenti, vivi defoderentur. Reliquos autem 250
seditiosos Mosis jussu trucidatos et deinde combustos esse.
Quum autem congrue videretur, ut homines qui contra Jovam
peccassent, etiam per Jovam prorsus extinguerentur, ignem quo
illi comburebantur, desumtum esse ex igne sacro. Id exprimi.
ver. 35, ita: ignis exiit ex Jova el rebelles consumsit." Not. in.
loc. Edit. Lipsiae, 1824.

TRANSLATION OF ENOCH. 61
The budding of Aaron's rod is, we believe,
passed over in silence, except by the indefatigable
Eichhorn, and we are too wearied with the speci
mens of the reasoning of the Rationalists already
exhibited, to search for any more of their objec
tions. It was our intention to have sketched at
some length the History of the Israelites, and the
subjects connected with it, from the birth of Moses
to their settlement in the Promised Land, putting
away miracles from the story — which would, per
haps, have been the most convincing method of
showing how intimately interwoven miraculous
interposition is with the history, and how totally
incredible and unaccountable it would be, if sepa
rated from it. But as we are aware that brevity
and condensation are the best passports to atten
tion, we are induced to relinquish it.
2. We will now consider, briefly indeed, a few
of the miracles, which in the character of an histo
rian merely, Moses records.
Near the commencement of his history, we
meet with a very peculiar deviation from the
ordinary course of nature, narrated with singular
brevity. " And Enoch walked with God, and he
was not, for God took him1." Several old writers
(among whom we may mention Aben Ezra, Jarchi,
Saints Athanasius, Cyprian, and Ambrose) arguing
from such passages as Gen. xiii. 13. 26. Job xxxiii.
1 Gen. v. 24.

62 TRANSLATION OF ENOCH.
22. 1 Kings xix. 4. Ezek. xxiv. 16. have contended
that the words of Moses by no means imply any
thing miraculous in the departure of Enoch, but
were merely intended to express that he died a
natural death. Had we no other evidence than
the chapter from which the above words are ex
tracted, we might have clearly perceived by the
peculiarity of expression that it happened not to
Enoch as to the other patriarchs. For in verses
5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, &c. &c. ncn ' and he died'
was the conclusion of each ; but when the close of
Enoch's pilgrimage is related, we have a strikingly
different expression, D\"f>N kr\'$ T^h r? ISIIW " and
he was not, for God took him1." We might
then fairly have presumed, that had there been
nothing peculiar in the departure of Enoch,
no such peculiarity would have been employed.
But since his translation is thrice asserted in
a single sentence by the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews (xi. 5), who affirms, " By faith
Enoch was translated that he should not see death ;
and was not found because God had translated
him : for before his translation he had this testi
mony, that he pleased God," without referring to
any other evidence, we may at once adopt the
language of Le Clerc, ' omnia quae afferunt com-
menta indigna sunt quae audiantur.'
The translation of Elijah, the circumstances
of which it will be unnecessary to state, is the
1 The same word nj& occurs in 2 Kings, cap. 2. in the
account of Elijah's Translation.

TRANSLATION OF ENOCH. (jg
only parallel case with which we are acquainted,
with the exception, perhaps, of the mysterious
departure of Moses. The few cursory remarks
which we shall make, will not be so much to
explain or illustrate the miracle, as to show to
those who are so desirous of seeing some cause for
every deviation from the usual course of nature
proportional to the deviation, that in the case of
each of these such adequate causes might have
existed. The translation of Enoch might be intended
to furnish an evidence at once of the immortality
of the soul, and of the glorification of the body.
At that period in the history of man, when Enoch
was translated, the promises of God were but
imperfectly understood, the manifestations of his
goodness, and the revelations of His will, but com
paratively few. The horrors of the fall were yet
deeply imprinted on the memory of the early
patriarchs. The evidence of all that they had
lost was ever before them. Their expectations of
an hereafter were involved in obscurity, and the
promises on which they trusted were vague and
indefinite. Death had but just commenced his
ravages. Even to us, who have so often witnessed,
if not felt, his devastations, he yet preserves much
of that gloom with which he is naturally invested.
How much greater, then, must have been the
dread experienced by these first men? The fre
quency of his visits had never afforded them the
opportunities of watching his progress, or of gaining

64 TRANSLATION OF ENOCH.
a definite notion of his terrors. The world had
had, perhaps, but one instance1, in which they could
witness death in it's natural bitterness. In the
first which occurred they could not. With what
anxiety, then, must they have watched the waning
existence of the venerable father of mankind.
As he grew enfeebled, and bent under the ac
cumulated weight of more than nine hundred
years, his departure must have been waited
for with an intensity of expectation. And
when earth was deprived of her first inhabitant,
men would probably be mournful and discon
solate, regarding the sepulchre as that in which
their hopes, and their fears, and their joys were
at once entombed. How encouraging, then, must
have been the translation of Enoch, as affording
a sure pledge of immortality, and of certain
triumph over their dreaded foe. Again, Enoch
was " a preacher of righteousness," but men
had become so corrupt, that they seem to have
required some other evidence of his mission than
the simple majesty of the truths which he pro
claimed. What could have had a more powerful
effect in teaching men that God is "a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him?" or what
could have been better calculated to counteract
any misgivings of the mind which possibly might
have occurred at the death of Abel? But we
cannot pursue this interesting subject further.
1 Notwithstanding Enoch was "the seventh from Adam,"
there is no recorded death before him, with the exception of
those of Abel and Adam.

THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 65
Similar reasons existed for the translation of
Elijah in an age of universal darkness and apostacy.
Israel was the only nation that had received a
Revelation. But the people to whom the oracles
of God were committed had been faithless to
their trust. The fire had almost ceased to burn
on the altars of Jehovah. Some extraordinary
interposition, therefore, of the Almighty ap
peared almost necessary. But if we view Enoch
as the head of the patriarchs, Moses of the law,
Elijah of the prophetical, and Jesus Christ of the
gospel dispensation, we are presented with a
singular analogy. Under each we shall perceive
signal pledges of victory over death, and of a life
hereafter. Enoch is translated; Moses myste
riously removed from the earth1 ; Elijah wrapt
up into heaven in a chariot of fire, and Jesus
dies and rises again the third day, " the first
fruits of them that sleep2." »
The history of the first dispersion of Noah's
family over the face of the earth is connected
with an event which presents the appearance of
having been the result of Divine agency. Four
1 From the singular passage in Saint Jude, " Michael, the
Archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed
about the body of Moses, &c," and from Moses' appearing
with Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration, it may be pre
sumed that he departed in no ordinary way.
2 For many of these remarks I am indebted to Calmet's
learned ' Dissertation sur le Patriarch Henoch,* and to CoUyer's
popular Lectures on Scripture Miracles,
E

66 THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES.
centuries1 had scarcely elapsed since the earth had
been deluged with waters, before it's inhabitants,
who were dwelling in harmony on the vast plain
of Shinar, leagued themselves together to build a
stupendous tower, whose top might reach unto the
heavens. Regardless of the divine command to
"replenish the earth," and influenced only by a
love of fame, and a fear of dispersion, they pro
ceeded with vigor in the execution of their mighty
undertaking. But as the proceedings of man
seemed thus directly to counteract the intentions
of God, the Almighty is represented by Moses
as descending to confound their language ; this
being the most effectual method of rendering
obedience to his command at once necessary and
advantageous. With regard to the manner in
which this confusion was effected, there are a great
variety of opinions: but these there will be no
necessity to examine. The obvious fact of the
diversity of languages among mankind being ad
mitted, the question for our determination is, whe
ther or not natural causes will account for the
observed phenomenon. Vitringa, indeed, inter
prets the phrase ' to confuse their language,' as
1 There is great difference of opinion with respect to the
chronology of this event. If we follow the common opinion,
that it took place about the time of the birth of Peleg, who
was the sixth in descent from Noah, and born, according to
the Masoretic date, just a century after the deluge, we are
involved in considerable difficulty. Dr. Hales fixes the dis
persion of mankind, I think, at five hundred and forty-one
years after the flood. We have adopted the date sanctioned
by the Samaritan copy, which is three hundred and ninety-six.

THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 67
signifying ' to set their plans at variance,' an inter
pretation which rather increases than removes the
difficulty ; because, by denying the fact, it renders
the solution of the problem of the present variety
of speech among men almost inexplicable. Eich
horn pronounces the whole to be a ' mythus,' and
assumes to himself the credit of discovering that
the transaction was feigned by some fancied deduc
tion from the word Babel. But as these theories
have been ably exploded by Perizonius, we shall
pass them by, and confine ourselves to the argu
ment generally brought forward against the literal
interpretation of the Mosaic account.
Some philosophers who have traced the pro
gress of many languages through the successive
centuries of their existence, having observed the
gradual changes to which they are, or have been,
subject, have supposed that the diversity of tongues
among men may be satisfactorily accounted for
without the introduction of any miraculous con
fusion. We conceive, however, that the changes
which occur now the languages of mankind are
many, are by no means fair criteria of those which
would take place when "the whole earth was of
one language and of one speech." The reason
is this: the modifications which arise from the
influence of different languages are entirely
wanting. If we compare the English language,
for example, at the beginning and end of any
century, we shall find many alterations; but as
E 2

68 THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES.
these arise from the intermixture with different
languages, and other causes which could not exist
when there was but one language on the earth,
all the reasonings which do not involve this limi
tation must be fallacious. As even the present
changes effect no division in a nation, so those
which might take place in the original language
could not be a sufficient cause for the dispersion
of mankind. Change of place never has produced
a thorough change of language. New relations,
or new necessities, will increase and enrich a
nation's vocabulary; but they will not remodel,
or confound, a people's speech.
On the admission of a miracle all is clear.
It displays the two-fold wonder, of first partially
creating a language, and then conferring the power
of thinking and speaking that language. Thought
remaining the same, the tongue instantly clothed
it in a new idiom, and the old language being
partially blotted out from the memory, the tongue
was compelled to express the same mental operation
by different sounds. Such, at least, is the view
which we take of the extent of the confusion,
without disputing with those who adopt a different
one. There is sufficient uncertainty to admit of
variety, and too much obscurity to justify per
tinacity. Such a stupendous change, however,
by no means militates against the hypothesis of
all the present languages being traceable through
their radical words to the same original. All that
is necessary to prevent nations understanding each

THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 69
other's speech, is to change the nature and force of
the prefixes, interfixes, and affixes; of their words.
This will introduce confusion enough for all prac
tical purposes, and yet the philologer (with a fan
ciful ingenuity which on this subject one is some
times tempted almost as much to pity as to praise)
may possibly discover the original roots in all-
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
has so often been fully discussed, that it will be
unnecessary to do more than observe, that if it
be allowed that natural means were employed, it
does not take away from the miraculous nature of
the occurrence. If it be granted that these cities
were destroyed by volcanic eruptions, yet that it
was no chance eruption is evident from the whole
narrative, especially from the language of the angel
to Lot, " Haste thee, escape thither, for I cannot
do any thing till thou be come hither1" plainly
make the time of the destruction of the eities
dependent upon Lot's quitting them.
The accompanying miracle, the turning Lot's
wife into a pillar of Salt, whatever the exact mean
ing of the expression may be, is generally treated,
even by those not unfavorable to, miraculous inter
position, with too much neglect. It is clear that
she was the companion of his flight, for whenever
she may have 'looked back from behind him,' the
deadly shower had not yet commenced, for it did
1 Genesis xix. 22.

