Vor. VI.]J 
the waters, fhe expafed her child in the 
place where the daughter of Pharaoh was 
wont to bathe. The child’s fifter had or- 
ders to conceal this ark amid the fari- 
rufhes, near which the royal maid: was 
to pals; and to lie in wait hard by, 
watching the event. The daughter of 
Pharaoh foon perceived the infant, and as 
the boy pleafed her, fhe refolved to fave 
hm. The fiiter now ventured to ap- 
proach, and offered to fetch a Hebrew 
nurfe, which was affented to. The mo- 
ther thus obtained her child a fecond 
time, and might, without danger, pub- 
licly endeavour to rear him. In this con- 
dition he learned the language of his own 
people, and became acquainted with their 
manners, while the lips of his mother, 
no doubt, imprefled on his tender foul 
an affecting image of their univerfal mi- 
fery. When he had attained the age to 
need no longer a mother’s care, he was 
refigned to the princefs, and to her was 
abandoned his future fortunes. The 
daughter of Pharaoh adopted him,and gave 
him the name Moses. And thus this 
lad of fervile birth became partaker of the 
fame advantages of education as the chil- 
dren of Egyptian kings. The priefts, to 
whofe cait he belonged from the moment 
of his adeption into the royal family, now 
undertook his edtication, and inftruéted 
him in all the wifdom of the Egyptians, 
which was the exclufive patrimony of 
theirorder. It is even probable that they 
concealed from him none of their fecrets, 
fince a paflage of the Egyptian hiftorian, 
Manetho, in which he calls Mofes an 
apoltate from the Egyptian religion, and 
a fugitive priett from Heliopolis, gives 
room to futpect that he was intended for 
the prieftly office. 
In order to underftand what Mofes may 
have acquired in this {chool, and what 
influence his education probably had on 
his legiflation, a clofer examination will 
be neceflary of what antient writers have 
preferved concerning the inititutions and 
doctrines of the Egyptians. The hittorian 
Philo fays: ‘* Motes had been initiated 
by the Esyptian priefts into the philofo- 
phy of fymbols and hieroglyphs, as well 
as into the ritual of the holy animals.” 
Others confirm this opinion: and, if a 
furvey be taken of what are called Egyp- 
tian myfteries, they will be found very 
analogous with what Mofes did and com- 
manded. 
II. The religion of antient nations had, 
as is well known, very early aflumed the 
form of a fuperttitious polytheifm; and, 
eyen in thofe tamilies which the Hebrew 
On the Legation of Mo/es. 
55% 
writings defcribe as worfhipping the true 
God, the ideas of the fupreme Being 
were neither pure nor noble, and tar from 
being founded on clear and rational in- 
fight. But, as foon as the better contti- 
tution of civil fociety, and the feparation 
of ranks had delivered over the care of 
divine things to a peculiar order at lei- 
fure to obferve the pheenomena of nature, 
fome progrefs was made by reafon toward 
a loftier idea of the firft caufe. ‘The uni- 
verial conneétion of all things could not 
but point to a unity of author; and to 
whom was this idea fo likely firft to occur 
as toa prieft? As Egypt feems to be the 
firft cultivated country known to hiftory, 
and as the more ancient mylteries appear 
to have originated thence, it is not im- 
probable that the idea of the divine unity 
fhould there firft have prefented itfelf to a 
human brain. ‘The fortunate inventor of 
this foul-exalting conception, will have 
endeavoured to find about him perfons to 
whom he might intruft the holy treafure, 
and who were capable of handing it down 
(who knows through how many genera- 
tions?) until at length it became the pro- 
perty of a little fociety capable of com- 
prehending and of evolving it further. 
But as a certain mafs of knowledge 
and culture of intellect is requifite to con- 
ceive and to apply the idea of one univer- 
fal God, and as this notion could not but 
lead to a contempt for polytheifm, which 
was, however, the eftablifhed religion, it 
was foon perceived or imagined that it 
would be imprudent and dangerous to 
{pread abroad this opinion indifcrimi- 
nately. Without firft overthrowing the 
eftablifhed divinities, by expofing them 
in their ridiculous nakednefs, no intro- 
duétion could be hoped for this new doc- 
trine: yet it was impoflible to expect that 
every one to whom the old fuperftition 
might have been rendered contemptible, 
fhould be able to elevate his mind to the 
pure, but difficult idea of the truth. Be- 
fides, the civil conftitution was fupported 
by that fuperftition: if this fell, the pil- 
lars of focial order were liable to break 
down; and it was doubtful, if the new 
religion would be able to furnifh an ade- 
quate prop. 
And had the attempt not fucceeded to 
abolifh the old gods, a blind fanaticifm 
would have been armed againft the mno- 
vators, who would have fallen victims to 
he made fury of the vulgar. It was, 
therefore, preferred to make the new and 
dangerous trnth the exclufive property of 
a (mall and fecret fociety, of thofe who 
had difplayed fufticient comprehenfion A 
min 
