It is also objected to this part of the history, that God is faid to have hardened the beart of Pharaoh, in order that he might do the very things for which he is exprefsly faid to have been punished. But in the language of fcripture, God is often said to do, whatever comes to pafs according to the ordinary courfe of nature and providence; and therefore God's not interpofing to foften the heart of Pharaoh, may be all that is meant when he is faid to harden it.

Befides, it is sufficiently intimated, in the course of the narration, that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, not by any proper act of God, but in confequence of its own depravity, and the circumftances he was in. For when the frogs were removed, we read, Exod. viii. 15, that when Pharaoh saw that there was refpite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had said. Pharaoh does not feem to have been more infatuated than the rulers of the Jews were, with refpect to the murder of Chrift; and yet nobody supposes that they did not, in

that cafe act, naturally, or as their own evil difpofitions prompted them.

It is faid that, by the account of Mofes himself, miracles were wrought by the Egyptian magicians, as well as by himself and Aaron; and therefore that his miracles were no proof of a divine miffion. But all that Mofes really fays, is that the Egyptians did (by which he could not poffibly mean more than that they feemed, or pretended to do) by their arts and tricks, what he performed by the finger and power of God. The word which we render fo, only means a general fimilitude, and by no means, neceffarily, a perfect fameness, respecting both the effect and the caufe. Nay, this very word is applied when the magicians failed of fuccefs. Exod. viii. 18. They did fo, to bring forth lice, but they could not, that is, they practifed the fame arts, but in vain. Alfo the words which we render enchantments, &c. only fignify covered arts, and fecret fleights, in which the Egyptians are known to have excelled.

If

If the Egyptian magicians were really poffeffed of fupernatural power, why did they not employ it to defeat the purposes of Mofes's miracles, and relieve their country? More especially, why did they not guard themfelves from the boils which are exprefsly faid to have been upon the magicians, as well as upon Pharaoh, and the rest of the Egyptians; and why did they fail in the cafe of the lice? The reafon of this failure plainly appears, from the history, to have been, that, with respect to this miracle, they had no notice before-hand what they were to do, and therefore could not prepare themselves as before.

Pharaoh himself would naturally imagine, that the 'miracles of Mofes were only fuch tricks as his own magicians excelled in, and therefore very properly called them in, to fee whether they could do the fame, and detect the impofition; and fo long as they could contrive to feem to do any thing like what Mofes performed, it is no wonder that, circumftanced and prejudiced as he

was, he fhut his eyes to the evidence of the divine power which accompanied Moses.

In fact, the Egyptian magicians themfelves feem to have confeffed, that there was nothing above the art and power of man in what they did, when, upon their failing to produce lice, they acknowledged that the finger of God, or, as it might be rendered, the finger of a God, or fomething fupernatural, was in it.

It has been faid that, in feveral refpects, the prefent fate of the world, and of mankind, does not correfpond to what is faid of the hiflory of them in the books of Mofes. But the more we understand of natural and civil hiftory, the lefs weight there appears to be in all objections of this kind.

It has been faid, that the peopling of America is inconfiftent with the fuppofition of the derivation of the whole race of mankind from one pair. But it is now almost certain, that America was, in fact, peopled

from

from the continent of Europe and Afia, and efpecially from the North Eastern parts of the latter, which is found to be very near, and may perhaps have been joined to it. This is argued from a fimilarity in features, cuftoms, vegetable, and animal productions, &c.

Objections have been made to the Mofaicaccount of the creation, and the general deluge. But even in thefe cafes the history of Mofes is found to fupply a more probable hypothefis, to account for the prefent state of things, than any other that has yet been propofed; and improvements in philofophy do, upon the whole, rather ftrengthen than weaken this conclufion,

It is alledged, that the origin of the Blacks cannot be accounted for on the principles of the Mofaic hiftory. But there are several ways by which this fact may be reconciled with what Mofes has advanced concerning Adam and Noah. If natural means be not thought fufficient to produce this effect, on a few individuals, in fome early age, that change may have been produced fuper

D 4