which shone conspicuously through the whole of his legislative conduct; the care and assiduity with which he always inculcated the moral duties, in all their ramifications, ought to have protected him from the ignominious charge, of having conspired with his countrymen, to rob the Egyptians of a rich booty before their departure; or with having connived at the fraud. No man could have more accurate conceptions of justice than our legislator. Numerous instances have been adduced of the truth of this assertion. Had he observed any impropriety of conduct in the Hebrews, towards the Egyptians, it would have been more consonant with his personal character, as well as public office, to have corrected, than to have encouraged it; and certainly he would not have endangered his own reputation, by scrupulously becoming so faithful an historian of his own villany! This heavy imputation, is simply founded upon an arbitrary interpretation given to general terms. Incidental expressions can alone be explained, by an accurate knowledge of the leading principles, which gave them existence; and the attempt to establish any particular hypothesis upon vague phraseology, has always been as fatal to the truth, as an attempt to place a pyramid of Egypt

upon its apex, would be dangerous to the indiscreet projector.

Moses informs us, in the unsuspecting simplicity of his narrative, that he was ordered to let every man borrow of his neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. The same Moses informs us also, that "the Lord gave them favour in the sight of the Egyptians;" adding moreover, that, "the man was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight, of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people." Will it be asserted, that Moses intended to inform posterity, that the Lord predisposed the minds of the Egyptians, to be deceived and robbed by the artful and designed representations of the Hebrews? Would not this be to allege that, in the opinion of our lawgiver, the Lord patronized fraud? Or, that the renown acquired by working miracles, was converted by divine direction, into an instrument of deceit? Shall we suppose, that the Almighty was so exhausted by miraculous exertions, that there was not one miracle in reserve to keep his people honest? Is it not a much easier solution to conceive, that the object of the narrative was, simply to state the deep impression made upon the minds of all the Egyptians, by the wonders which had been performed among them;-that in consequence

of these wonders, they greatly relaxed their usual severities towards the Hebrews;-that their habitual contempt was changed into respect; that they revered Moses, the great agent of these miracles, and trembled before his God; -and that they hastened to give every assistance in their power to this protected people, lest greater evils should fall upon themselves?

The indecent imputation assumes it to be a fact, that the Israelites professed to borrow what they knew they should not be able to repay. This assumption rests upon another, which is also without its foundation. It assumes that all the Hebrews were made intimately acquainted with the plan of Providence, respecting them, in all its branches. The fact is not stated; it is not consonant with the usual tenor of the divine conduct; and it is destitute of probability. They were inspired by previous miracles with a confidence in the divine assistance, and with the hopes of deliverance from their state of oppression, and they were disposed to comply with every injunction; but nothing further was necessary for them. Without divine communications, they must have been as ignorant of the minute particulars respecting their future situation, as the Egyptians themselves. If both nations were in expectation of a return, to a melio

rated state perhaps, after a temporary absence, the liberality of the Egyptians would be considered as a loan. If no such expectations were formed by the Egyptians, it must undoubtedly have been a free gift.

It does not appear, in any part of his history, that Moses himself was, at first, made acquainted with every contingent circumstance. He submitted to the impulse of heaven, and humbly waited for the issue. The first requisition by the divine command, was merely for the absence of three days, that a solemn feast might be celebrated in the wilderness contiguous. The demand was made in the name of Jehovah, in simplicity, and with integrity. Had Pharaoh complied with the requisition, we may rest assured that he would not have repented of the indulgence. Milder measures would have been pursued by the Almighty to accomplish his purpose. But upon his refusal, this condition was no longer urged; nor was it afterwards enjoined upon Moses to limit the period of their absence. He was commissioned to rise in his demands, n exact proportion as the heart of the sovereign became more and more perverse; and it is worthy of notice, that at the last interview, Moses would not accept of any other terms than an absolute, unconditional release. But whai would

be the particular result; what the train of events which were to follow; or what course he should subsequently take, was left to subsequent revelations. Moses declared his ignorance of contingences, when Pharaoh proposed that they should go without their flocks and herds, "Our cattle also shall go with us: there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the Lord our God: and we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither.”

Will not every one who professes to be guided by his reason, consider this statement more congruous and rational, than the strange supposition that Moses should hand down to posterity his connivance at theft, and be the historiographer of his own infamy, when no other being could possibly have exposed him?*

CONCLUSION.

Having thus minutely examined the Jewish dispensation, respecting its primary objects, and the manner of promoting these objects, and the result, we will venture to pronounce that it bears all the internal marks of a divine origin which can reasonably be desired.

It proclaims the existence and universal go

* See note Q.