with chopped straw to give it the greater consistency. Rosellini brought some bricks from Thebes with the stamp of King Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the 18th dynasty, upon them. On examination, it was found that they were always mixed with straw. Prokesch (Erinnerungen ii. 31) says: "The bricks (of the pyramids at Dashur) are made of the fine mud of the Nile mixed with stubble. This mixture gave to the bricks an inconceivable durability." Hengstenberg (Egypt and Moses, p. 79 transl.), has properly laid stress upon this, as a proof that the author of the account before us possessed a most accurate acquaintance with the customs of Egypt.

L. de Laborde (comment. géogr. p. 18), has the following comment upon this passage. "J'ai assisté aux travaux du canal, et les moyens comme le résultat m'ont semblé en tous points répondre aux versets de l'Exode. Cent mille malheureux remuaient la terre, la plupart avec les mains, parceque le gouvernement n'avait fourni en nombre suffisant que des fouets pour les frapper; les pioches, les pelles et les couffes manquaient. Ces paysans, hommes infirmes, vieillards (les jeunes gens avaient été réservés pour l'armée et la culture des terres) femmes et enfants venaient principalement de la haute Egypte, et étaient répartis sur le cours présumé du canal en escouades plus ou moins nombreuses. L'entreprise était dirigée par des Turcs et des Albanois, qui avaient établi parmi les paysans des conducteurs de travaux responsables de la tâche imposée à chaque masse d'hommes. Il Π faut dire, que ces derniers abusaient plus que les autres de l'autorité, qu'ils avaient reçue. Tout ce monde de travailleurs était censé recevoir une paie et une nourriture, mais l'une manquait, depuis le commencement des travaux jusqu'à la fin, l'autre était si précaire, si incertaine, qu'un cinquième des ouvriers mourut daus cette misère sous les coups de fouet, en criant vainement, comme le peuple d'Israel (v. 15, 16), &c."

á

(3). By modern critics, who suppose that chap. vi. formed part of the original document, and that the previous chapters (iii.-v.) are supplementary, the two passages are regarded as different accounts of one and the same event, whereas according to their present position they form different parts of a continuous narrative. Undoubtedly nearly all the particular details of the call described in chapter vi. are also found in chaps. iii.-v.; and hence one might be tempted to regard the former as an earlier,

more concise, and summary account of the same event. But it is also conceivable that, after the failure of the first mission to Pharaoh, the same doubts and fears may have arisen again in the mind of Moses, which he had already expressed at Horeb, and hence it may have been necessary that the call should be renewed, with a repetition of the consolations and promises by which they had once before been allayed. But at any rate, even if the two sections must be regarded as different accounts of the same event, there is sufficient progress in the second section to justify the editor in placing the summary account, contained in chap. vi., after the more detailed narrative in chap. iii.-v. This progress consists in the change from the strong faith, evinced by the Israelites at the outset (iv. 31), to the incredulity, manifested by them immediately upon the failure of the first attempt (vi. 9).

(2), On the CAPITAL of the King of Egypt at that time, see § 1. 5, and § 41. 2.

THE SIGNS AND WONDERS IN EGYPT.

Vid. Lilienthal, gute Sache ix. p. 31 sqq.-S. Oedmann vermischte Sammlung aus der Naturkunde zur Erklärung der heiligen Schrift. Aus d. Schwed. v. Gröning, Rost. 1786 sqq.Rosenmüller, altes und neues Morgenland, vol. i. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the books of Moses, p. 95—125, Eng. transl.-L. de Laborde, comment. géogr. p. 22 sqq.-J. B. Friedreich, zur Bibel, Nürnberg 1848, i. 95 sqq.

§ 23 (Ex. vii. 1-7).-Pharaoh had contemptuously rejected the word of God, and therefore God spoke to him in deeds. The instrumentality of Moses was also employed in the deeds, as it had formerly been in the word. The fruitless negotiations were followed first by a declaration of war, and then by war itself. Moses, the shepherd and leader of Israel, was opposed to Pharaoh, the King of Egypt. But Moses was the messenger and repre

sentative of Jehovah, whom Pharaoh despised, so strong was his confidence in the superior might of his own deities. Hence the contest, which was now about to commence, was essentially a war on the part of Jehovah against the gods of Egypt (1). For that reason, Moses did not conduct the armed hosts of his people against the horses and warriors of Pharaoh; it was not to the secular power of the Egyptian monarch, but to his gods, that the gauntlet was thrown down. It was in the domain of miracles that the battle was to be fought-a domain in which Egypt regarded itself as peculiarly strong-for it was in Egypt, the land of conjurors and magicians, of interpreters of dreams and signs, that magic, that mysterious life-blood of heathenism, had put forth its marvellous power in its most fully developed forms (2).

