degree. Hitherto the materials for making the required tale of bricks had been amply supplied, but the request of Moses was made a pretext for withdrawing the straw of which the bricks were compounded; the Israelites were to gather it for themselves, and yet the tale of bricks which they made heretofore was still to be laid upon them, "For they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God." The "taskmasters" rigidly obeyed their instructions, and the officers of the Israelites were severely beaten for making the slightest remonstrance. They were continually met with the insulting taunt, "Ye are idle, ye are idle." Some may be apt to associate the making of bricks with burning them according to the European process, and may not at first discover that the straw could be for any other use. It is doubtless true that the Egyptians sometimes burnt their bricks, but generally they mixed straw with the masses of clay used in forming sun-dried bricks, many of which are still commonly made in Egypt. This is proved by the brick pyramids of the country still in existence. The materials of these pyramids were never in the fire, because the straw with which they are compacted is neither injured nor discoloured, and such bricks are very durable in a dry climate like Egypt.

We now proceed to consider the celebrated Ten Plagues of Egypt, which the obstinate Pharaoh endured before the Israelites were delivered, and himself involved in destruction. The first of these Plagues was the turning of the river into blood, which probably means no more than that the water became red like blood, it being a very common Hebrew form of speech to describe similarity by identity. "The Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt,. upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the Land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone."

By rivers in the preceding passage we are merely to understand canals, or artificial branches of the Nile, because Egypt possesses no other river. It is said that in a distance of 1350 nautical miles, from the mouth of the Tacazze to the Delta, the Nile presents the singular aspect of not receiving one tributary stream either from the east or west, and is the only instance of the kind in the globe; but if Bruce is to be credited, this is far from being the fact. The particular manner in which the various receptacles for containing water in Egypt are enumerated deserves our attention-streams, natural or artifical, of the Nile, ponds, pools of water (or gathering of their waters), and whatever water was already drawn from them and set apart for drinking, "both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone," in which water was kept. In Egypt the reservoirs for water are higher than the Nile, and they are filled when the river rises, the water of which is preserved a considerable time in these cisterns. These reservoirs are described as being of great antiquity, some of them as early as the time of the Pharaohs. When the Nile is rising at the annual inundation, the water is of a reddish or green colour, and while it is in that state the Egyptians use what is in their reservoirs and cisterns. To show that this miracle could not be a natural occurrence, not only the river and the water in the canals, but even the ponds, pools, and reservoirs, which were higher than the level of the Nile, and had no immediate connexion with it, were changed into or became as filled with blood.

This miracle was well calculated to excite the consternation of the Egyptians, for, in addition to the want of water for seven days before the plague was removed-a severe privation in such a climatetheir superstitious fears were also alarmed. They viewed the Nile with a religious reverence, and boasted of the superior excellence of its water; they had cities, festivals, and sacrifices consecrated to it, and certain priests, called priests of the Nile, are specially mentioned by Herodotus and

others. Plutarch informs us that no god is more solemnly worshipped than the Nile, and Heliodorus mentions that the grand festival of the Nile was a most solemn one with the Egyptians, for they regarded the river as the rival of Heaven, since without clouds or rain it watered the land. It was the feeling of this entire dependence upon the Nile, and the natural disposition of man to look to secondary rather than to primary causes, which induced the ancient Egyptians to deify their stream, in addition to the admirable quality of its water, which has been acknowledged by many travellers. The modern Egyptians are said to excite thirst to drink it, and they often boast that if Mahomet had drank this water, he would have desired to live for ever. Those who undertake pilgrimages and long journeys think the want of this water their chief deprivation, and talk of nothing else but the pleasure in reserve for them, of drinking it when they return. Nor is this a pecuHiarity solely confined to the Egyptians, as Europeans in general admit that such water is nowhere found in any other place. The native assertions of its excellence are doubtless exaggerated, but travellers admit that it has agreeable qualities, which probably results from its being contrasted with the other water procured in Egypt. At the present time the Nile is called the Most Holy River, most blessed, most sacred. At the appearance of its rising mothers are seen plunging their infants into the stream, believing that it has an efficacious and miraculous power. The Egyptian women, when it begins to rise, express their gratitude for the benefits it confers on the country by solemn processions along its banks, while the canal at Grand Cairo is opened annually with great pomp. Yet this river was to be so much polluted that the Egyptians would "loathe to drink of the water"—a strong expression, implying that they would hate what was dearest to them, and which they admired and worshipped. God might in many ways have polluted the Nile, but the changing it into blood was peculiarly repugnant, there being nothing which

Hero

The fish in the river died, and "the river stank." Bryant maintains that "in many parts the people did not feed upon fish; the priests in particular never tasted them, on account of their reputed sanctity," for "all the natives of the river were in some degree considered sacred." The priests indeed abstained from the fish even of the Nile, but it is uncertain whether it was because they considered these natives of the river too sacred to be eaten by them, or because they thought them impure from their possible communication with the sea. But we have the most positive testimony of historians that the Egyptians used fish as food. dotus informs us that they lived principally upon fish, either salted or dried in the sun, and they are mentioned as the first people who cured any kind of meat for preservation with salt, not, however, sea-salt, for they abhorred every thing belonging to the sea, but fossil salt, procured from the African deserts. The same historian also relates that they ate their fish without any other preparation than thus salted or dried in the sun. Diodorus states that from the time of Moris numbers of men were continually occupied in salting the fish found in the lake dug by that monarch, and that the Nile not only supplied them with abundance of fresh fish, but enabled them to salt large quantities for exportation. Le Bryn af. firms that there are few fish in the Nile, in defiance of the authority of almost every traveller. Sandys tells us that, in going up the Nile, he often bought as many fish for sixpence as would have served twenty people. In the lakes and canals, on the shores of Lower Egypt, and in the Red Sea, fish were, and still are, very abundant; but as the Egyptians did not eat fish derived directly from the sea, we may easily account for the mistake of Bryant. The Israelites mentioned fish as one of the articles of their choice food in Egypt, when they murmured in the Wilderness.