70 lot's wife.
not begin till Lot had entered Zoar. " Then the
Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brim
stone from the Lord out of Heaven," &c. The
introduction of the name of Jehovah twice in that
short sentence does not appear to strengthen the
opinion that the whole was an ordinary occurrence.
Jehovah was not a name with which a Jew dared
trifle. The destruction, too, of the city was revealed
to Abraham the day before it took place1 ; and it
was in consequence of this that the earnest and
extraordinary intercession of Abraham with God
took place ; an intercession in which, as it has
been well said, God ceased not to grant till Abra
ham ceased to beg. The city of Zoar, which was
a city of the plain, and close to Sodom, was not
destroyed when " the Lord overthrew those cities
and all the plain," but was spared at the entreaty
of Lot. It should be noticed, too, that Lot's wife
is not said to have 'lingered' behind, but only to
have 'looked' from behind him, in express disobe
dience to the Divine command.
The speaking of Balaam's ass has, by the
party opposed to miraculous interferencies, been
treated with contempt and ridicule, while by the
other it has been defended with little confidence
or care. In compliance with a vitiated tone of
feeling, the plain matter of fact has been softened
down, and men seem ashamed of confessing their
belief in a subject which has been attended with
1 Genesis xix. 16. 22.

THE SPEAKING OF BALAAM'S ASS. 71
so much ridicule and scoffing. But if it's oppo-*
nents would remember that ridicule is not the
test of truth, that they display no genius in a"
cavil, no talent in a sneer (for the veriest witling
who can shine in nothing else may always succeed
in a sneer at sacred things) they would probably
be less inclined to degrade themselves by a practice
which serves not to show aught but the weakness
of their cause.
In the discussion of miracles, two principal
canons have been laid down. 1. That the power
which is affirmed to be employed in the production
of the miraculous effect be adequate. 2. That the;
occasion on which the miracle is wrought be of
sufficient importance to demand it. The latter ,
we would receive with some qualification. We
are not judges competent to decide what occasions <
are, or are not, of sufficient importance to demand
miraculous interference. It is not only in things
spiritual that we see through a glass, darkly, but
also in things moral. And surely it will not be
denied that God may deem an occasion important
enough for his immediate interposition, which
appears not so to us. But that the occasion was
of sufficient importance, and that the means em
ployed were exactly adapted to the end in view,
we hope to be able to make evident. That the
power employed was inadequate to produce the
effect related, will not be asserted by one who
believes in the truth of the words, " The Lord

72 THE SPEAKING OF BALAAM'S ASS.
opened the mouth of the ass," for to admit the
agency of Omnipotence, and to talk of difficulty,
except in things which involve a contradiction, is
absurd. But the chief objection is, what is deemed,
the un worthiness of the occasion. On this ground
Michaelis and Dathe, copying Maimonides, believe
that the whole narrative was a vision : Justus and
Hezelius, that it is a quotation from a poem of
Balaam's, in which he described his own journey ;
while Jerusalem thinks that it was extracted ex
annalibus Moabiticis, quod multum valere illam
putaret ad confirmandos Israelitarum animos1.
But let us examine the circumstances atten
tively. When the princes of Moab and the chiefs
of Midian came to Balaam, and had delivered
their message, he detained them under the plea
of ignorance of his duty, and of refering the case
to Jehovah. As Moses directly asserts that
"God came unto Balaam and said," we have no
reason to suppose with Rosenmiiller, that Balaam
forged the consultations which he held with Jeho
vah, and the answers which he received from him,
in order to keep up his credit with the Moabites.
If such had been the case, Moses would have been
exceedingly culpable for omitting to hint it.
Balaam's first answer was, "Thou shalt not go
with them : thou shalt not curse the people ; for
they are blessed." When we bear in mind that
this was a direct intimation of the will of the Great
1 See Rosenmiiller's Excursus, in his second Part, Vol. m.
p. 444, Ed. 1824.

THE SPEAKING OF BALAAM'S ASS. 73
Supreme to one who requested an express declara
tion of that will, we wonder at the hardihood of
Balaam in tampering any longer with the offers
of Moab. It had, however, but a momentary effect;
the false prophet again entertained the enemies of
the chosen of Jehovah, and again dared to ask his
permission to go and curse them. Here he was
undoubtedly tempting the Lord his God. The
Almighty will not check the madness of his crea
tures, when such interference would destroy their
responsibility. Had Balaam been prevented from
sinning, his obedience would have gained no favor
in the eyes of Heaven. A permission was given
to indulge his own inclination, though it should
destroy himself; and yet had he attended to the
caution by which the permission was accompanied,
he would have perceived that it would have ren
dered his going of no avail, " but yet the word
which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou
do." Any man unbiassed by the extravagance
of his own covetousness must have seen the
tendency of this declaration ; but Balaam had
determined to go at all hazards. He was incor
rigible by all ordinary means. Now the extraor
dinary means used were exactly such as were suited
to work the end for which ordinary means had
failed. The speaking of the ass showed to Balaam
the power which the Almighty had over the
tongue, for as the Lord caused the dumb animal
to utter sounds contrary to it's nature, so would
he cause it's master to pronounce blessings contrary

74 THE SPEAKING OF BALAAM'S ASS.
to his intention ; so that if we may be allowed
strictly to estimate the power necessary to be
exerted for opening the mouth of the animal, and
for turning the current of Balaam's resolutions, the
latter may be considered the greater miracle of the
two. Away then with the opinions of the 'viri
doctissimi,' who tell us of the poetic style of the
narrative— away with the suggestions of a Ditmar,
who brings forward as parallel cases the fabled
wonders of an Amphion or an Orpheus. Unin
telligible, indeed, must be every explanation which
recognizes not both an occasion for miraculous
agency, and the suitableness of the miracle to the
circumstances of the case.
Objections have been raised against the reality
of the miracle from the circumstance of Balaam
not being represented as having exhibited any as
tonishment at the extraordinary occurrence. But
our surprise will probably be lessened, when we
remember that he was a man in the habit of hold
ing intercourse with the Almighty, as his prophet,
and therefore might have thought that there was
no more marvel in receiving a message by an ex
traordinary, than by an ordinary means of com
munication; knowing, that to the Omnipotent
there was no difficulty in any. But in so cursory a
history we must not bring objections from anything
that is omitted, though we may deduce arguments
from every thing that is expressed. If the opinion
of the Apostle Saint Peter is of any weight (with
some it appears of very little) we cannot be mis-

THE HISTORICAL MIRACLES. 75
taken as to the sense in which he understood the
event, " the dumb ass, speaking with man's voice,
forbad the madness of the prophet1."

II. We pass on to discuss a few of the His
torical Miracles, using this term for the
sake of convenience to express merely, the Mira
cles recorded in the historical parts of the Old
Testament. The next two Miracles which we shall review,
though they occurred at very different periods of
Jewish history, may be considered in succession, as
they are somewhat similar in their circumstances.
They are, The standing still of the sun at the
command of Joshua, when he was fighting at Ai ;
and, The retreating of the shadow on the sun-dial
of Ahaz, in the time of Hezekiah. We have not
had an opportunity of seeing the Rationalists'
explanation of the former, but if we may judge
from their hypothesis concerning the latter, we
have not missed much that is instructing. That
diluted Neology, which we are sorry so often to
meet with in the 'History of the Jews,' pro
nounces it to be 'the worst uncharitableness' to
suspect those who doubt either the reality or
the extent of the miracle, of hostility to revealed
religion. Many writers, to whom the epithet
'learned' is attached, 'have imagined a preter
natural refraction of the sun's rays after it had
1 In his second letter, ii. 16.

76 JOSHUA COMMANDING THE SUN
really sunk below the horizon.' 'Others conceive
that the whole is a highly wrought passage out
of the book of Jasher, and hence abounding, ac
cording to the genius of Hebrew poetry, with the
most daring apostrophes, and delighting in figures
drawn from the heavenly bodies1.' But we can
not assent to such imaginings. On principles
such as these every display, of the power, and
glory, and splendor of Omnipotence may be got
rid of by the artifice of 'highly wrought poetry,'
and 'daring apostrophes,' and thus we should be
compelled to give up one wondrous thing after
another to satisfy the shifting hypotheses of wild
theorists. We acknowledge that the scripture
account of the sun's standing still till Joshua
had slain the five kings, involves much that is
mysterious and unintelligible, but we had rather
be foiled by difficulties, than be guilty of ab
surdities. Still w.e think that we see some traces
of the probability of a miracle, from the remark
of the writer of the book of Joshua, "and there
was no day like that before it or after it, for the
Lord fought for Israel" (x. 14), and this proba
bility is confirmed by the recurrence of the same
sentiment concerning the result of Joshua's con
quests, "And all these kings and their land did
Joshua take at one time, because that the Lord
God of Israel fought for Israel."
The most sceptical must allow the providential
interference and direction of Jehovah ; and when
1 Vol. i. p. 170.

AND MOON TO STAND STILL. 77
this, is made manifest even in the minutest things,
the transition from special guidance to supernatu
ral interposition is most easy. It was the deter
mination of God that the Canaanites should be
exterminated by the hand of Israel, and the in
habitants of the land were warned of this by the
many exhibitions of the Divine favor which ac
companied their invaders. The passage of the
Jordan and the fall of Jericho should have pro
duced submission on the part of the kings. But
on this memorable day their whole strength was
collected against the Chosen People — and the
miracle seems mercifully intended to afford to
the assembled Canaanites a signal display of the
controlling power of the Protector of the armies
of their conquerors, — to finish in one battle what
would otherwise have needed several, and thus
to awe them into submission without any further
bloodshed. The event itself is as follows. As Joshua was
pursuing the confederate monarchs from Gideon
to Bethrhoron, in a westerly direction, when they
had reached Azekah, a shower of hail was singularly
destructive to the Canaanitish army alone. He
had been chasing the enemy all night and coming
up to them suddenly at day-break, he made a
solemn appeal to the Lord his God, and then
commanded the sun to stand still over Gibeon,
towards the east, and the moon which was setting
to rest over the valley of Ajalon, to the west.
This occurred about the time of the vernal equinox,

78 JOSHUA COMMANDING THE SUN
when the moon was just past her full1, and conse
quently in that climate the day would be about
thirteen hours long. It is distinctly said that the
sun stood still when in the east, and that it con
tinued stationary about a whole day D^ZSn DV3, the
word translated 'whole,' meaning 'complete' 'per
fect,' used of sacrificial victims2. We conceive
then, that the sun appeared stationary for the
whole twelve hours, thus giving Joshua twenty-
five hours of daylight for the destruction of his
enemies. The production of such a phenomenon,
would require according to the Newtonian system
of philosophy, the suspension of the rotation of
the earth on it's axis during half a diurnal revo
lution, as well as some corresponding change in
the moon's motion. The question seems then to be,
is such a suspension probable ? is the end to be
answered by it sufficiently important to demand
such a violation of established laws ? Here is the
only difficulty, and we would offer the following
remarks with a view of shewing clearly the nature
of this difficulty, rather than of clearing it up.
We are apt to compare the magnitude of miracles
with respect to what we deem the forces necessary
to produce them, rather than the moral ends to
be answered by their occurrence. To us indeed
the difference between the forces necessary to pro
duce certain effects often appears great, but this
1 See Dr. Hales's account in his second Vol. p. 262.
2 Compare Exod, xii. 5. Lev. i. 3.

