spirit would not let him reap the benefit, which the warning put within his reach.

(2). There has been an incalculable amount of writing on the natural history of the locusts in general, and the scriptural references to them in particular. Laborde mentions the titles of a hundred and seventy-five different works, which he says that he consulted and used, in his complete and careful investigation of the subject (p. 44 sqq.); and yet the catalogue is far from being complete. The fact that the direction taken by a swarm of locusts is dependent upon the wind, has been confirmed by the observations of travellers a thousand times. And the thorough devastation which they are here said to have caused, as well as their eventual destruction in the sea, have been frequently witnessed. According to the biblical narrative, they were brought by the Even the Septuagint stumbled at this, and rendered the words äveμos vóTOS (Vulg. ventus urens). This rendering has been adopted by Bochart, who is of opinion that must here mean the south wind, as the east wind could only have brought the locusts from Arabia, whereas the south wind would bring them from Ethiopia, where they are much more numerous. Hasselquist endeavours to prove that the locusts always take the same direction, viz. from south to north. Eichhorn (p. 26) thinks that, as the locusts are invariably driven by a blind impulse from south to north, and never turn towards the east or west, the swarms must always have come to Egypt from Ethiopia, and never from Arabia. And Bohlen (Gen. p. 56)

רוּחַ קָדִים,east wind

קרים

makes use of this, as a proof that our author was not acquainted with the natural history of Egypt. But Credner (Joel p. 286) has brought many witnesses to prove that locusts follow every wind, and (p. 288) has also shown that they not only cross over narrow straits, such as those of Gibraltar, &c., but that when their flight is favoured by the wind, they will pass over seas as broad as the Mediterranean itself. But when the wind does not favour their flight—when, for example, it rises to a tempest, or suddenly drops-the whole swarm will fall immediately into the sea. Niebuhr (Beschreib. p. 169) also attests the fact that the wind sometimes carries swarms of locusts across the Arabian Gulf, even at its broadest part. Cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt and Moses, p. 11 sqq., and Laborde, p. 50 sqq.

קרים

is never used in the Scriptures to denote the south wind,

but always means the east wind. It is the more important that we should maintain this firmly, since it is probable that in the present instance, there was some significance in the direction in which they came. They came from the same quarter as the Israelites, and they appeared as their champions and allies. But if this explanation should be given up as too far-fetched, we think that Baumgarten (p. 454) is certainly right in laying stress upon the fact, that they were not produced in Egypt itself, but came from a distant, foreign land, as a proof that "the power of Jehovah reached beyond the bounds of Egypt, i.e., was everywhere present."

(3). The THREE DAYS' DARKNESS is now generally traced to the Egyptian Sirocco or Chamsin (cf. Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and others). The horrors of this phenomenon are described by nearly every traveller. Du Bois Aymé (p. 110) says: "When the Chamsin blows, the sun is of a pale yellow colour; its light is obscured, and the darkness sometimes increases to such an extent that one might fancy it was the depth of night." According to other accounts, the inhabitants of the towns and villages shut themselves up in their houses, sometimes in the lowest rooms, or even in the cellars, whilst dwellers in the desert take refuge in their tents, or in holes which they have dug in the ground. Robinson (i. 288) was in the desert during one Chamsin of short duration: "The wind," he says, "changed suddenly to the south, and came upon us with violence and intense heat, until it blew a perfect tempest. The atmosphere was filled with fine particles of sand, forming a blueish haze; the sun was scarcely visible, his disk exhibiting only a dim and sickly hue, and the glow of the wind came upon our faces as from a burning oven. Often we could not see ten rods around us, and our eyes, ears, mouths, and clothes were filled with sand." Rosenmüller, in his commentary, cites accounts from the middle ages, according to which the Chamsin covered Egypt with such dense darkness, that every one thought the last day was at hand. Laborde, however, will not admit that there is any resemblance between the Chamsin and the darkness referred to here: "Ce serait comparer la détonation d'un fusil au fracas du tonnerre que d'assimiler deux extrêmes de ce genre."-In the scriptural account of this plague, there is certainly no intimation of its being in any way connected with a scorching wind of this description. Still the phenomena,

