maintain this position, and that the passage was not above Suez; and in his comments on the subject, Dr. Robinson says: "The part left dry might have been within the arm which sets up from the gulf, which is now two-thirds of a mile wide in its narrowest part, and was probably once wider; or it might have been to the southward, where the broad shoals are still left bare at the ebb, and the channel is sometimes forded. If similar shoals might be supposed to have anciently existed, the latter supposition would be the most probable. The Israelites would then naturally have crossed from the shore west of Suez, in an oblique direction-a distance of three or four miles from shore to shore. "To the former supposition, that the passage took place through the arm of the gulf above Suez, it is sometimes objected, that there could not be, in that part, space and depth enough of water to cause the destruction of the Egyptians in the manner related. It must, however, be remembered that this arm was anciently both wider and deeper, and also that the sea, in its reflux, would not only return with the usual power of flood tide, but with far greater force and depth, in consequence of having been driven out by a northeast wind. Even now caravans never cross the ford above Suez; and it is considered dangerous, except at quite low water. * * * "Our own observation on the spot led both my companion and myself to incline to the other supposition, viz., that the passage took place across shoals adjacent to Suez on the south. But, among the many changes which have taken place here in the lapse of ages, it is of course impossible to decide with certainty as to the precise spot." SEC. 13. The above testimony, from orthodox, so-called, sources, taken in connection with that before adduced, corroborates and amply proves each of my positions and asseverations that the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea on the shoals near Suez; and that their passage required no miracle-no special interposition of supernatural power to effect it; that there was an unobstructed road-way all the way to the sea and ford; and by taking advantage of low tide the passage from shore to shore was unattended with extraordinary risk—simply their crossing was only a a thing of every-day life. This subject will be resumed in the next Chapter, in which some objections will be considered, and their route to Marah will be further considered. CHAPTER XIII. MOSES THE ISRAELITES-THEIR TRAVELS FROM PI-HAHIROTH TO MARAH, CONTINUED. "And they departed from before Pi-hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah." [Num. XXXIII: 8. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward; but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. * * * * * * * * * * * * And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. ** *And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the hosts of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. * * And Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore." [Ex. XIV: 15 -30. * * * * SECTION 1. That part of the record first quoted above, says that the Israelites "passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah." What I have said, in substance, elsewhere, I will here repeat, that the wilderness of Etham extended all around the head of the Red Sea; stretching itself far to the north towards the Mediterranean; westwards towards the vale of the Nile, and south, on the west side of the Gulf, to the Attackah ridge and the valley of Hiroth; and on the east side of the sea, away south-south of Marah. All that part of the wilderness of Etham which lay on the east side of the Gulf. and the arm of the sea north of Suez, was called the wilderness of Shur, if not the entire wilderness. It has been the opinion of writers who have given the subject a careful examination, that the term "wilderness of Shur," should be limited to a small belt considerably south of Suez on the east side of the Gulf. Then, others limit it in its application to a belt extending to the northern extremity of the wilderness of Etham. Others, still, believe that the two were one and the same thing in extent. The record seems to favor this latter view. The first, unquestionably, is false; the second, possibly, may be correct, and it cannot be shown that the last view is incorrect. SEC. 2. In Ex. xv: 22, 23, it is said that "Moses brought Israel out (of the sea) into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it was called Marah." As was intimated in the preceding section, there has been no little twisting and turning of this text to give the wilderness of Shur a location of some thirty to fifty miles south of the head of the Gulf, and not extending north of the latitude of Suez. This has been done in order to bolster up the fallacious notion that Moses opened up a way across the broad part of the sea and through its deep waters. But facts refute this false idea, in several particulars. When Hagar was fleeing from that brutal treatment which she received at the hands of Sarai, in making her way from Canaan towards Egypt, the country of her nativity, she touched the wilderness of Shur; as the record has it, "the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way of Shur." None will contend that Hagar attempted to make her way back to Egypt by way of Kadesh Barnea, Mount Horeb, and the head of the Gulf; but, on the contrary, all will allow that she took the route commonly traveled, by the north of the wilderness. The wilderness of Shur bordered on Egypt, and at that time the direct route from Canaan to Egypt lay through the north part of it. In speaking of Hagar, in his Commentary, Bishop Patrick says: "She was flying into Egypt, her own country, upon which the wilderness of Shur bordered, and only rested a while at this fountain to refresh herself." SEC. 3. In the light of the foregoing it is seen that at whatever place north of the Attackah ridge, and the mouth of the Hiroth, the children of Israel may have left the shoals of the sea, they came into the wilderness; that, if they entered upon the sandy shoals at Pi-hahiroth and traveled up the beach, at low tide, past the Attackah promontory, then, at any place thereafter at which they passed from the sea to the shore, they could not have done otherwise than have come out of the midst of the sea into the wilderness of Etham. Or, if they crossed the ford, or sea, to the east side, then wherever they may have left the sandy shoals, for many miles to the south of the ford, they immediately passed into the wilderness of Etham, and this wilderness, as has been shown, is one and the same thing as Shur. Hence, the play of tricksters upon the terms, "wilderness of Etham," and, "wilderness of Shur," amounts to just nothing towards designating the place where the Israelites crossed from Egypt into Arabia. SEC. 4. "And they went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham and pitched in Marah." Thus reads the record. It was at the strong importunity of Moses that the Israelites left the shore of the Red Sea, after crossing it, and traveled fifty, or sixty, miles in the wilderness-went three days journey-without finding water. Here I would correct a popular erroneous idea, begotten and nourished by hifalutin religious teaching, namely: that the children of Israel, under the lead of Moses, here struck off from the sea, at nearly a right angle with it, and traveled fifty, or sixty, miles, in that direction in the wilderness. All this is a mistake. Their route lay nearly parallel with the eastern shore of the sea; and when at the greatest distance from the sea they were but a few miles from it. Though the testimony, heretofore submitted, fixes the place of their crossing into Arabia in the immediate vicinity of Suez, and the Israelites were three days in passing from point to point, the modern historian says that, from the, so called, wells of Moses, the place where the Israelites crossed over, to Marah "it is a journey of less than sixteen hours for the modern traveler." Such being the true state of the case-known to be such by actual observation and travel over it-in what light does this place the histories of this event which placc their crossing below Suez thirty, forty, fifty, and seventy, miles, even, as some writers have placed it, when Marah, itself, is not more than that distance from the head of the Gulf, and the Israelites were three days in traveling down it, from the place of crossing, to Marah? Surely, this cheat of the swindler, or humbug of the deceived, about the children of Israel crossing through the midst of the broad deep waters of the Red Sea, is too apparent to require that more be said about it. SEC. 5. "And the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong wind all that night, and made the sca dry land, and the waters were divided." According to this declaration of Moses' record the wind that caused the waters "to go back” blew directly across the sea. As there was no current setting across the sea there were no waters to go back, in the true meaning of the words used. Hence, to give to these words of Moses any meaning, whatever, they must be interpreted to say that the wind scooped out, or like a snow-plow before a steam-cngine in a snow-bank, plowed out, a channel in the deep waters and left them, so to speak, standing on the end. This story is too great, on reflection, for the religious credulity of the most credulous of the present age; therefore little, if anything, need be said in refutation of it. SEC. 6. Admitting the credibility of modern travelers those whose testimony I have already submitted-and they all favor the idea that there was something of the miraculous about this passage through the Red Sea-then that passage |