AND MOON TO STAND STILL. 79
difference shrinks into insignificance when com
pared with the immeasureable extent of the power
of the Almighty. To Him this globe is but a
speck, differing comparatively little in size from
the minutest atom floating on it's surface, when
both are compared with the extent of illimitable
space. The difference, then, in probabilities be
tween a miraculous shower of hailstones, and the
suspension of the rotation of the earth's axis, is
but slight when weighed in the balance of in
finity. As we have shown the existence of super
natural interference with the laws of nature in
some cases, so we have no right to deny the
reality of it's occurrence in this. The fact is ad
mitted to have occurred, the miraculous part only
is denied. No natural causes have been brought
forward which any philosopher can admit as suf
ficient to account for it. The idea of any such
effect being produced by the refraction of the solar
light through the intervention of some denser
medium, we consider quite out of place. Such
being the case then, the difficulty is to discover
an occasion which could demand such an inter
ference of Divine agency. It has been suggested
that it might have been to teach the Canaanitish
worshippers of the sun and moon the folly of
their superstition. We think that this might
have been accomplished by other more ordinary
methods, but we do not venture to pronounce;
we willingly leave the solution of the difficulties
attending it, to talents and experience far greater

80 THE DIAL OF AHAZ.
than our own. If we have shown the futility of
admitting the fact, and then attempting to account
for it by natural causes, our object is attained.
The retreating of the sun's shadow on the dial of
Ahaz is a well known event which is related in the
prophecies of Isaiah. When king Hezekiah was
sick, the son of Amoz came to him and warned him
to prepare for death. The king prayed unto the
Lord, the message came to the holy seer which
promised an addition of fifteen years to the king's
life, and a sign was given from Jehovah as a
token that he would do this thing that he had
spoken. "Behold I will bring again the shadow
of the degrees which is gone down in the sun
dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the
sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it
was gone down1." Whatever be the sense in
which the word "degrees," fiibjW?, is taken, it
matters little to the argument. Whether we
agree with Michaelis in adopting the mathe
matical sense, considering it analogous to the Arabic
jfa^j, darajat, or with any other of the numerous
similar opinions, the nature of the miracle will be
the same. The explanation given by Von der
Hardt is, that on the following day, on the return
of the shadow at the same place, the king should
still live. But we cannot believe that the expres
sion of the sun's returning ten degrees on the sun-
1 Chapter xxxviii. v. 8.

THE DIAL OF AHAZ. 81
dial, should merely mean the shadow returning
to the same place. If it were said, it shall go
forward ten degrees, there might have been a
probability in such an explanation. It's futility,
however, is instantly evident, by turning to the
twentieth chapter of the second book of Kings,
where we find Isaiah asking "shall the shadow go
forward ten degrees, or go backward ten degrees?"
And Hezekiah answered "it is a light thing for
the shadow to go down ten degrees : nay, but let
the shadow return backward ten degrees. And
Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord : and
he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by
which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
There is no explaining this away.
Another hypothesis, that of refraction, has been
suggested, and the objectionable part of this,
is the manner in which it is brought forward.
Rosenmiiller says, ' Verisimile est, hujusmodi singu-
larem radiorum solarium refractionem umbraeque
mutationem casu forteque evenisse illo ipso tem
pore, quo Jesajas regi de recuperanda valetudine
promissa daret: sapienter igitur vates insolito illo
eventu utebatur ad confirm andum regis dubitantis
et soUiciti animum.' We admit the possibility of
a highly refracting medium intervening and caus
ing such an apparent retrograde motion of the
sun's shadow, but we deny altogether the 'casu
forteque,' and the 'sapienter,' because this reduces
the whole to mere craftiness and delusion. It
F

82 SAMSON.
strikes at the root of the honesty as well as the
inspiration of the prophet1.
We can allot but little space to the wondrous
performances of a great hero whose 'life began in
marvel and ended in the deepest tragedy.' He
is celebrated in the book of Judges for his superior
bodily strength, which strength we contend was
given him in a preternatural manner.
(1) Because of the phraseology used in describing
it. When he rent the young lion as he would a
kid, it is said "the Spirit of the Lord came
mightily upon him2." When he went down to
Ashkelon, and by his single arm slew thirty
Philistines, " the Spirit of the Lord came upon
him." When he brake the cords by which the
Philistines bound him, and slew a thousand men
with the jaw bone of an ass, " the Spirit of
the Lord came mightily upon him5." In the
most limited sense in which the words "Spirit of
Jehovah" can be understood, it must be intend
ed to express a special Divine influence, such
as no man could of himself acquire.
(2) Because of the peculiar circumstances of it's
loss and recovery. When pressed by Delilah to reveal
1 That the event was deemed "a wonder" by surrounding
nations we learn from 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. because the king
of Babylon sent to inquire concerning it.
2 Judges xiv. 6. ' Judges, xv. 14, 19.

SAMSON. 83
the secret of his strength, he at last said "There
hath not been a razor upon mine head ; for I have
been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb :
if I be shaven then my strength will go from me,
and I shall become weak, and be like any other
man1." And this was the truth, for instantly
his locks were shaven, "the Lord departed from
him." This connexion then between the shaving
of the head, and the loss of superior strength is
antinatural ; it is not to be accounted for by the
ordinary principles of physiology. Nor can we
induce ourselves to believe that the operation of
ordinary causes would be described by the phrase
"the Lord departed from him." If we refer to
the circumstances which happened to his parents
previous to his birth, the extraordinary event of
his ceasing to be a Nazarite causing the departure
"of the Spirit of the Lord" is readily explained.
The promise of a son to his mother was connected
with the command "no razor shall come on his
head, for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God
from the womb," (xiii. 5.) and the object to be
obtained was that he might "deliver Israel out
of the hand of the Philistines." "And the wo
man bare a son and called his name Samson :
and the child grew and the Lord blessed him.
And the Spirit of the Lord began to move him
at times in the camp of Dan, between Zorah
and Eshtaol." Of any such arbitrary connexion
as existed in the case of the son of Manoah,
1 Judges xvi. 17-
F 2

84 SAMSON.
the interesting science which treats of the opera
tion of the vital functions of organized nature,
has never developed the slightest trace; and,
therefore, till our boasted modern improvements
can do this, we have reason to attribute to it a
miraculous character. Equally miraculous was the
recovery of his strength. Prayer indeed was the
means, but it was the only means, employed on
his part ; and the effect of answered prayer cannot
be registered among ordinary events.
(3) Because of the difference of phraseology when
strength, marvellous yet not miraculous, is intended.
When Goliath of Gath, the Philistine champion,
is spoken of, there occurs no mention of his re
markable strength being derived from Jehovah.
It is not said that the Spirit of Jehovah came
upon him when he stood and defied the armies
of Israel1. Goliath, as well as Samson, derived
his strength from God as the God of Providence,
"in whom we all live and move and have our
being," but Samson's is peculiarly ascribed to
Jehovah on each occasion when it's exercise is
related. Having giving these three distinct reasons for
our first assertion, we would only notice that
Samson's responsibility for his use of this mira
culous gift was by no means destroyed, so that
the acknowledgement of a miraculous act does
not involve us in the necessity of upholding the
1 1 Sam. xvii. 8.

SAUL AT ENDOR. 85
righteousness of the deed. His conduct proves
him, like Balaam, to have been led astray from
Jehovah's statutes, but as he was accountable for
the use he made of his endowment, we have no
right to charge the Almighty with being the
doer of evil.
The well-known conference between Saul and
the Woman of Endor, has created much difference
of opinion, even among the orthodox, as to the
reality of the rising again of Samuel. This be
ing the case, it is strictly excluded from our con
sideration. If the fact of Samuel's appearance
be allowed, in compliance with the summons of
the diviner, then the miracle must be admitted,
for we can find no credible evidence in profane
history, that particular persons have ever possessed
the power of calling up the spirits of the dead.
Two things however, may be inferred from the
sacred narrative, that Saul believed in the mira
culous powers of the woman, and that if the spirit
of Samuel did really rise, she herself was not
aware (as in the case of the Egyptian magicians)
of the success which would attend her attempt.
We deem it, however, most probable that God
did allow the spirit of the prophet to arise, not
as a consequence of the arts of the diviner, (her
surprise shows that she did not expect it), but
for wise purposes, in order to disclose to the reck
less tyrant the awful fate which awaited him and
his people. But since we are at liberty to doubt

86 DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY.
the reality of the occurrence, we pass it over, as
the argument would be of a nature quite different
from those which have engaged our attention. Our
chief object for introducing it is to oppose the
admission of an insidious principle, which has
been connected with the prophecy delivered by
the apparition. 'The prophecy,' it is said 'like
others, may have contributed to its own accom
plishment.' By this insinuation the prediction
is reduced to mere political foresight, and pro
vision is made by which the principle may be
extended at pleasure. Thus while in some in
stances a miracle is refined away to a natural
phenomenon, prophecy becomes but subtle craft,
or impommon foresight, and we are compelled to
witness the pillars of our faith shaken to their
very foundations.
That accurate retailer of the opinions of others,
to whom we have been often indebted, in his Com
mentary on the destruction of Sennacherib's army,
has formally arranged the sources of his infor
mation. Possessed, as he must be, of the most
favorable opportunities for displaying the collective
wisdom of the continent, we had expected some
specimens of ingenuity from the formidable array
of historico-critico-exegetico commentators which
he brings forward. But we are disappointed ; he
takes no notice of any writers except those who
attempt to explain away the miracle ; he considers
it the duty of a ' liberal' interpreter only to search

DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY. 87
for and suggest natural causes which will account
for the slaughter of this mighty host. With the
ingenious Wesseling he refers us to Vitringa, who
supposes the destruction to have been occasioned
by thunder and lightning. But if "thunder, and
an earthquake, and great noise" were the instru
ments employed, it would not have appeared so
strange a thing to the Israelites, " When they rose
early in the morning, and, behold, they were all
dead corpses."
The most plausible method of getting rid of
the miracle is by a simoom1; but it is singular,
though not impossible, that this should be dis
criminating enough to spare the army of the
Israelites, and destroy that of their enemies only.
Unfortunately, however, for any such hypothesis, we
have no well-authenticated instance of a simoom
ever blowing in that part of Judea. It is always
confined to hot and sandy deserts, and it's chief
destructive power consists in the hot sand which
it raises up. From the language, too, of Burck
hardt, it's dangers seem to be exaggerated. He
says, 'The hottest and most violent wind I ever
experienced was at Suakin; yet there I felt no
particular inconvenience from it, although exposed
to all its fury in the open plain. For my own
part, I am perfectly convinced, that all the stories
which travellers, or the inhabitants of the towns of
Egypt and Syria, relate of the simoom of the desert,
1 See History of the Jews, Vol. i. p. 307-

88 DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY.
are greatly exaggerated, and I never could hear
of a single well-authenticated instance of its having
proved mortal either to man or beast.' It does not
appear, indeed, that it is quite true that it blows only
in the day time, as has been stated by those who
have defended the miracle ; for Sir John Chardin
says it's effects are usually most fatal during the
day, evidently implying it's occurrence at night.
But Jerusalem was never subject to any such wind.
It's situation on a plain sloping from west to east,
and surrounded by mountains, protects it from the
winds of the Syrian desert. The army of Senna
cherib before it's walls has, therefore, nothing in
eommon with a caravan passing through an Arabian
desert. Again, where the simoom once occurs, it
is frequently met with, and yet we never hear of
any other instance of it's blowing over the valleys
of Jehoshaphat or Kedron. Travellers particularly
remark, that though Judaea and Aleppo are subject
to a hot wind, which is sometimes confounded with
the simoom, yet this wind is never fatal.
There is another hypothesis, that of a pesti
lence. Though this is supported by many whose
critical labors are most valuable to the cause of
truth, we cannot agree with it. They bring for
ward a passage in the twenty-fourth chapter of
the second book of Samuel, to elucidate this
notion ; but here, though the angel of the Lord
is mentioned, yet the pestilence itself is dwelt
upon. The passages are by no means parallel.

DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY. 89
The mission of Jehovah's angel, indeed, appears in
both, but it also occurs in many other instances.
One commentator finds a difficulty in the number,
and so alters that ; while another thinks the time
too short for the action of the pestilence, and so
to get rid of the ' one night,' violates the gramma
tical construction, and introduces quite a different
phrase, translating npil ' in the morning,' as if
it were -)pi2 "lp22 or D^pS1? quovis die mane, or
quoties mane, thus prolonging the pestilence and
slaughter at pleasure.
The story of Sennacherib's invasion of Egypt,
as given by Herodotus1, is familiar to every stu
dent : whether or not it has any reference to that
related by the prophet, has been disputed. It
matters but little to our argument which way
the question is decided ; but it furnishes us with
another instance of the singular manner in which
learned men are led into difficulties when they
have a theory to support. Bochart finding in
Hesychius that \afids means a mouse, notices it's
affinity to XoVos, pestis, and hence infers that the
slaughter attributed to these animals was really
occasioned by a pestilence. But he forgot the
minutiae of the case; the slaughter is not as-
scribed to mice; it is said that they gnawed
the quivers and the bow-strings, and not that
they consumed the men. But supposing this case
similar, as well as those related by Diodorus
1 Lib. ii. cap. 141.

