Page images
PDF
EPUB

"And there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the "two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." On a cursory perusal of this narrative, I was quite certain that the tents and families of all three had been all equally destroyed. In the book of Numbers, when the names of the different families are reckoned up, on mentioning the names of Dathan and Abiram, it is said: "This is that Dathan and Abiram, who were famous "in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against "Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against "the Lord; and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed "them up, together with Korah, when that company died, "what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men; and "they became a sign."* But I was extremely surprised to find it added: "Notwithstanding, the children of Korah died not." This seemed a direct contradiction. I returned to the original narrative, and on examination, thought I found that though it did not assert the preservation of the family of Korah, it plainly left room for implying it. Dathan and Abiram showed their rebellion in resisting the authority of Moses as temporal judge, refusing to come when called on to attend his summons: for "Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab ; "which said, We will not come up."+ Korah's rebellion consisted in his laying claim to the High Priesthood; and the direction given for bringing his claim to a test, was, "that he and "all his company should take their censers, and put fire in them, "and lay incense thereon, and stand in the door of the taber"nacle of the congregation with Moses and Aaron ;" and it is said, that "Korah gathered all the congregation against them, "unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Here then a separation took place between these different parties. When indeed the divine command was given, that the congregation should separate themselves from all three, speaking of them all collectively, because involved in one common crime, it is said: "Get ye up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Da"than, and Abiram." Yet in delivering this direction we find the separation continued: for Moses was, at the time he received it, standing at the door of the tabernacle with Korah and his company; and it is said, "Moses rose up, and went unto Da"than and Abiram," (undoubtedly leaving Korah where he was, • Numb. xxvi. 9, and 10. + Ibid. xvi. 12.

mon cause.

at the door of the tabernacle) "and the elders of Israel followed "him; and he spake unto the congregation, saying: Depart I "pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch no"thing of theirs, lest you be consumed in their sins. So they "gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan and Abi"ram, on every side." Here they are united, as the people were to separate themselves from all three, as joined in a comYet they are again spoken of as still separate; for it is said: "Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in the "door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their "little children." On this circumstance turns the explanation, which seems to account for the final difference of the event. We here perceive that Dathan and Abiram collected their families round them, as their abettors in this rebellion, and as determined to abide all its consequences with themselves: but this is not said of the family of Korah, and the nature of the case shows the reason: Korah did not remain in his tent, but was at a considerable distance from it; the tabernacle being in the centre of the camp, the tents of the Levites surrounding it on every side, and outside them the tents of the other tribes: he had therefore no opportunity of collecting his children about him; he only had all the men of his family who supported his rebellion, along with them at the door of the tabernacle. Now it is not said, nor is it a natural supposition, that the wives and children of Korah and his followers should in their absence assemble of themselves, and stand at the door of their tents, in the same manner as Dathan and Abiram caused their families to do; hence they escaped from being so openly and contumaciously involved in the guilt of this rebellion, and hence they escaped its punishment. The tents of Dathan and Abiram, who both belonged to the tribe of Reuben, were probably together; and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up. The tent of Korah, as belonging to the tribe of the Levites, must have been remote from theirs; it displayed no such open rebellion as those of Dathan and Abiram, it therefore escaped. But Moses and the elders of Israel having quitted the door of the tabernacle, leaving there Korah and his rebellious company; at the same instant that the earth swallowed up the tents and families of Dathan and Abiram, a fire went out from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered up incense