(1). The whole of the ancient church was most fully convinced of the reality of the heathen gods. Idolatry in its esteem was devil-worship in the strict sense of the term. The fathers of the church had no more doubt than the heathen themselves, who still adhered without the least misgiving to the religion they had inherited from their fathers, that the gods and goddesses of mythology were real beings, and had a personal existence, and that the worship with which they were honoured was not only subjectively directed, in the minds of the worshippers, to certain supernatural beings, but actually reached such beings. and was accepted by them. The fathers of the church undoubtedly lived in an age, when the original power of heathenism was broken; but even this shattered heathenism, the disjecta membra poetae, still produced upon their minds the powerful and indelible impression, that there was something more in all this than the empty fancies or foolish speculations of idle brains; that there were actually supernatural powers at work, who possessed a fearfully serious reality. The impression thus produced upon their minds, by their own observation of the tendency of heathen idolatry, was confirmed by their reading of both the Old and New Testaments; and the greater the confidence with which they looked upon the salvation they had experienced in Christ, as something

real and personal, the less doubt did they feel, as to the reality of the powers of evil by which it was opposed in heathenism. In a word, the gods and goddesses of heathenism were in their estimation the destructive powers of darkness, the fallen spirits, the principalities and powers that rule in the air, of whom the Scriptures speak. It is not to be denied, that in this they went farther than the Bible authorised them to go. But it must be maintained, on the other hand, that they had laid hold of the substantial truth contained in the Bible; whilst their error was merely formal, and confined exclusively to their doctrinal exposition of that truth. But modern theology, both believing and sceptical, by denying all objective reality to the heathen deities, and pronouncing them nothing but creations of the imagination, has departed altogether from the truth, and rendered it impossible to understand either heathenism itself, or the conflict which is carried on by the kingdom of God against the powers of heathenism, We find Hengstenberg still following this false track (Beiträge iii. 247 seq.). In the zeal, with which he has so worthily contended against the rationalist foundling of a national God of the Hebrews, he has persuaded himself that he may safely assert, that the Bible does not once attribute even a sphere of existence to the gods of heathenism, much less a sphere of action. On the other hand, the theologians of the present day are again beginning to discover the true solution of the problem. Among others we may refer to J. T. Beck (Einleitung in das System der christl. Lehre p. 102 seq. and christl. Lehrwissenschaft i. 259), Rodatz (luth. Zeitschrift, 1844), Delitzsch (biblisch-prophetische Theologie p. 81), M. Baumgarten (Commentar i. 1. p. 469; i. 2 p. 351, &c.), Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung i. 120; Schriftbeweis i. 302 sqq.), Nägelsbach (Der Gottmensch Nürnb. 1853. 1. 244) &c. There were others of earlier date who held the correct view, for example: G. Menken (Homilien über die Geschichte des Elias., 2 A. Bremen, 1823, p. 107 sqq.), and still farther back Chr. A. Crusius (Hypomnemata ad theol. proph. i. 129 sqq.).

Crusius maintains with perfect justice: Sacrae literae a Mose usque ad Novum Testamentum constanter docent, Deastros esse daemones. Quorum etsi Deitas negatur, non ideo entitas, ut ita dicam, negari censenda est, cum potius contrarium aperte pateat. What impartial expositor can possibly deny that such passages

as Ex. xii. 12, xv. 11, Num. xxxiii. 4, Deut. x. 17, Ps. lxxxvi, 8, xcv. 3, xcvi. 4, xcvii. 9, cxxxv. 5, cxxxvi. 2, seq., &c., attribute to heathen deities not merely a "sphere of existence," but a "sphere of action" also? In Ex. xii. 12 Jehovah promises: "I will pass through the land of Egypt this night

and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment, I Jehovah." In his song of praise (Ex. xv. 11) Moses sings: "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods ?" In Ex. xviii. 11 Jethro confesses: "Now know I that Jehovah is greater than all gods!" Even on the gods whom Israel served in the desert Jehovah executed judgment (Num. xxxiii. 4). In Deut. x. 17 Moses declares to the people: "Jehovah, your God, is the God of gods and the Lord of lords." The Psalmists describe Jehovah as highly exalted above all gods (Ps. xcvii. 9, cxxxv. 5), as a great king above all gods (Ps. xcv. 3), as to be feared above all gods (Ps. xcvi. 4), whilst there is none like him among the gods (Ps. lxxxvi. 8). In the prophets the judgments of God. on heathen powers are spoken of, as a victory on the part of God over the heathen deities, and a judgment inflicted on them. Now who would suppose the theocratic lawgiver, the poets, or the prophets, capable of such absurdity, as to think that the best way of convincing the people of the absolute power and supremacy of Jehovah, was to demonstrate continually that he was stronger than nothing, more exalted than a mere fancy, greater than what had no existence at all, victorious over something which had no sphere of operation or of life, ruler over that which was not, and judge of that which had never been? Cervantes makes the knight of La Mancha fight against windmills; but the prophets would have done something worse than this, if they had made their Jehovah attack, conquer, and execute judgment upon something, of which they were convinced that it never existed at all.

Let us see what reply Hengstenberg has to make to this. He proves the non-existence of the heathen deities, first of all, from what the Pentateuch says of Jehovah: "Jehovah is Elohim, the God of Israel is also the deity; quidquid divini est, is contained in him." But the gods of the heathen are also Elohim, and are so called. "Jehovah is the God of the spirits of all flesh (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16); He is the creator of the heavens and the earth; the heaven and the heaven of heavens are His,