90 DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB'S ARMY.
Siculus and Justin, we have no right to make a
strict comparison. For the difference is this. In
profane authors we get rid of every difficulty at
once, by denying the fact; but in the Sacred
Writings, both our opponents and ourselves admit
it's occurrence. If men would apply the same
method of explanation to profane authors which
they have adopted towards sacred ones, they would
instantly need a double portion of their wonted
ingenuity, in admitting the fabulous event to have
really occurred, and then accounting for it by
natural causes.
Perceiving, then, that no such causes will
satisfactorily account for this remarkable event,
we must decide that it was miraculous. For even
if we suppose a simoom to have swept over the
Assyrian camp, with all it's (fabled) fatality, yet
it's direction and limitation must, by every candid
mind, be ascribed to the immediate guidance of
Divine wisdom : if we adopt the opinion of the
pestilence, then the timing of this also would seem
to manifest the hand of Deity. In the second
book of Chronicles, Sennacherib is represented as
returning to his own land with "shame of face1,"
a circumstance natural enough when that God
whom he had so tauntingly defied had interposed
to destroy him. The occasion seems to have
demanded the interference. The God of Israel
had been so publicly insulted, that He returned
as an answer to the elders of the priests whom
1 Chapter xxxii. v. 21.

THE PROPHETICAL MIRACLES. 91
Hezekiah had commissioned to inquire of the
Lord, " Behold, I will send a blast upon him :
and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his
own land ; and I will cause him to fall by the
sword in his own land." We naturally, then,
expect to read that "The Lord sent forth his
angel" to smite miraculously the camp of the
Assyrians, and that "it came to pass, that as
Sennacherib was worshipping in the house of Nis-
roch his God, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his
sons smote him with the sword."
III. The Prophetical Miracles, or
those recorded in the books of the Prophets.
The prophet Elijah took a prominent, as well as
a singular, part in the stirring events of his day.
He is introduced to us under the simple character
of "Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of
Gilead," and rests his claims to notice chiefly on
account of the many and wonderful events which
he was the instrument in producing. We have
now to touch upon some of those only, which
appear, at least, miraculous to an ordinary reader,
and to prove that they really are so.
Ahab the king of Israel had married the
daughter of a Sidonian prince, and had conse
quently renounced the established religion of
his country, and adopted that of his royal father-
in-law. He carried the worship of Baal so

92 ELIJAH.
far as to build him a temple and numerous al
tars, till his priests amounted to the enormous
number of four hundred and fifty. In conse
quence of this idolatry, by which he "did more
to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than
all the kings of Israel that were before him1,"
Elijah was commissioned to proclaim a famine, the
duration of which he ventured to predict should
depend upon his word. The usual objection, that
the prophet took the occasion of the famine to
rebuke the monarch, cannot be urged with the least
probability ; because Moses, in the strength of the
Most High, had been bold enough to denounce
temporal punishments for spiritual disobedience.
Against public idolatry was denounced 'famine,
and blasting, and mildew,' so that " the heaven
over their head should be as brass, and the earth
under them as iron2." As the prophet himself
must suffer the calamity he had predicted, he
goes by Jehovah's direction to the brook Cherith.
There it is said, " I have commanded the ravens
to feed thee3," " and the ravens brought him
bread and flesh in the morning, and bread
and flesh in the evening : and he drank of the
brook." We find that a writer in the 'Memoirs
of Literature,' more than a century ago, contends
that the prophet was not fed by ravens, but by
the inhabitants of a small town called Aorabi or
Orbo, in the country of Bethsehan, in Decapolis.
1 1 Kings, xvi. 33. 2 Deuteronomy xxviii. 23.
3 Chapter xvii. 4. 6.

ELIJAH. 93
In this he is supported by the opinions of Chaldee,
Arabic, and Jewish writers. This notion, we
believe, was first brought forward by the Rabbi
Jehudah, and afterwards advocated by Schmidt1.
It is, however, ably refuted by Reland and
Scheutzer. We will state some of the arguments
which induce us to retain the received interpreta
tion, from which any one may judge of the case.
It is expressly said that " he drank of the brook,"
and had the strangers brought him food, they
might as well have furnished him with water, and
thus it would not have been necessary for him to
have removed when the brook was dried up. Again,
Ahab " took an oath of the kingdom and nation,"
that they were ignorant of the place of his con
cealment, and some one out of a tribe, we may
suppose it probable, would have delivered him up,
seeing that they could gain nothing by his con
cealment, and had every thing to fear from detec
tion. If we come to verbal criticism, we find
that the word is precisely the same with that most
properly rendered ' raven,' in Genesis, when Noah
sends a bird out of the ark. Michaelis, in pro
posing a question to Niebuhr, says of the oreb,
' II est decide" que c'est le corbeau ; il seroit done
superflu de le demander2.'
1 See his Dissertation, Elias Corvorum alum. Altorf. 1718.
2 In his ' Recueil de Questions,' before referred to. If the
reader be an oriental scholar, he will recognise the guttural
pronunciation in the word i_.-Oj.c- ghareb (but it is written
in Hebrew 2T|_:), perhaps intended slightly to imitate the
raven's note.

94 THE MIRACLES OF ELIJAH.
Though we are desirous of illustrating truth,
we are not anxious to multiply miracles. The
editor of Calmet has suggested that the spot was
mountainous and secluded, that probably a number
of these voracious birds had built their nests
there, and that the prophet partook of what they
brought, not for the purpose of feeding him,
but for the support of their own offspring.
Hence a special, not a miraculous interference,
is necessary. On moving to Sarepta* the manner of his
support was undoubtedly miraculous. The widow
previously assured him that her cake was to be
her last meal, and the very necessity of his re
moving to Sarepta proved that he had no means
of supplying her with meal and oil unknown to
herself. She believed the word of the prophet,
and her faith was miraculously rewarded. Again,
her son was really dead, before Elijah recovered
him ; it was no case of suspended animation ;
otherwise, admitting the honesty of the prophet,
he would not hare used the prayer, " O Lord my
God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow
with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?" "O
Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul
come in to him again" " And the Lord heard
the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came
into him again, and he revived1."
1 1 Kings, xvii. 20—22.

THE MIRACLES OF ELIJAH. 95
We are now brought to the period of that
transcendant exhibition of Jehovah's sovereignty
for which Elijah appears to have been called to
the prophetic office. He demanded, and obtained,
a public assembly of the people, to put to the test
the authority of the two religions — that of Jehovah
and that of Baal. Elijah stood alone. Every
precaution was taken on either side to prevent
deception. The God of Israel was proved to be the
true God. That ingenious wit, the fame of whose
sophistry once filled all Europe with amazement,
Voltaire, conceived that he had quite overthrown
men's belief in this splendid miracle by demand
ing, Whence eould Elijah obtain that supply of
water with which he thrice drenched the burnt
sacrifice, and with which he filled the trench round
about the altar, since there had been no rain for
the space of more than three years. In his self-
complacency at his own sagacity, he overlooked
the unimportant circumstance that Mount Carmel
is washed by the waves of the Mediterranean.
There is no impugning the occurrence of the
event — the thing was not done in a corner. If the
effect be ascribed to lightning, then the miracle
consists in the timing of the thunderstorm, and still
it is as miraculous as before. Elijah could not have
counted upon sueh a storm ; the chances were
equal in favor of the worshippers of Baal. It is
difficult, however, to explain how ordinary light
ning could produce the effects described, for we

96 THE MIRACLES OF ELIJAH.
read, "And the fire of the Lord fell, and con
sumed the burnt-sacrifice, and the wood, and the
stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that
was in the trench1." But the subsequent events
prove the reality of the miracle. What effect had
it on the people ? " And when all the people saw
it, they fell on their faces and said, The Lord he
is God, the Lord he is God. And Elijah said
unto them, Take the prophets of Baal : let not
one of them escape. And they took them: and
Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon,
and slew them there." They could judge of
the ordinary effects of a storm, yet such a sup
position seems never to have occurred to them,
for they assisted Elijah in the destruction
of the priests of Baal.
After this event, the famine instantly ceased,
because the object for which it was sent was
accomplished. The public ministry, too, of the
triumphant servant of Jehovah, was nearly at an
end. His mantle was soon cast on Elisha, and
himself removed by miracle from citizenship with
the earth's inhabitants. This we have previously
noticed ; nor will our limits allow a more length
ened discussion. The same reason urges us to
pass over the other miracles of Elijah, as well as
those of his successor, which will admit of the
application of the same kind of argument.
1 1 Kings, xviii. 38, 39, 40.

JONAH. 97
The concise and unvarnished story of the son
of Amittai has excited the ridicule, without exer
cising the judgement, of the modern school of
wisdom. Continental writers seem intent only
upon framing hypotheses by which every thing
miraculous may be evaded, and completely ab
solve themselves from the necessity of even stating
the received opinion of the orthodox churches.
As an instance of this, we may observe, that
though at the head of the half 'century of vo
lumes ' Upon this short prophecy, whose titles are
transcribed, and whose contents are sometimes
quoted, by the diligent Rosenmuller, stands that
of Martin Luther; yet he has not given us any
quotation from his writings, or any opportunity
of judging of his sentiments.
The first objection is against the general pro
bability of the event. Jonah, and Jonah's God,
were strangers to the Ninevites. What then is
the probable reception that he would meet with?
rather that of a madman than that of a prophet,
if he were unprovided with miraculous creden
tials. Objectors are consistent in denying the
probability of the history, if they deny the mira
culous part of it. More than a century ago
Herman von der Hardt gave the event a sym
bolical interpretation: the whole story according
to him is an allegory fraught with instruction only
to the initiated. Jonah, is Manasseh — the ship,
the Jewish state— the shipwreck, the oppression
G

98 JONAH.
of the kingdom of Assyria— the being cast into
the sea, and remaining in the fish's belly, is his
being carried captive and afterwards liberated.
A divine of Goettingen conceives that the fish
by which Jonah was preserved was only a vessel
on which a ship was painted, 'quemadmodum
Chimarri navis, Plutarcho teste, in prora leonis,
et in puppi draconis imaginem gessit.' A second
of Wittenberg seems to think that the miracle
will be avoided by first killing the animal, and
therefore supposes it dead, and that Jonah took
convenient shelter in it's carcass for a few nights
till the storm was over. A third of Bonn selects
a portion of the story to suit the narrow dimen
sions of the creed which he has adopted for his
own use, and calmly pronounces the rest to be
fable. While a fourth1 supposes the whole cir-
1 One H. A. Grimm, Theologus Duisburgensis, to whom
Rosenmiiller, as usual, seriously applies the term ' Vir Doctis
simus.' I transcribe with reluctance the passage in which he
gives us an opportunity of judging of it's aptness. ' Ex ejus
sententia Jonas ad proficiscendum Niniven et adhortandos
hujus urbis cives ad vitae morumque emendationem semet
ejccitatum sensit. Attamen simul varias difficultates super-
andas, multos labores subeundos, et hominum, omnibus scele-
fibus indulgentium, contumaciam metuendam, animo revolvit;
quae omnia, ut longum iter maritimum suscipiendo internum
istum impulsum restingueret, ipsum moverunt. Qua in navi-
gatione procella exorta metum ei incussit. Quum vero, ut sit
subinde, anxietatem somnus sequeretur, Jonas in navi interiori
obdormivit. Meditatio de eo, quod ausus esset, somnium pepe-
rit, quod a cap. i. 6. ad cap. hi. 21. usque describitur. Quibus
admissis Jonas a pisce non deglutitus, sed hoc somnianti acci.