which accompany the Chamsin, though very different in degree, are so similar in kind, that we are inclined to agree with those who regard the Chamsin as its natural basis. It must, however, at the same time be acknowledged, that none of the earlier plagues were raised so decidedly or to such an extent above their natural basis, through the peculiar character imparted by the miracle; and that none were so completely dissevered in some respects from that basis, as was the case here. In the present instance not only was the plague extended and intensified to a degree unheard of before, but in many respects it was entirely removed from the natural foundation, and passed over into the sphere of the pure miracle, in which no known power of nature is in any way employed. This is particularly seen in the fact, that it continued perfectly light in the houses of the Israelites, some of which immediately adjoined those of the Egyptians, whilst the Egyptians were unable to escape in any way from the darkness, by which they were surrounded. For when it is said in the biblical account, that the darkness was so great that they could not see one another, and therefore that no one could rise up from the place in which he was: the meaning undoubtedly is, that even in their houses the ordinary means of procuring artificial light were entirely useless. It may also be inferred from the express statement, to the effect that no one moved from his place during the three days' darkness, and from the nature of the interview which Pharaoh had with Moses, that the latter was not sent for till the plague was over. On the meaning of this plague Hengstenberg correctly observes, that the darkness which covered the Egyptians, and the light which the Israelites enjoyed, represented the wrath and the mercy of God.

THE PASSOVER.

§ 32. (Ex. xi. 1—10).—All possibility of further negotiation was now, apparently, for ever gone. For Pharaoh had threatened Moses with death, if he should dare to let him see him again, and Moses had replied with equal wrath, "so let it be, I will

never come into thy presence again" (x. 28, 29, xi. 8). And yet the promise of Jehovah immediately followed: "I will bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence, and not merely let you go, but will himself entreat and force you to depart." Of the previous plagues some (viz., the first and second) had come, at a signal from Moses, from the beneficent river of Egypt, others (the third and fourth) from the fertile soil of the country, and others from the pure air, which pervaded the land; all the elements, which were at work in Egypt, had been one after another turned into a curse. And when that which was peculiarly Egyptian had been all exhausted, the countries round about sent their plagues into Egypt also; locusts came from the desert of Arabia, and the Sirocco with its impenetrable darkness from the Sahara. Yet all was apparently in vain. But this had been merely introductory and preparatory to the last decisive stroke. The tenth plague did not rest upon any natural basis, as all the rest had done. It was not called forth by either the rod or hand of Moses, nor did it proceed from the water, the earth, or the air; but the hand of Jehovah himself was stretched forth: "at midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt, and smite all the firstborn in Egypt, both of man and beast (1), and I will execute judgment against all the gods of the Egyptians (2), I Jehovah (xii. 12)—but against the children of Israel not a dog shall move his tongue, that ye may learn how that Jehovah doth put a difference between Egypt and Israel." In the tenth plague the idea and intention of all the plagues were embodied and fulfilled. It was thought of first (chap. iv. 22, 23), but it was necessarily the last to appear. If it had also been the first to appear, the fact would not have been so completely and universally displayed, that Jehovah was the Lord in the midst of the land (chap. viii. 22), the Lord over the water, the earth, and the air, over gods and men, cattle and plants, and that there was

VOL. II.

T

none like him in all the earth (ix. 14). For this purpose it was necessary, that there should be many miracles wrought in the land of Egypt (xi. 9); and it was also requisite, that they should have both sharply defined natural features and an unmistakeably miraculous character, in order that freedom of choice might be left for faith or unbelief. But the tenth plague bore upon the face of it a purely supernatural character, and because it was the tenth, i.e. the one which gave a finish and completeness to the whole, it exhibited in a clear and unequivocal manner, the design of all the plagues from the very commencement; for the last furnished the key to the entire series. And inasmuch as Pharaoh's resistance was overcome by the tenth plague, although the hardness of his heart was complete; this fact alone was sufficient to prove, that the obstinacy of his refusal had only served to glorify the name of Jehovah, and that the words of Jehovah were fulfilled: "For this cause have I raised thee up, to show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (ix. 16).

(1). On the importance of the first-born, Hofmann says (Weissagung und Erfüllung i. 122): "The first-born opens the mother's womb, and thus renders all succeeding births possible; and hence the power, which deprived all the first-born of life, was also a proof of ability to control the future history of the existing generation, and the perpetuation of its life by means of posterity. The same power, which punished the existing generation, could also have annihilated all its prospects for the future." We cannot possibly comprehend, how this acute writer can have hit upon so mistaken an explanation. The notion, with which he starts, that the first birth renders all succeeding births possible, is completely wrong. No doubt the predicate, "that which openeth the womb," implies a precedence on the part of the first-born over the rest. But assuredly no Israelite ever explained this as meaning, that the first-begotten alone as such possessed the power "to open the womb," and that the possibility of any subsequent births depended entirely upon him. But the rest of Hofmann's