that all who heard him knew as well as he did the manners and customs of the country of which he was speaking. Thus he tells us that God commanded Moses to stretch out his rod "that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone." Now in these latter words there is evident particularity: they are not necessary to impress us with either the extent or reality of the miracle; and except from a man perfectly familiar with the customs of Egypt, we should probably not have had them without explanation. The waters of the Nile are frequently purified for drinking in vessels both of wood and stone. As on the Mississippi river, at this day, they are placed in vessels, and crushed almonds are dropped in, to cause a speedy precipitation of the sediment. They are also filtered through porous stone. The point here to which we would attach importance is not, however, so much the coincidence of Egyptian usages with the language used, as it is the perfectly natural and unpremeditated manner in which the allusion is made. The author supposes that a mere hint is enough, without pausing to reflect whether all his readers are as familiar as he is with the peculiarities of Egypt. And by the way, we must not omit to remark, that the change in the domestic vessels of the Egyptians containing purified water was certainly not produced by the red earth of the river, and consequently here, at least, is a miracle. All the German school are careful to overlook this part of the story.

Again: Moses is commanded to stretch out his hand "upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, and upon their rivers, [as we translate it, but as we should read it, and as the Septuagint does, canals,] and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools, [or, as in the margin, gatherings of their waters.] Why this elaborate classification of the waters of Egypt 1 Because of its conformity to the truth, which feared not to classify, because it feared no detection of falsehood. The streams (says Faber) are the arms of the Nile, the canals the artificial ditches for irrigation, the ponds are the stagnant bodies of water which the Nile makes, and which are called in Egypt birkeh, and the pools or gatherings of their waters are the waters left behind by the Nile on its subsidence, the lakes and puddles, from which the peasants at a distance from the river get their water.

Further: the instructions given to Moses were, "Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river's brink against he come," &c. And again: "Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the water," &c. Why this positive certainty that early in the morning the king would be by the river brink? Because the Nile was deified. The monuments furnish ample proof of this fact, and Pharaoh's early resort to it was but an habitual act of devotion. On the whole, then, it would seem to be plain from the story of this plague, not only that the author had a perfectly accurate knowledge of the usages of Egypt, but that he also relates them with such unpremeditated simplicity as creates a strong proof of their truthfulness.

The second Plague—the Frogs.

Here, as before, the object of superstition became the instrument of punishment. The frog was one of the deities of Egypt, and, as might be expected, abundant enough in such a country. In connection, however, with our general subject, there is nothing calling for special remark, beyond the fact that this must have been a terrible annoyance to a people so scrupulously clean as were the Egyptians. It is also to be observed that Pharaoh, alarmed by this plague, entreated its removal, and, by direction of Moses, named the time at which it should disappear. At that time it did disappear, thus proving the miraculous nature of the transaction.

The third Plague—Lice or Gnats. There has been much learned discussion as to the insect that constituted this plague. The Hebrew word is kinnim. The Septuagint translates it by the Greek word axviyts, which means properly the gnat, which we call the mosquito, an insect most abundant and troublesome in Egypt. The learned seem generally to concur in the opinion that this is the insect meant by the word kinnim, because the translators of the Septuagint who lived in Egypt, and therefore knew what insect was meant, have thus translated it; as have also Origen and Jerome, both of whom had better opportunities of knowing what was meant than we have. It is, however, not to bo denied that there are some who adhere to the version in our translation. It is, however, of but little moment which of the two named insects was meant; both are painfully abundant in Egypt, and on this occasion were brought in swarms most extraordinary, even in that country; perhaps, too, they were produced thus abundantly, at a time of the year when they do not usually abound. There is, however, in this plague, little, if there be any thing, connected with the subject we are considering.

The fourth Plague—the Flies. Here again, there seems to be some doubt as to the precise nature of the insect meant. The Hebrew (arob) is rendered in the Vulgate, omne genus muscarum, all sorts of flics, and hence our version reads it, "swarms of flics;" but the word for flies is not in the original. The word arob can scarcely have any other meaning than the mingling, or mixture, Some have hence supposed that the plague consisted of an immense number of beasts of prey of various kinds; others suppose it to have been a mixture of divers species of annoying insects; while others again think that it was a fly, principally because the Septuagint translates arob by a Greek word meaning dog-fly. To this latter reading it has been objected that it is said "the land was corrupted by reason of the swarm," and that this could hardly be applied to any fly properly so called: beside, in Psalm Ixxxviii. 45, the arob is described as devouring the Egyptians, an act that seems inapplicable to a fly. A modern opinion that seems to have gained many supporters is, that the Egyptian beetle is here meant by arob. If this be so, then here again, as in the case of the frogs, the Egyptians were chastised through one of their own idols. It was one of the sacred animals of Egypt.

But the circumstance most worthy of note in the history of this plague is this: when it appeared, "Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God."

Here is an undoubted reference to Egyptian opinions and customs, with which the story agrees. The meaning almost universally given to it is, that the Israelites could not offer their sacrifices in Egypt, because their own lives would be taken, if they killed, even in sacrifice, animals deemed sacred in Egypt. The sacred animals of Egypt were of different grades. Some were absolutely worshipped as gods; others were looked on as living symbols of the gods. Some were worshipped generally throughout Egypt; others in particular districts only. Nor did the several districts always make the same animal the idol; as we have said before, the god of one was the object of execration in another. Those that were principally esteemed and honored with a more intense devotion, either generally or particularly, were the solitary bull Apis, (not bulls generally,) the cow, the sheep, goat, cat. dog, ichneumon and crocodile: among birds, the hawk and the ibis. But whatever might be the animal god of the highest order, it was guarded and protected with the deepest reverence. Lands were assigned for its special support. To kill it was unpardonable sacrilege, and even if it were done by accident, it was punished with death. If a fire happened, there was the greatest anxiety lest any of the godly race of cats should perish in the flames. They embalmed the dead bodies of their beastly idols; made great lamentation over them, and buried them with pomp. Diodorus relates an anecdote, which may serve to explain the apprehension of Moses. He states it as having occurred while he was in Egypt.

Some Romans were in that country, for the purpose of making a treaty with the king. The Roman power was then much feared; and the people, anxious for the treaty, bestowed on the strangers uncommon attention and civility. One of them unintentionally killed a cat. Instantly, notwithstanding the strong grounds for forbearance, the people rose in an ungovernable mob, hastened to the lodging of the unfor