JONAH. 99
cumstance of the fish to be his dream on board
the vessel. Another class make no scruple in
suggesting hypotheses which totally set aside the
inspiration of the book. Fond of displaying
their erudition by collecting fragments of classi
cal literature, they see in the subject nothing
but a slight improvement upon the tales of Her
cules and such like heroes ; forgetting that the
probabilities are more in favor of the Greeks
adopting the story from the Phoenicians, than
.the Phoenicians from the Greeks.
Thus much for the detail of the conflicting
conjectures of our adversaries, all of whom seem
to have disregarded the allusion made to this
subject by both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke,
writers whom such men seldom think it worth
their while to consult. These allusions occur in
Matt. xii. 39, and Luke xi. 29, passages which
are familiar as household words to our English
commentators. In the former of these, the fact
of Jonah's being in the belly of the fish is dis-
dere visum est. Nihilo minus tamen hoc somnium eum ad
iter Nineviticum continuandum promtum reddidit. Ad urbem
quum pervenisset hortatus est cives, ut ad frugem redeant,
adjectis minis de urbe, nisi eorum mores corrigerentur, interim
tura. Quae comminationes resipiscentibus Ninevitis quum
irritae fierent, Jonas succensuit. Repetita tamen ea de se
instituta cogitatione quum intellexerit, suum iter Ninevitis
salutare fuisse, animum turbatum sedavit. Haec Grimmianae
explicationis sumraa.' Rosenmiiller, Vol. n. of Part vii: p. 330.
Ed. 1827-

100 JONAH.
tinctly asserted, and the manner in which the
event was to be "a sign" to the Jews instantly
. explains every difficulty. Understanding the anti
type we can readily explain the type. Our Lord
was buried and rose again, and the three thou
sand that were converted by the preaching of
Saint Peter knew the miraculous nature of the
resurrection and believed. Jonah was three days
in the fish's belly, and the Ninevites knowing
the miraculous manner of his deliverance from
shipwreck, were convinced of his divine mission,
and believed it and obeyed1. Without admitting
the miracle, the fact that the Ninevites, from
the king on the throne to the meanest subject,
fasted and clothed themselves in sackcloth and
ashes, is inexplicable. Like Moses and Elijah
and Elisha, he must have brought credentials of
his having been a true1 prophet of Jehovah, and
such credentials must have been miraculous. This
conclusion cannot be avoided without denying
the inspiration of the prophecy. But by all who
value; our Saviour's testimony to the integrity of
the Jewish canon, such an implication would be
instantly rejected. Twice Saint Matthew alludes
to the same sign; a proof of it's importance, and
of it's being strictly parallel to the case of our
Saviour's resurrection.

1 This repentance of the people of Nineveh, Irenaeus
thinks (Adv. Haeres. lib. iii. cap. 22.) was intended to influ
ence the people of Israel.

JONAH. 101
The mention of 'a whale' need not disturb
our faith in the credibility of the narrative.
Whales were, indeed, probably unknown to the
Sacred Writers, and though Saint Matthew has
used the word /o/tos after the example of the
Seventy, (xii. 40) \ yet Bochart2 has decidedly
shown it to be the Kap-^apia^ of Linnaeus, the
shark with which that coast abounds3. Grotius,
Huet, and Bochart, have given it as their opi
nion, that the story of Hercules mentioned by
Lycophron4 was derived from this occurrence : and
in confirmation of this We may add, that we have
somewhere seen a passage quoted from iEneas
Gazaeus, in which the same word kijtos which is
used by the Seventy and Saint Matthew, is em
ployed to denote the Kap^apos kvwv of Lycophron.
Upon these grounds then we pronounce with
confidence, that to admit the two facts of the
prophesying of Jonah, and the repentance of the
Ninevites, and yet to deny his miraculous pre
servation, is to render the history at once nuga
tory and incredible.
1 It occurs, too, in the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus,
xiii. 25, and in the Song of 'The three Children,' -ver. 57-
2 See an interesting disquisition in his Hieroz. Part n.
lib. v. cap. xii. Vol. m. p. 688, et seq.
3 We have the testimony of Aelian (Hist. Animal, lib. i.
cap. 55.) and-of several moderns, that the throat of this enor
mous fish could contain a man with ease.
4 -rpieo-irepov XeovroK, ov nore yvddoi?
TpiTaivoi tj/jidXe^e Kapxapos kvuv. Cassandra, vs. 33, 34.

102 THE MIRACLES IN DANIEL.
Some miracles in the book of Daniel yet
remain for our consideration. Containing as it
does within itself so many testimonies to it's
truth and inspiration, we shall assume that the
labors of the pious and the learned, have fully
and unanswerably settled the question of it's
authenticity. The prophet is; first introduced to us as hav
ing "understanding in all visions and dreams,"
a character which we may allow our adversaries
to call suspicious, since the claims to it have been
often both unfounded and ridiculous. But it is
no mark of wisdom to deny any thing to be
genuine, because much may be counterfeit. The
very first opportunity which was afforded Daniel
of exercising his professed supernatural wisdom,
was well calculated to detect his imposture, or to
confirm his pretensions. The monarch of Baby
lon dreamt a dream which troubled him, — on
waking he had entirely forgotten it's import, and
he demanded of his magicians to declare the
dream itself, as well as it's interpretation. It
was indeed "a rare thing which the king
required1." The Chaldeans justly exclaimed
against the extravagance of the demand. They
unanimously answered "there is not a man upon
the earth that can shew the king's matter," yet
this impossibility Daniel had the hardihood to*
attempt. He succeeded, and his success can
1 Chap, ii, ver, 11.

THE MIRACLES IN DANIEL. 103
only be attributed to the Lord his God afford
ing him miraculous wisdom. The circumstances
of the case preclude all idea of deception; for
the monarch who had ordered the destruction of
his own wise men, would have had less mercy
on a captive impostor. Nor can it be said
that he outwitted his rivals. There is no com
parison between the difficulty of interpreting a
dream, and discovering a dream : human wisdom
may effect the former plausibly, but Divine wis
dom alone can perform the latter effectually. No
happy guess, no subtle ingenuity, could have dis
closed the secrets of the monarch's breast. Na
tural causes completely fail to account for this
strange event, and we have no alternative but
to bow to the declaration that "the secret was
revealed unto Daniel in a night vision."
The consequence of the prophet's success is
the promotion of himself and three friends to
high stations in the government of the state.
The setting up of an image on the plains of
Dura, caused another event which had a miracu
lous appearance. Three men are cast into "a
burning fiery furnace," and come out again un
injured by the fire. The reality of the heat is
proved by the flame destroying the men who
cast the Israelites into it. The king watched
them with anxiety, and his astonishment affords
another proof of the miraculous nature of the
transaction. The men went in bound, they came

104 THE^ MIRACLES IN DANIEL.
out loosed, and the chief men of the nation ex
amined them; the princes, and governors, and
captains, and king's counsellors, men most opposed
to these plebeian rivals of their honors, were all
compelled by the evidence of their senses to pro
nounce that the fire had no power over them.
Any idea of their being prepared against such
a punishment, or that any preparation, if resorted
to, would have been of any avail, is quite out
of the question. Their aid then, was from
above, and Nebuchadnezzar's conclusion was cor
rect, "there is no other God which can deliver
after this sort."
Whether or not there was actually a fourth
person with the three young men, we leave to
others to decide, since no such assertion is made.
Nebuchadnezzar in his astonishment supposed so ;
and likened the fourth to the son of (a) God,
as it should be rendered. The simplicity, how
ever of the narrative is not interrupted either to
confirm or confute this supposition.
The preservation of Daniel in the den of lions
is an event of a slightly different character from
that of discovering the king's dream; the former
is within the limits of possibility, though not
of probability, without Divine interference, the
latter is beyond human power. His own account
of the event is, that God sent his angel to shut
the lions' mouths, but as this may be a phrase
implying only providential interference, we need

THE MIRACLES IN DANIEL. 105
not press it's miraculous character further than
the probabilities of the case will bear it out. The
only natural cause that can be assigned for the
forbearance of the lions is, that they were not
fierce because they were not hungry. But the
untruth of any such supposition we learn from the
twenty-fourth verse of the chapter in which the
occurrence is narrated (the xith). "And the king
commanded, and they brought those men which
had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the
den of lions, them, their children, and their wives :
and the lions had the mastery of them, and break
all their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the
bottom of the den." The monarch, too, seems
to have thought it a miracle, for in his decree
he exhorts all his subjects to fear and tremble
before the God of Daniel, who "worketh signs
and wonders in heaven and earth, who delivered
Daniel from the power of the lions."
The hand writing on the palace wall, on that
celebrated night of merriment and disaster, was
strictly miraculous. It's awful character consisted
but in a part of the hand being seen. The as
trologers were unable to read the writing, but
as Daniel was proved capable of discovering the
dream, in the one case, so we may conclude that
he had the same assistance in decyphering the
writing in the other. The interpretation speci
fied no vague and distant event; "in that
night" the mysterious prediction was accom-

106 CONCLUSION.
plished. The circumstances were such that no
one could be concealed while the hand was
displayed: it was done in a monarch's ban
queting room, surrounded by the splendor of
innumerable lights. No human art can bring
every thing to bear so completely, that the
manner of writing should be apparently miracu
lous, the words written should be unknown to
all but one man, and that the writing itself
should predict an event so antecedently impro
bable, yet so instantly to take place. The futility
of every rational explanation by natural causes
must again be evident, and the reader who has
followed us thus far with any interest will readily
ascribe the whole occurrence to the direct agency
of Almighty power.

Having selected a few from each of the three
classes, under which for the sake of convenience,
we have arranged the miracles of the Old Testa-
merit, we deem it a task little profitable to examine
any more of the objections which abound in the
works of the German school, most of which are
apparently made in the same pure wantonness of
perversity. Happily for our space, the subject
requires no summing up: and we can only admit
a few explanatory and general remarks in con
clusion.

CONCLUSION. 107
We have not touched upon any of the mira
cles narrated in the New Testament, (1) because
a satisfactory, though slight, examination of them,
would have extended the limits of our Essay to
an inconvenient length; (2) because they have
been so often and so ably discussed already by
many learned men, and (3) because the argu
ments brought against them are of so different
a character, that any such examination would
have destroyed that unity which it is so essential
to preserve. It may have appeared to some perhaps, that
we have not laid sufficient stress upon the literal,
(and the true) sense of such expressions as "the
Lord said," "the Lord appeared," &c. but of
whatever force they may be when applied in argu
ment with those who believe in the plenary inspira
tion of Holy Writ, it should be remembered that
with German Rationalists, and with men who have
imbibed their spirit, they carry no weight. For
any one who has read the most popular of their
received works, or even their theological peri
odical literature, which assumes an importance
in that country far beyond similar works in
our own, will have discovered that candour and
caution in the interpretation of Scripture, or a
reverence for it's most express declarations, when
they coincide not with anterior opinions, are not
ingredients in the character of a German Neolo-
gian. As a proof of this we refer to the 'Institu-

108 CONCLUSION.
tions1' of Dr, Wegscheider (which the Rationalists
themselves allow to be good authority) and as to
the periodical literature, the " Allgemeine Kir-
chenzeitung," will furnish a more than sufficiency
of evidence. For example, Wegscheider considers
every appearance of an angel, every "voice of the
Lord," as a mythus ; and seems to be of opinion,
that before we can arrive at truth in the study of
the Bible, we must strip off from almost every fact
a thick coating of mythic and poetic ornament2.
And of his school are Eckermann, and Henke,
and De Wette, and Paulus. They think too,
that miracles are only (in the Biblical sense)
1 A work dedicated ' Piis Manibus Martini Lutheri,' whom
he claims as a Rationalist. See p. 59- It is not venturing
much to assert, that Luther would have protested against the
doctrines of a Wegscheider.
2 See his forty-second chapter. ' ' AyyeXoQaveLat, quas
Rabbini seriores pro Dei ipsius apparitionibus substituerunt
(Acts vii. 53. Gal. iii. 19. Hebr. ii. 2), sicut narrationes de
daemonibus apparentibus, apud plerasque gentes repertae
certis historiae fundamentis plane destitutae sunt, et nomina,
species ac mandata, quae Angelis in libris ss. attribuuntur,
originem Judaicam aperte produnt; negotia vero, ab Angelis
in terris peracta, talibus ministris parum digna sunt (v. Gen.
xviii. Jud. xiii. 3. ss. Gen. xxxii. 1, 2. Num. xxii. 22. ss. al.),
nee postea ubi dignior tali vindice nodus exstitit, unquam
repetita. Voces coelestes, quarum rarissima quidem est mentio,
plerumque ex audito varieque explicato tonitruum fragore
interpretandas esse, satis luculenter apparet e locis quibusdam
biblicis aliarumque priscarum gentium opinionibus similibus.
Somriia et visiones, quae psychologiae luce optime collustrantur,
et falsis prophetis adscribuntur (Jer. xiv. 14. xxiii. 16. xxix. 8.
Sir. xxxiv. 19)'nec ulla veritatis indicia habent.' I have tran
scribed the passage with it's errors, and without it's notes.

