the Israelites, in the proper sense of the English word, borrowed these jewels, or gave the Egyptians reason to expect a return of them, does by no means appear from the original, to which a man, when he is disposed to play the critic upon an author, should always have recourse, if he be solicitous to deserve the character of an honest man and a scholar. The general signification of the word* is to ask, to require, to demand. In the three texts † relative to this transaction, the Seventy ‡, and in the two former, the Vulgate §, render it by a term of similar import. It is said, "the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians;" they took these jewels, vessels, &c. and the Egyptians gave them, as the spoil of a conquered enemy, glad to escape with life, and to dismiss a much injured people; they took these spoils, as wages due, and withholden, for immense labour undergone; as a recompense for long and cruel oppression; some of them, probably, as insignia of the vanquished Egyptian deities, to be afterwards employed in the service of the true God, whom Egypt, as well as Israel, ought to have acknowledged and adored; who, as the great Lord and Proprietor of all things in heaven and earth, taketh from one, and giveth to another, according to his good pleasure, founded evermore in wisdom, truth, and righteousness; who at the beginning foretold || that the Egyptians should be spoiled, and when the time came, directed his people so to spoil them. "God gave them favour:" the act was his, and the Israelites were instruments only in his hands. If men are pleased to concern themselves at all with the history, they must take the whole as it stands, neither blaming those on whom no blame can properly fall, nor accusing their Maker of iniquity, who can be guilty of none, but at a future day, to the confusion of all his blasphemers, will be fully "justified in his saying, and clear when he is judged." One cannot but bless oneself to see how ready these writers are, at every turn, to give sentence against the people of God, in favour of their enemies; as if they emulated the fame of a set of worthies in the fifth century, called Cainites; who, having reprobated the Saviour of the .שאל * § Postulo. + Exod. iii. 22. xi. 2. xii. 35. † Αιτεω. world, his prophets, and apostles, are said to have adopted into the catalogue of their saints, and paid especial honours to the memories of Cain, Korah, Dathan, Esau, the Sodomites, and Judas Iscariot. As to their intimation, at page 17, that, because Egypt was a country intersected by canals, there never were any horses or chariots in it; they ought for this to take their part in the next general flogging at Westminster school. During the operation, perhaps, the captain of the school will be enjoined by the master to read aloud the following short passage from Rollin's Ancient History: "Foot, Horse, and Chariot-races were performed in Egypt with wonderful agility, and the world could not show better horsemen than the Egyptians *." In the next letter we shall proceed to the consideration of a topic entirely new-BALAAM'S ASS. LETTER XV. THE first difficulty here is, "Why God should be angry with Balaam for going, when he had given him leave to go ?" 66 To be sure, all circumstances continuing the same, it would be strange-it would be passing strange. But if circumstances varied, the divine conduct might vary too. Go," says God, "but"-observe-" the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do t." Balaam seems to have set out with a resolution to obey; for like a man, and like an honest man, he had boldly and nobly said, "If Balak would give me his house-full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more ." However, it is possible that, upon the road, either by the persuasive arguments of the princes of Moab who accompanied him, or by the wicked suggestions of his own deceitful heart, an alteration had taken place in his mind, and interest had gained the ascendant over duty. * Vol. i. p. 48. + Numb. xxii. 20. Ibid. xxii. 18. I say, this is possible considering his character, it is probable: but a passage in the history itself seems to make it certain. "I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me*." But what way? Not merely 66 his journey, for he had leave to take it conditionally. Way must necessarily be understood in its moral acceptation. Something was wrong in the course of his thoughts, his imaginations, in his design and intention, now changed from what they were at setting out. "The foolishness (or wickedness) of man PERVERTETH his WAY t." Therefore God was angry, not, as it is in our translation, "because he went " but as he was going-while he was on the road §." Upon Balaam's humbling himself, and offering to return, leave of proceeding is again granted, but with a significant repetition of the original proviso; Only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak ||" Go, on; but remember, to me, your heart is open, your desires are known. If you betray your trust, the drawn sword of the angel waits to punish your duplicity as it ought to be punished." This appears to be a fair and reasonable solution of the first difficulty. 