with Korah at their head. And when in the thirty-second verse it is stated that the earth swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods, it can only mean Dathan and Abiram, to whose tents only Moses is said to have gone, and against whom only he has denounced this species of punishment. The word, "appertaining "to Korah," meaning only that they belonged to his party, and supported his cause; for in the third verse after it is said, that the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense perished by a fire from the Lord, amongst whom was Korah and all the men of his family. If indeed it had been said, that Moses went to the tents of Korah, and Dathan, and Abiram, there would have been a contradiction; but he only went to those of Dathan and Abiram, and could have no occasion to go to that of Korah, having just left him and all his company at the door of the tabernacle. Thus the narrative, though it seems to approach to contradiction, yet when examined accurately, it not only escapes it, but enables us to discover how the children of Korah, and they only, came to survive the punishment which involved their parents, and the entire families of Dathan and Abiram. Such a coincidence as this, so latent and indirect, is surely a character of truth such a narrative could scarcely have proceeded from any but the pen of an eye-witness; and what eye-witness can we suppose to have been its author, but that Moses, to whom the Jewish race have universally ascribed it, and therefore admitted it as a code of their law, and the rule of their religion and the only true record of their history?

LECTURE V.

The common events of the Jewish history incredible if separated from the miraculous, but when combined with them, form one natural and consistent narrative—Instanced in the history of Moses before he undertook the deliverance of the Jews—In the difficulties attending that attempt, from the Jews and from the Egyptians-His conduct as leader of the emigration unaccountable, if unaided by supernatural power-At the departure from Egypt-At the Red Sea-On the return of the twelve spies from Canaan-In the detention of the Jews in the wilderness forty

years.

EXODUS, v. 22, 23.

"And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil-entreated this "people? why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came unto Pharaoh to speak in thy 46 name, he hath evil-entreated this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all."

THIS was the expostulation of the Jewish legislator with the Deity, in the bitterness of his heart, at the severe disappointment he experienced, on his first application to the Egyptian monarch, in the name of the God of Israel, for permission to let his people go, that they might serve him.

In the three last Lectures I endeavoured to deduce presumptive proofs of the authenticity and truth of the Jewish history, from the structure of the narrative in which it is presented to us; and to show, that these proofs apply with equal clearness to the miraculous as to the common facts; both being interwoven in one detail, and related with the same characters of impartiality, artlessness and truth. This conclusion will receive great confirmation, should it be found that the common events of the history, if we attempt to separate them from the miraculous, become unnatural, improbable, and even incredible, unconnected and unaccountable; while, if combined with the miracles which attended them, the entire series is connected, natural and consistent.

In order to lead the way to this conclusion, I have directed the attention of my readers to the singular narrative from which this passage is taken; as introductory to an inquiry, Whether it appears probable or improbable, that the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt, the promulgation of the Jewish Law, and the establishment of the Jewish nation in the land of Canaan, can be rationally and adequately accounted for, by unassisted human agency, using merely natural means, and taking advantage of natural occurrences? Or, whether on the contrary, the difficulties attending the accomplishment of these events, and the consequent establishment of the Hebrew polity, were not such as no mere human power could have overcome; and whether it be not indispensibly necessary to admit the account which the Sacred History delivers of a divine interposition, as the only cause fully adequate, to the production of effects so important and certain, yet so extraordinary, as the deliverance of Israel, the legislation of Moses, and the settlement of the Hebrew nation in the land of Canaan? For this purpose, let us consider the objects to which this narrative naturally directs our attention; the character of the Jewish legislator, the resistance he encountered from the Egyptian government, the disposition and circumstances of the Hebrew people, and impediments which presented themselves to their settlement in the land to which they emigrated. Let us review the narrative of these events, separating the leading facts not miraculous; which form the basis of the history, from the miraculous; and consider whether it be rational to receive the former, and reject the latter.

Let us first contemplate the character and conduct of the legislator. Born at that period, when his nation groaned under the most oppressive and malignant despotism which ever crushed a people; rescued by a singular providence from that death to which he was destined by the cruel edict of Pharaoh; adopted by the daughter, and educated in the court, of that monarch; there is reason to believe, with the inspired martyr Saint Stephen, that he was "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and that he may have been "mighty both in words and deeds:" * that is, conversant in learning, skilled in writing, and judicious in conduct; for his own positive declaration prevents us from believing him eloquent. When commanded to act as ambassador

* Acts, vii. 22.

« PreviousContinue »