CONCLUSION. 109
extraordinary circumstances calculated to excite
belief, that they cannot be reconciled with the
moral perfections of the Deity, and that a belief
in them is prejudicial to virtue1. But how little
attention such opinions deserve will be evident
when we remember that the same system has
led them to doubt the death of Christ, and His
ascension ; and has induced them to treat at least
with indifference the Godhead of Christ and His
atonement, and, of consequence, all the grand
doctrines of Christianity.
Our definition of a miracle was purposely
intended to give our opponents every possible
advantage. We allow them the full benefit of
the boasted discoveries of modern science, and
yet we trust that we have shown that there
are many events recorded in Holy Writ, which
we cannot bring under the controul of Nature's
laws, and have clearly proved the important
proposition, that if the occurrence of the events
recorded by the Old Testament writers be al
lowed, then, in numerous instances, we must
admit the special interposition of Deity. Inspi
ration once admitted supernatural agency must
also be acknowledged. Though such men as
Gesenius and Rosehmuller may boldly reject
some portion of the Sacred Canon, we cannot
but adhere to the opinion of St. Paul, that "all
Scripture is given by the inspiration of God."
1 See Appendix I.

110 CONCLUSION.
What he meant by the term Scripture may easily
be ascertained by recollecting that the passage
occurs in a letter written to Timothy, who was
well educated in the Jewish writings.
Highly as we value the hermeneutical dis
coveries and extensive research of many conti
nental critics, yet we cannot but avow our utter
detestation of their system of interpretation. If
our efforts have, in any degree, displayed it's true
character, and stripped it. of it's learned appearance,
we shall deem that we have done some slight ser
vice to the cause of the old orthodox faith. We
see existing a class of liberal writers who seem to
consider the study of divinity as naturally incom
patible with the pursuit of literature and science,
and represent the Rationalism of Germany as
effecting a reconciliation between them. It has
been said in a work whose circulation entitles
it to notice, that 'the German theologians,
whatever may be thought of their orthodoxy when
they are measured by another standard than their
own, are entitled to our sincere admiration, for
their learning, ingenuity, and good intentions;
and they have rendered the best service, by recon
ciling the study of Divinity with the inquiring
spirit of the present age.' The whole of our dis
cussion will show the unfairness of measuring these
men by their own standard. Far from despising
the showy things of genius, or the solid things of
learning, we know nothing more dangerous than

CONCLUSION. HI
a prostituted erudition, and a perverted ingenuity.
We are not of those who are led away by the
vaunted improvements of 'the present age in
matters of theology.' We look back with vene
ration to the times of Pearson, and Taylor, and
Tillotson, and Barrow. Dwelling on the labors
of such men, we are unable to perceive that the
study of divinity needs reconciling to the spirit
of any age, much less to the morbid taste of
misguided critics, or the fanciful conjectures of
mistaken expositors.
But perhaps we have been treating the frivo
lous theories of sueh men more seriously than they
deserve. We are well aware that in Germany new
speculations are seldom intended to last beyond the
year of their production, and strangers are often
surprised to find celebrated paradoxes approved
one year, out of fashion the next. No writer
anxious of fame, can venture to rest his preten
sions on any single work however extraordinary,
and he is consequently obliged to be ever ready
with a large assortment of striking novelties.
But finally, in any remarks which the bold
ness, or blindness, of our sceptical opponents may
have Compelled us to make, we would not be
Understood as at all depreciating the application
of learning, industry, or a spirit of sober, and
reverent inquiry, to Scriptural matters. Far from
it. The man who forbids us to apply our under-

112 CONCLUSION.
standing to the investigation of revealed truth,
insults the character of God, as though his acts
shrunk from scrutiny, degrades his own powers
which are then best employed when engaged in
the pursuit of such sublime and interesting ob
jects,, and misrepresents, because he misunder
stands the nature of the evidence for Divine
Revelation. A blind acquiescence in received
opinions is required as a duty only by supersti
tion and imposture. Genuine Christianity dis
dains the lurking artifices of deceit, and founds her
empire no less upon the allegiance of the under
standing, than upon the subjugation of the passions.
Revelation, however, is a thing that must not be
lightly dealt with. All discussions upon writings
which profess to be inspired, (since they are sup
ported by a weight of external evidence irresisti
ble to all candid minds,) should not be treated
with , levity or disrespect. They demand, and
they deserve, „ patient and sober investigation.
When their . pretensions are demonstrated to be
false — when their long contested and unshaken
evidences are destroyed — when the professed spirit
of truth which pervades every part of them is
proved to be a delusion, and they stand forth
before, the world convicted of being but "cunningly
devised fables," then let them be treated with the
contempt which they would deserve. But till
then a spirit of cavil and irreverence is not the
spirit in which they should be studied or written
of: nor is it consistent with common decency

CONCLUSION. 113
when employed in the investigation of writings
whose authority has been bowed to as supreme by
the wise and the good of past generations. Too
often have we had to complain of such a spirit
being manifested in the works to which we have
had occasion to refer. 'Their tendency, to speak
mildly of them, is at least sceptical. They
always evince a constant disposition to dispense
with Divine agency whenever a secondary cause
can be suggested with any plausibility, and
often (as we have seen) without any plausibility
whatever — to obliterate, as far as may be, the
prominent features of distinction between God's
peculiar people, and the general mass of man
kind — to humanize, if the expression may be
allowed, a history which is utterly incredible
and inconsistent on human principles. The
inspired Scriptures are habitually treated as if they
were a mere portion of Oriental literature : there
is as little ceremony used in questioning the accu
racy of the narrative, in insinuating liability to
error, or adopting what may appear a preferable
solution, as if the works of some profane historian
were the subject of discussion, rather than the
word of the living God1.' Yet even in these
attempts they are scarcely entitled to Bishop
Lowth's questionable compliment of being 'better
at pulling down, than at building up .' This lament
able departure from orthodox principles is not to
be attributed to any want of learning or sagacity,
1 Dr. Fausset's Sermon, before noticed.
H

114 CONCLUSION.
but chiefly to the absence of a teachable and candid
disposition which seeks not to accommodate Scrip*
ture to some fanciful and fondly cherished theory,
but to bring every scheme and every speculation
" to the law and to the testimony."
We deem it impossible for any candid mind
to peruse with attention the authentic history
of God's chosen people without oftentimes recog
nizing the sensible interposition of that same
Almighty power which "in the beginning" ena
melled with worlds of wondrous workmanship
the infinite spreadings of space. Without
calling in the agency of Omnipotence the whole
is dark and unintelligible. And even after all
that has been written, there are yet many things
that we cannot explain — many things for the per
fect understanding of which we must await the
revealments of another day. Nor is this any
objection against the truth of the inspired volume,
but rather in its favor, since that which a man
has devised, a man may comprehend. It is
doubtless wisely ordered that we might have
some trials for the pride of the intellect, as well
as for the lust of the flesh. And therefore we
would always remind our opponents, that their
true emblem should be the archangel, who as
he towers loftiest in intellectual glory, bends
lowliest in reverential homage.
THE END.

APPENDIX.

I subjoin two Extracts from approved German
works, in order more fully to justify the remarks which
I have ventured to make on that school, and to exhibit
the opinions which are held by men whose diligence
alone entitles them to attention, on the two subjects
which the benevolent founder of this Essay has specified
as of peculiar importance. The first is from Doctor
Wegscheider's ' Institutions Theologiae Christianae,'
section 49, p. 181, fifth edition, 1826. The second is
from Doctor Amnion's < Summa Theologiae Christianae,'
section 13, p. 26, third edition, 1816. I may be told
that Doctor Amnion has renounced Rationalism, and
that therefore I ought not to make an extract from
his book. But as I find his works referred to, or
quoted, more than one hundred times in the single
volume of Wegscheider, I may, perhaps, without the
charge of unfairness, be allowed the use of a passage
which has the peculiar recommendation of condensing
a greater quantity of Rationalism within a smaller space
than any other which I can remember.

H 2

116 DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES.
I.
De Miraculis. Epicrisis.
Praeterquam quod doctrinae illi de miraculis scholasticae
repugnat turn indoles mentis humanae, certissimis experientiae
legibus necessario adstricta, nee certas indubitatasque efKcaciae
supernaturalis notas discernens (§. 11.*), turn ipsa idea Dei
recte informata (§. 12.), haud minus eidem adversatur historia
populi cujusque inculti, et eo ipso ad prodigia fingenda et cre-
denda proclivioris, miraculis referta*, quae artium et doctri-
a Cic. de divinat. II. 28. ' Quidquid oritur, qualecunque est, causam a
natura habeat necesse est, ut etiam, si praeter consuetudinem extiterit, praeter
naturam tamen non possit exsistere. Causam igitur investigato in re nova
et admirabili, si potes. Si nullam reperies, illud tamen exploratum habeto,
nihil fieri potuisse sine causa, eumque errorem, quem tibi rei novitas attulerit,
naturae ratione depellito.' Ammon Bill. Theol. II. 342 ss. Si Pharisae-
orum discipuli, aeque ac ipse religionis Chr. auctor, daemones ejiciebant
(Matth. 12, 27. Luc. 11, 19.), nullo modo dignosci poterat, quinam efFectus
a supernaturali, qui a naturali perpenderit causa ; unde non adeo reprehendendi
sunt Judaei, qui, ut miraculorum ab Jesu patratorum originem vere divinam
cognoscerent, arifieiov aliquod d/c tov oiipavov sibi poscerent. (Luc. 11, 16.)
Similiter Magi Aegyptiaci miracula patravisse perhibentur, haud fere minora,
quam quae Moses perfecisse traditur. (Ex. 7, 11 ss.)
b C. Th. Anton Prr. Comparationis librorum ss. V. F. et scriptorum
profanorum graecor. latinorumque eum in finem institutae, ut similitudo, quae
inter utrosque deprehenditur, clarius appareat, Partes VII. Goil. 1816  21. 4.
P. IV ss. Kaiser Bill. Theol. I. 189 ss., ubi aliorum populorum de miraculis
commenta enarrantur. Dijudieentur prae aliis miracula Vespaslani secun
dum Taciturn Hist. IV. 81. et Sueton. Vesp. c. 7- coll. Lactant. Institt.
div. II. 7 ss., Apollonii Tyanaei secundum Philostratum Vita Apoll.,
Lactant. V. 3., Euseb. u. Hieroclem (v. Appollonius, von Buhle, in
Ersch u. Gruber Encyklop. B. IV.), Muhammedis (Abulfedae Vita
Moham. Oxon. 1723. p. 89.), Parisii (Henke Kirchengesch. V. 129 ss.).
De Judaeis ad miracula, cujusmodi Messiae potissimum tribuebant (Jo. 7, 31.),
fingenda prodivioribus v. Matth. 9, 20. 21. Marc. 6, 49. Act. 5, 15. 19, 12.
Add. evv. apocrypha in Fabricii Codice apocr. N. T. Hamb. 1719. T. III.
collecta, cujus novam editionem parat J. C. Thilo, V. CI. (§. 35. a.) 
Herder Chr. Schriften. II. 96 ss — De Graecis Act. 14, 12 ss. 17, 22. 19,
35 ss. Heyne Op. acad. HI. 207 — De incolis Syriae recentioribus Volney
Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte. II. 22. 29. 453 — De portentis a Magnetismi
animalis fautoribus nuper jactatis recte dijudicandis v. C. H. Pfaff Ueb.
u. gegen d. thier. Magnetismus u. die jetzt vorherrschende Tendenz auf dem
Grbicte desscVn-n. Hamb. 1817 — De miraculis rustici cujusdam, Martini

DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES. 117
narum progressu et causarum intermediarum cognitione ampli-
ficata evanescunt ; quemadmodum spectra et larvas evanuisse
videmus, ex quo tempore homines ,ea vel fingere vel credere
desierunt ; deinde ipsarum narrationum miraculosarum forma,
in quibus partim fides testium desideratur, qui vel res vere
factas et judicium suum de iis in narrando confundentes0, vel
traditionem sequentes (cf. inprimis narrationes de creatione
mundi, de nativitate Jesu et de quibusdam irepia-Tdaevi mortis
ejus Luc. 2, 8 ss. Matth. 27, 51 ss.), mythos (§. 42.) referunt,
partim eventus narrantur ab ipsis naturae legibus nihil abhor-
rentes d- Aperte denique ipsi scriptores ss. profitentur, discri-
mine quidem haud facto inter miracula vera et falsa, turn
doctrinae veritatem non pendere a miraculorum auctoritate
(Deut. 13, 1 ss. Matth. 12, 27- 24, 24. Mc. 13, 22. Luc. 9, 49-
11, 19. Gal. 1, 8. 2 Thess. 2, 9., add. Matth. 11, 11. Luc. 16,
27 ss. Jo. 14, 10 ss. 20, 29.), ac de ilia prius constare debere,
quam de miraculo judicari plene ac tuto possite, turn ipsa
Michel, et principis de Hohenlohe nuper falso ostentatis v. prae ceteris
Von Hornthal Darstellung d. Ereignisse lei d. v. F. v. Hohenl. zu Bam-
lerg unternommenen Heilversuchen,izie sie sich in Wahrheit zutrugen. 1822.—
Paulus Sophronizon. B. IV. St. 2. p. 17 ss. Von psychischen Wtindern, nelst
Acten ill. eine offentl., unvorlereitete, lescheiden gewurdigte plotzliche
Heilung eines 8 Jahre lang contractor 26 fdhrigen Madchens zu Leonlerg im
Wiirtemb. lb. 66 ss. Beitr'dge zur richtigen Wurdigung des Somnamlulis-
mus u. animal. Magnetismus.
<= Gurlitt Or. de usu librorum ss. ad humanitatem et omnem doctrinam
liberalem excolendam vario et multiplici. Hamb. 1803. p. 30. Krum-
macher Ueb. d. Geist u. d. Form der ev. Geschichte. L. 1805. 86 ss. Briefe
ub. d. Rationalismus. 338 ss. 343 ss. 355 ss.—Cic. de divinat. II. 11.
'Philosophi non est, testibus uti;_argumentis eum et rationibus oportet,
quare quidque ita sit, docere.'
¦' Exod 15 25. cf. Sir. 38, 5. Michaelis Orient. Bill. B. V. p. 51. et
interpp -Ex. 13,21. 22. coll. Curt. Ruf. V. 2. De Wette Kritik i. israelii.
Gesch.l. 206-Ex. 16.-Jud. 15, 15 ss. coll. Ioseph. Arch. V. 10._Matth.
9 18-26. Luc. 8, 27-35. Marc. 8, 22 ss. Jo. 1, 50. 9, 6. 1-Briefe nl. den
Rationalismus. 215 ss. Nonnullis miraculorum narrationibus certa insunt
documenta, quae naturalem effectum produnt, v. c. Matth. 9, 24. Jo. 9, b. 7-
e Morus Epit. Th. Chr. 28. Similiter Gerhardus : 'miracula mquit,
si non habuerint doctrinae veritatem conjunctam, nihil probant Loci fl
XII. 107. Ammon Ausf. Unterr. in d. Chr. Glaulensl. I. 199. /*
mcksicht der Beweiskraft der Wunder leuchtet ein, dass cimnnerer otter
Realnexus zwischen Wahrheit und Wundern ulerall mcht stattfindet
Wahrheit ist die Uebereinstimmmg einer Lehre mit der Vernunft, und beruht

118 DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES.
Jesu Christi Apostolorumque facta mirabilia, quae ad sanandos
hominum morbos potissimum pertinueruntf, Jesu ipso teste a
popularibus similiter effecta (Luc. 11, 19. Jo. 14, 12.), ne
spectatorum quidem excitasse fidem, adeo, ut potius incre-
dulitatem eorum fovendo (Matth. 16, 1. 21, 23. Marc. 8, 11,
Jo. 6, 11 ss. 30. 7, 5. 11, 46 ss.) (a qua ne Apostoli quidem
plane immunes fuere, quippe quibus ipsis Jesu miracula certain
fiduciam facere haud valuerint, v. Luc. 24, 21 ss.), vel ad

auffreier Uelerzeugung. Wunder hingegen sind aussere Thatsachen, uler
deren Wesen und Natur man streitet. Das Eine kann dadurch nicht wahr
werden, dass etwas Andcres geschieht, oder geschehen seyn soil.' ['With regard
to the evidence which miracles afford, it is evident that an inward or essential
connexion between truth and miracles does not everywhere take place. Truth
is the harmony of a doctrine with reason, and rests on free conviction. Mira
cles, on the contrary, are external facts, whose property and nature is disputed.
The one cannot become true, merely because something else takes place, or
is supposed to take place.'] Schleiermacher Der Chr. Glaule. I. p. 116.
' Wunder, als Erscheinungen im Geliete der Natur, welche aler nicht auf
naturliche Weise sollen bewirkt warden seyn~k'6nnen an sich gar keinen Beweis
liefern. Denn eines Theils erzdhlt die h. Schrift selbst Wunder von solchen,
•welche dem Christenthum gar nicht angehoren, sondern eher zu dessen Gegnern
zu z'dhlen sind, und dennoch gilt sie kein Kennzeichen an, um wahre und
falsche Wunder zu unterscheiden. Andern Theils legegnet uns ausser allem
Zusammenhang mit Offenlarung nur gar zu vieles, was wir nicht naturlich
zu erkl'dren vermogen; wir denken aber an kein Wunder, sondern schielen
nur die Erkl'drung auf bis zu einer genauern Kenntniss sowohl von der f rag-
lichen Thatsache, als auch von den Gesetzen der Natur.' [' Miracles in the
province of nature, but which are related not to have been worked in a natural
manner, can in themselves afford no proof at all. For in one part the Holy
Scriptures themselves narrate miracles performed by such as do not belong to
Christianity at all, but are rather to be reckoned among it's opponents, and
nevertheless points out no token by which to distinguish true from false mira
cles. In another we meet with too much quite unconnected with revelation
which we are not able to explain by natural causes . but we never think of a
miracle ; we put ofF the explanation till we have a more correct knowledge, as
well of the fact in question, as of the laws of nature.']
' Apud Israelitas non solum sacerdotes, id quod inter omnes populos
orientales usitatum fuit, artem medicam exercuisse, satis constat (Lev. 13.
Luc. 17, 14.), verum etiam prophetas (2 Reg. 2, 19 ss. 4, 21 ss. 5, 8.
Jes. 38.), et aetate Christi imprimis Essaeos. (Joseph. B. J. II. 8. 6.) Curt
Sprengel Diss, de medicina Ebraeorum. 1798. Ei. Pragmat. Gesch. d.
Heilkunde. H. 1800. I. 91 ss. II. 173 ss. 2. A. Ammon Bibl. Theol.
II. 341 s. A. Th. Hartmann Blicke in d. Geist d. Unchristenthums.
Dusseld. 1802. p. 149 ss. Bricfe tiler den Rationalismus. p. 215 ss. Ce-

DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES. 119
Jesum crucifigendum illos adducerent (Act. 2, 22 s.) ; neque
ullo modo cogitari potest, narrationes de istis miraculis post
complura secula ad certam persuasionem induendam ani-
mumque emendandum majorem vim habere posse, quam ipsa
ilia miracula apud eos, qui ea oculis cernebant, habuisse historia
testatur ; turn Jesum ipsum fidem miraculis excitandam strenue
repudiasse (Matth. 12, 39 s. 16, 1—4. Marc. 8, 12. Luc. 11, 29.
Jo. 2, 18. 19. 4, 48. 6, 39. 14, 12. Add. Marc. 5, 43. Luc. 8,
56.), quod quidem aliis ejusdem effatis haud bene convenit
v. c. Jo. 5, 36- 10, 25.— Mc. 5, 19. Accedit, quod persuasio de
veritate miraculorum, tanquam eventorum supernaturalium,
gravissima verae virtuti detrimenta affert ipsamque legis moralis
sanctitatem infringit*. Quibus recte examinatis, defendi potest,
quod quidem ad origines Judaicae et Christianae religionis per-
tinet, sola miraculorum notio ea, e notione eorum biblica (§. 46.)
eruenda, qua tanquam eventus cogitantur mirabiles, qui, Deo
moderante, ita comparati erant, ut spectators ad certam pro-
videntiae divinae efficaciam agnoscendam excitare eosque ad
fidem novae cujusdam religionis doctor! habendam invitare
possent. Ejusmodi miracula, quamvis aevo rudiore a superna-
turali et immediata Dei cooperatione repeterentur, e simphci
tamen naturali rerum ordine, Deo moderante, prodnsse, jam
dubitare non licet. Omnino miracula, de religionis Cfarutbanae
origine in N. T. libris relate, sive pro eventibus supernaturalibus
habueris sive pro effectis naturalibus, quae providentia divma
sapienter ita instituit, ut ad fines optimos consequendos condu-
cerent, ipso praeeunte Christo (Matth. 12, 38 ss. 16, 1-4.
Jo 4 48 7 17- 8, 31. 14, 11.), non tarn inter argument*
quam' inter incitement multitudes incultioris ad veritatem
cognoscendam, recte referuntur*. In institution popular!
„„„r„q,>riint non tam ab usu medicamentorum,
teIUm ^1 nolri^— in thaumaturgo coUocata. (Matth.
quamafiduciahormnum Jesum autem usum remediorum non
9, 22. 15,28. M»c. 5 34. 6 4 , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ,2
plane repudiasse, patet e Ma>*. 7, ^.^ Ju(Jaeosvid. Lu, „,
Paulus Kommentar. II. adn.l.
. t ,„ i<i_16. Joseph. Arch. Vlll. t. »•
' Inmr innerh. d. llossen Vernunft. 116 ss.
.Chrysostom-mpsalm.^^^^^ (Jo. 30, 29.) Her-
nf«'«' M«"""P«» y«P ° J~ 1 Niemeyer Briefe an Chr. Religionslehrer.
der Chr. Schriftcn.U. 25J ¦ „ 16 ss. Greiiing Das
j. 208 ss. Dahl Lehrl. J. HomUetth.