66 66 As to the second, it is observed, page 17, that "the ass exhibited a specimen of penetration and prudence, of which the asses of modern times seem to be divested." The observation brings to my mind one made upon the subject some years ago, by that father of the faithless, Dr. Tindal. "What a number of ideas must Balaam's ass have (says he) to be able to reason with her master, when she saw and knew an angel ¶?" Will these gentlemen do me the favour to accept of Dr. Waterland's answer?"Now, as to the number of ideas which the ass must have; I believe she had as many as asses commonly have: and he may please to count them at his leisure, for his own amusement**." If they have ever an anatomist among them, I dare say he could very easily demonstrate, from the configuration of its organs, the impossibility of the creature's speaking at all. And his demonstration would be just as much to the purpose, as Tindal's question. The plain truth is this: if it pleased God to take "this par ticular method of rebuking the prophet's madness," the severest philosophy cannot question his power to produce sounds articulate and significant, either with the organs of any animal, or without them. A voice proceeding from a dumb creature was made, upon this occasion, to teach a lesson similar to that deduced, upon another, from the example of the same creature: "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but man doth not know—a prophet doth not consider +." If it be objected, that the occasion was not worthy; that it was not dignus vindice nodus; we shall certainly take the liberty to think that God Almighty was a much better judge of that matter than the infidels can possibly be, even were they ten times wiser than they are. The whole transaction, in which Balaam bore so conspicuous a part, is of very great moment, and the history which relates it, full of deep instruction, as well as abounding in the beautiful and sublimet. A predecessor of these gentlemen, Mr. Chubb, I remember, called the Supreme Being to a very severe account for his conduct respecting the Canaanites; and they seem disposed to do the same, in a bitter, sarcastical, canting section, page 19, &c. the drift of which is to compare the Israelites in Canaan to the Spaniards in Mexico, and represent the former as the more detestable people of the two. The objection will perhaps be obviated, and its futility evinced, by proposing the few following queries: 1st. Has not the Almighty a sovereign right over the lives and fortunes of his creatures? 2dly. May not the iniquity of nations become such, as to justify him in destroying those nations? 3dly. Is he not free to choose the instruments by which he will effect such destruction? 4thly. Is there more injustice or cruelty in his effecting it by the sword, than by famine, pestilence, whirlwind, deluge, or earthquake? 5thly. When these latter means are employed, do not women, children, and cattle, perish with the men? 6thly. Does not God take away thousands of children * 2 Pet. ii. 16. + See Isa. i. 3. Nihil habet Poesis Hebræa in ullo genere limatius aut exquisitius.” LOWTH de Sacra Poesi Heb. Præl. xx. ad fin. every day, and perhaps more than half the species, under ten years of age? 7thly. Does not the circumstance of a divine commission entirely alter the state of the case, and distinguish the Israelites from the Spaniards, as much as a warrant from the magistrate distinguishes the executioner from the murderer? 8thly. May not men be assured of God's having given them such a commission? 9thly. Were not the Israelites thus assured; and is there not at this day incontestable evidence upon record, that they were so? This is a fair and regular distribution of the subject into its several parts. Whenever the infidels shall find themselves in a humour to discuss all or any of them, we must consider what they may offer farther upon this topic. Page 18. They cite the following passage from Judges, i. 19. "The Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." They subjoin: "It is difficult to conceive how the Lord of heaven and earth, who had so often changed the order, and suspended the established laws of nature, in favour of his people, could not succeed against the inhabitants of a valley, because they had chariots of iron!" At the end of this sentence is placed only a single note of admiration. There ought to have been at least half-adozen; for never was any thing more truly wonderful! The "difficulty of conceiving it" is very great indeed! so great, that one should have thought, for very pity's sake, our adversaries would have looked about them a little, to see whether they understood the text, and whether there were no possible way of bringing us off. As they have not been kind enough to do it for us, we must e'en try what we can do for ourselves. We apprehend, then, in the first place, that when it is said, "HE drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley;" the antecedent is Judah, not Jehovah; because Jehovah had often displayed much more eminent instances of his power; and he that effected the greater, could certainly have effected the less. In the second place, though it pleased |