cesses of the desert near Horeb the mount of God. Here forgetting and forgotten, apparently mindless alike of the past and the future, he wasted ingloriously, to speak with the feelings of a statesman, days of action which could never be recalled, until they amounted to the appalling sum of forty years. What rational hope of success could an impostor now have entertained? On ordinary human principles, the time was irrecoverably gone by: on ordinary human principles, as well might the Sardinian representative of the Stuarts look forward with confidence to the throne of Britain, as Moses expect to be hailed the governor and deliverer and legislator of Israel. This I say, merely so far as his own people is concerned: we have still to take into the account the political condition of Egypt. Now, at the period which Moses selected for the trial of his desperate experiment, there was no appearance of any weakness in the reigning dynasty. The king, who was his personal enemy, had indeed died but there was no alteration in the jealous policy of the pastoral sovereigns. Their armed warriors still occupied the whole of Egypt: they employed their miserable slaves to build them strong-holds for their treasures: and thus the very labour of the Israelites, whose spirits were now effectually broken by the servility of more than eighty years, tended only the more completely to establish the domination of the warlike intruders. Yet this was the propitious moment chosen by Moses to effect the liberation of his brethren. At the head of a rabble of unarmed slaves, who had long cowered beneath the aspect of their lordly masters, whose language uniformly betrayed the most despicable cowardice, who plainly entertained not a thought of manly self-vindication, and to whom he himself was scarcely more than a stranger: at the head of this rabble, if Moses were a mere politician, he must have promised himself success against the numerous and disciplined and veteran troops of the eminently military Huc-Sos. Is such the conduct of a sagacious impostor? Rather is it, if we exclude the idea of a divine interposition, the fanaticism of an absolute madman. III. The time of action being selected with whatever worldly prudence, let us observe the mode in which the Hebrew legislator carried on his operations. 1. I see only two ways, in which a mere poli tician could have attempted the liberation of the Israelites; open violence, or court-intrigue. If he were sufficiently strong, he would resort to the former: if he felt himself weak, he would have recourse to the latter. Moses did neither the one nor the other. Suddenly returning from the wilderness, he forthwith opened his alleged commission to the elders of the people and then, without the slightest preparation, without any attempt to avail himself of a favourable opportunity, and without in the least degree softening the peremptoriness of his language; attended only by his brother Aaron, he entered into the royal presence, and abruptly demanded of Pharaoh what he might be sure would be refused. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." The success of this uncourtly petition was such as might naturally have been expected: though, on any mere human principles of action, it is impossible to avoid being astonished at the strange imprudence of Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go. All in short, that the king granted, was an increase, instead of a diminution, of hardships: as a punishment of the mutinous language with which he had been insulted; an additional burden was immediately imposed upon the Israelites. The whole of this is precisely what might have been anticipated from the wrath of a despot, to whom the unceremonious phraseology of peremptory demand was but little familiar. But in what manner did the affair terminate? The king, notwithstanding his absolute refusal, and notwithstanding the high indignation which he had manifested both against the petition and the petitioners, is at length brought to comply; and actually consents to the emigration of an immense body of useful slaves, the value of whose services had been practically felt by his dynasty for more than eighty years. Here then we have a naked fact, the exodus of Israel, the occurrence of which is acknowledged on all hands. The only question therefore is, how we are to account for its occurrence? Whence hap pened it, that the king was at length induced to grant, what he had at first so indignantly refused, and what at the same time was so plainly contrary to his interest? On the supposition of Moses being a mere legislative impostor, let this fact be accounted for a large body of unarmed and de pressed slaves marched out of Egypt, directly against both the inclination and the interest of an arbitrary prince who was at the head of an attached and well disciplined army. 2. I am not aware, that any solution of the difficulty can be given on human principles, except this. It may be denied, that the narrative of Moses is accurate: and the opposing testimony of pagan historians may be adduced to invalidate his account. On their authority it may be urged, that the Israelites did not leave Egypt with a high hand contrary to the will of the king, but that they were driven out by force and were ignominiously banished as a race utterly abominable in the eyes of the whole nation. Thus, according to Manetho, there was formerly a tribe of leprous shepherds in Egypt; who by extraction were foreigners, who rapidly increased from a small beginning to the number of eighty thousand, who were put to hard labour in the quarries on the eastern side of the Nile, who had a particular district assigned to them denominated Auaris, and who neither adored the gods of the country nor abstained from any of those animals which were accounted sacred. This pastoral race formed themselves into a commonwealth, under the authority of one Osarsiph, an Heliopolitan priest of Osiris; who, when he became their legislator, changed his name, and thenceforth was called Moses. Proving however very dangerous to the Egyptian government, and having even succeeded in one of their grand revolutionary projects, they were at length forcibly expelled by Amenophis, who pursued them with his army to the borders of Syria.' Thus likewise, according to Lysimachus, while Bocchoris was king of Egypt, the nation of the Jews, being infected by an inveterate leprosy, fled to the temples, and begged for food. Many dying by reason of the disorder, a great famine took place. Upon this, the king consulted the oracle of Hammon; and was charged to purge the land and the temples from the unclean race, by which they had been polluted. He accordingly collected all the impure persons, and delivered them into the hands of the soldiers: who, in pursuance of his orders, attached plates of lead to the incurable lepers and drowned them in the sea; but drove out the others to perish in the wilderness. These last, taking counsel together, elected Moses to be their leader: and under his guidance, after suffering many hardships in the desert, they finally emerged from it, and seized upon the land of Judèa.* Thus also, according to Diodorus, a pestilential disorder formerly prevailed in Egypt, which most were willing to ascribe to the wrath of the deity. Maneth. apud Joseph. cont. Apion. lib. i. § 15, 26, 27. |