120 DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES.
narrationum biblicarum, quae miracula referunt, usus practicus
potius respici debet, quam vera rerum narratarum indoles,
eui explorandae, tot seculis praeterlapsis, frustra fere operam
dabimus '.
Lelen Jesu von Nazareth. H. 1813. 157 ss. Inprimis super hac §. consu-
lendus est Boehmii libellus : De miraculis enchiridion a philosopho theologis
exhibitum. Zw. 1805. et Ritter Revision d. Urtheile ill. Wunder u. Offenl.;
in Henke Mag. VII. Ammon Nova Opusc. Gott. 1803. De notione
miraculi. 173 ss. Bretschneider Handb. d. Dogmatik. I. 187. ' Eine
lesonnene Kritik der Wunder Jesu kann nie zu der Behauptung f'vhren, doss
Gott bei ihnen unmittelbar gewirkt habe, sondern gielt nur das Resultat, dass
Jesus wirklich durch eigene Kraft, die ihm von Gott in grosserem Maasse als
andern Menschen mitgetheilt •warden, seine Thaten verrichtet hale,um in einem
Zeitalter, das des Aeusserlichen, Ungewohnlichen und Wunderbaren zu seiner
Aufregung lednrfte, mit seinen Belehrungen Eingang zu finden. Da nun
diese ungewohnlichen Kr'dfte mit der Stiftung des Christenthums in offenbarer
Verbindung stehn ; so erscheint dieses dadurch als eine von der gottl. Vorse-
hung beabsichtigte Anstalt. Die Wunder Jesu bilden also keinen eigentlichen,
metaphysischen Beweit, sind aber doch geschickt, den Glaulen zu befestigen.
Bei dieser Ansicht vermeidet man nicht nur die Verlegenheiten, zu denen der
metaphysische Wunderlegriff fuhrt : sondern ist auch nicht genothigt, sick
angstlich an die Worte der Referenten der Wunder Jesu zu halten.' ['A
sober criticism of the miracles of Jesus can never lead one to maintain that God
himself effected them immediately, but gives only the result, that Jesus really
through his own power, which was imparted to him by God in a greater mea
sure than to other men, performed his achievements, in order to make disciples,
in an age which was in want of the external, the unusual, and the wonderful,
to arouse it. Since these unusual powers stand in manifest connexion with
the establishment of Christianity, it appears by these to be an institution planned
by Divine Providence. The miracles of Jesus, therefore, form no proper me
taphysical proof, but are nevertheless fitted to confirm faith. In this point of
view, one not only avoids the embarrassment to which the metaphysical idea of
miracles leads, but one is not necessitated to tie one's self so scrupulously to
the words of those who relate the miracles of Jesus.']
1 Studium miracula in bibliis ss. tradita ad effectus naturales revocandi,
quod institutioni quidem populari vel nunquam vel summa cum cautione
adhibeatur necesse est, monente ipso Reinhardo (Dogmat. 238.), per se
spectatum minime improbandum est, modo ne interpretandi quadam ratione
artificiosa et contorta, qualis theologis nonnullis placuit, isto negotio defun-
gamur. Cf. Heubner Diss. Miraculorum ab Evv. narratorum interpretatio
gr.-hist. asserta contra eos, qui e naturae causis ilia deducere conantur. Witt.
1807. 4. Distinguitur methodus miracula explicandi materialis, quam secuti
sunt Wools ton Discourses on the miracles of our Saviour. Lond. 1727. IV.
et Defense of his discourses. L. 1729. II., cunctas N. T. de miraculis narra-
tiones ad meras allegorias detorquens ; J. Ch. F. Eck Versuch, d. Wunder-
geschichten des N. T. natiirlich zu erkl'dren. B. 1795. ; ex parte Hartmann

DR. WEGSCHEIDER ON MIRACLES. 121
1- 1. 138 ss. Aus welchem Gesichtspunct hat man die Wundcrthaten Christi
»ni der Apostel zu betrachten; Paulus Hist. krit. Kommentar. Vol. IV.,
rhombus psychology saepius utens,_et formalis. (Bretschneider Syst.
%T t \ SmaU BCgr- 3- A- 255 ss0 Hanc «Bta* demonstravit Bauer
Hebr. Myihologie des A. u. N. T. et nuperrhne Kaiser Bill. Theol. 1.
195 ss. Ceterum quod rudiore et populo et aetate subnatum et inventum est,
nullam interpretationem admittit, nisi ab hominum rudiorum sensibus et
monbus ductam ; fidem itaque quaevis hujus generis mythorum interpretatio
subtilior aut mgeniosior sibi ipsa detrahit. Heyne Sermonis mythici inter
pretatio ad caussas et rationes ductasque inde regulas revocata. V. Commentt.
soc. Gotting. Vol. XVI. p. 306.— Lbffler Predigten. Bd. III. Ziillich.
1798. 2. A. 67 ss. Von d. rechten Beurtheilung u. Anwendung der Wunder.
baren u. Unlegreiflichen in d. heil. Schrift. In institutione populari, quum
argumentumilludnequeab Jesu,nequeab aequalibus ejus ad notionis miraculi
philosophicae subtilitatem revocatum sit, miracula in bibliis ss. tradita ita
commode explicantur, ut res narratae universe tanquam insigni et notabili Dei
providentia effectae appareant, et, ubi rei narratae vera indoles, sermone Ori.
entalium imaginibus referto et poetico bene explanato, facile perspici potuit,
haec ipsa indicetur, in narrationibus vero plane obscuris tractandis origines
earum ex aevo remotissimo eoque rudiore et ipsa manca et abrupta narrationis
indoles, tanquam obscuritatis causae notentur.
Miraculis, quae originem religionis Christianae supematuralem confirmare
dicuntur, adnumeratur narratio de Pauli Ap. conversione ad religionem Chr.
Act. 9, 1 ss. 22, 6 ss. 26, 12 ss. 1 Cor. 15, 8. (Bretschneider Handl. d.
Bogmat. I. 191 ss.), quae tamen ita comparata est, ut ad liquidum perduci
nequeat. Omnino in narratione ista explicanda haud omittendum est, Paulum
ad visiones vel ecstases propensiorem fuisse. V. Act. 22, 17 ss. 2 Cor. 12,
2. 4. cf. Act. 10, 10. Ezech. 1, 1 ss.

1221 DR. AMMON ON PROPHECY.
II.
Vaticinia.
Neque tamen sufficit, scriptoribus sacris tantum persuasum
fuisse de divinitate doctrinae; etiam supparibus aetate earn
probare debebant argumentis, cum externis, turn iniemis. Ad
ilia spectare putanturprimum vaticinia (Luc. XXIV, 44. Act.
II, 16 sq.), quae praedictiones esse perhibentur rerum futura-
'rum contingentium, quibus eventus respondit*- Liceat philo-
sophis, disputare, an cogitari et locum habere possint ejusmodi
divinationes1? Excussis oraculis sacris patet facile, praedicti
ones vere et proprie sic dictas a Christo ipso recusari (Matth.
XXIV, 36. Act. I, 7-), proptereaque in libris biblicis diserte
non occurrere0; vaticinia etiam ab ambiguae fidei hominibus
edita (Num. XXII, 5 sq. 1 Reg. XXII, 22. 2 Chron. XVIII,
13 sq^ 23.) i; multa eorum obscure concepta et eventu etiam
destitute (Jes. II, XVII. Joel. Ill, 3 sq.)e; alia, singulari tem-
porum illorum studio, post fortunam conflata videri (Jes. LII
sq. Dan. IX, 24 sq. Tob. XIV, 6 s. Matth. XXIII, 35.) f ;
a Episcopius instit. theol. 1. III. s. 4. c- !• b. Doederlinii institt. theol.
Christ. § 16. Less Wahrheit der christlichen Religion. Ed. 6ta p. 472. sq.
b. Cicero de divinat, lib. II. c. 3. Favorinus apud Gellium N. A. XIV,
1. Kant Anthropologic p. 98 sq. Meiners allgem. kritische Geschichte der
Religionem II. 603 sq.
c Si discesseris a locis Matth. XII, 40. XVII, 22. XX, 19. Luc.
XIII, 32., quae urgentur a b Reinhardo (opusc. academ. t. II. Lips. 1809.
p. 30. ss). Monet tamen locus Joh. XX, 9., hanc praesignificationem varie ab
discipulis intellectam adeoque et Uteris consignatam fuisse. Vide die bill.
Thcologie B. II. p. 377- ed. 2. Briefe iiber den Rationalismus. Aachen
1813. p. 227 ss.
d Eichhorn Biblioth. der biblischen Literatur. Part. IV. p. 191 sq.
Uber die Prophetensagen aus dem Hause Israel.
" Eventus etiamnum exspectandos esse, si divini fuissent Ebraeorum vates,
in Christocratia proxime condenda, ut hanc objectionem effugeret, statuit b.
Michaelis observ. philog. et crit. In Ieremiam p. 1 88.
' Theol. bill. torn. II. p. 129 sq. 211 sq. Eichhorn Bibl. der bibl. Lite
ratur t. V. p. 973 sq. Cons, ante omnia oracula Sibyllina, quae Christiana
vocantur a Lactantio instit. 1. IV. c. 15 sq. Aufliellungen neuerer Gottes-
gelehrten I, 551 sq. Curatius exposituri eramus hac de re in commentatione
de vaticiniis post eventum; cujus prima pars prodiit Erlangae 1812. Addimus
vulgatum Hussinetzii vaticinium, a Luthero cupide arreptum (opp. XVI,
200' 1); modo ne dubitandum csset de veritate et evidcntia dicti.

DR. AMMON ON PROPHECY. 123
nonnulla allegorice explicita eventis postea demum substrate
esse8; omnia autem ab apostolis ipsis pro obscuris et imper-
fectis haberi (1 Cor. XIII, 9. 2 Petr. I, ig.)h. Quibus nube-
culis cum omnia fere oracula V. et N. T. involute sint', negari
nequit, argumentum, e singulis vaticiniis petitum, venia quadam
egerek, turn proter ecstasin vatum sibi non consciorum (Joh.
XI, 51. 2 Petr. I, 21.)1, turn propter sensum duplicem, quo
vel in N. T. excitantur (Matth. II, 23. Rom. X. 18.) m et
singularem interpretationis varietatem. Juvabit itaque oraculis
Messianis, quae pro classicis habentur (Ps. XVI, CX. Jes.
LIII.), omnem V. T. oeconomiam, quae Christus diserte por-
tenditur (Rom. X, 4. Gal. Ill, 23 s.), fundamenti loco
subjicere, ut mirabilis providentia Dei ex ipsis evangelii pri-
mordiis elucescat (Rom. XI, 33 ss.).
e V. c. Ps. XVI, XXII. Jes. LIII. et alia oracula Messiana, quibus
Vespasianum portendi Josepho persuasum fuit (Ant. Jud. VI, 5, 4). Viguit
hoc interpretandi genus adhuc tempore Cyrilli Hierosolymitani, qui et ipse fata
sua a prophetis praesignificata fuisse credidit : Sozomeni Hist, eccles. lib. IV.
c. 5. Et, ne diem commenta delere putes, lege librum : Gerken Beweis des
gottl. Ursprungs der Apocalypse. Zweite Aufl. Altona 1815.
" De simili oraculorum Apollinis ambiguitatejam Eusebius conquestus est,
praeparat. evangel. 1. V. t. 20 — 27- Cf. Cicero de divin. I, 2.
' Fatente ipso Lessio: praktische Dogmatik. Ed. 2. p. 391.
k Inprimis post judicium, quod Jesus tulit de vatibus Hebraeorum Matth.
XI, 11. Luc. VII, 28. Cons, librum b. Seileri: Die Weisagung und ihre
Erfullung uus der heil. Schrift dargestellt. Erlangen 1794.
1 Meiners krit. Geschichte der Relig. II, 632.
m 'Sensum vatis et sensum a Deo intentum,' quem iterum commendat
John in appendice Hermeneuticae. Viennae 1813. p. 100.

fi