It is necessary to be particular in these observations, because every notice of the usages of ancient Egypt, as illustrating the effects of the Plagues, must produce additional conviction of their miraculous reality, for they can only be understood by an accurate knowledge of the country in which they took place. The Egyptians "could not drink of the water of the river." They dug wells—a work of great labour and difficulty-and they found water unaffected with the plague. It was upon this water that the Egyptian "magicians" operated "with their enchantments;" but we may easily estimate the severity of this plague, when we recollect that the natural or spring water in Egypt is detestable, and that nothing but the direst necessity could have induced the Egyptians to undergo the labour of digging for what they greatly disliked. A description of this process is given in the "Fragments to Calmet." Plaisted, a traveller who made a journey over the great Desert from Bussorah to Aleppo, says, "We encamped near a standing pool of water, which was so muddy, that it was not fit to drink, for which reason three wells were dug by our people pretty near it, wherein they met with very good water." Dr Richardson describes a similar process in the Desert of Suez :-"We were told there was water, though, to our longing and inexperienced eyes, every inch of ground was covered with dry sand, without the slightest indication of the fluid below. Our flasks were all drained, and we alighted, and laid ourselves down on the sand, waiting for the arrival of our camels to bring us a fresh supply. Meanwhile, as we were admiring the operations of the industrious beetle rolling his ball over the smooth surface of the desert, the shiekh of the caravan began to clear away the arenacious accumulation from a very unlikely spot, which, however, soon discovered signs of water beneath. He then proceeded to deepen the excavation by basketing out the sand, singing, at the same time, an appropriate Arab tune to words which were interpreted to mean, God, we give thee praise,

Thus they

and do thou give us water. continued digging and singing for about ten minutes, when abundance of the wished-for fluid flowed amain. At the joyful sight, men, women, dogs, and asses, all crowded round, eager to dip their lips in the wave. It was handed round, basin after basin, as fast as they could be emptied and filled. We all drank of it, and though it was muddy and brackish in the extreme, our first sentiment was that of universal admiration."

It is proper to observe, that those writers who endeavour to explain the miracles recorded in the Scriptures on natural principles, have been very unfortunate with the plague of turning the water of Egypt into blood. We have previously said that the Nile, at one stage of its increase, assumes a brownish red and sometimes a green colour, caused by the soil which the river brings down from Abyssinia, and it has therefore been maintained that this is the discolouring mentioned in the text. But it has been well answered, that if this was a common or annual occurrence, it would have caused no alarm

that the water, while subject to this discoloration, is so far from being unwholesome, that it is reckoned a sign that it is becoming fit for use, previous to which, when in its greenish colour, it is considered so corrupt and insipid, that the people confine themselves to the contents of their tanks and cisterns—and that the first plague, as recorded by Moses, could not have happened later than February, for we find that the crop was on the ground-"the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled," Exod. ix. 31, whereas this rise of the river, when it is attended with the discoloration, does not take place till some months afterwards; and this rise, therefore, if the discoloration was natural, must have happened at a season so very unusual, considering the astonishing regularity, even to a day, of the periods of increase and subsidence, that it would have been as great a miracle as the other.

This preternatural change in the Nile continued for seven days, during which,

Josephus tells us, "the water was not only of the colour of blood, but it brought on those that ventured to drink it great pains and bitter torments; such it was to the Egyptians, but it was sweet and fit for drinking to the Hebrews." Alarmed at the consequences which might ensue, and afraid of an insurrection, Pharaoh assented to the departure of the Israelites; yet no sooner did he perceive the plague removed than he obstinately refused to fulfil his promise. Under these circumstances Moses and Aaron were immediately ordered to appear before him, and to threaten him with the plague of frogs. "The river shall bring forth frogs abundantly." Regardless of this second punishment, the tyrant refused to release the Israelites, and "the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt." Their sacred river, was again defiled, their land was equally defiled, and their palaces and temples rendered loathsome, for every stream, lake, or pond, was in a state of pollution. Josephus tells us that the Nile was "full of frogs, insomuch that those who drew water had it spoiled by the blood of those animals, as they died in and were destroyed by the water; and the country was full of filthy slime, as they were born and as they died; they also spoiled the vessels in their houses which they used, and were found among what they ate and drank; there was also an ungrateful smell which arose from them, as they were born and as they died therein." Frogs have indeed been always numerous in the Nile, and in the canals of Egypt, and there was therefore no miracle in their appearance in the country, but in the unexampled myriads of them choking up the river, covering the land, leaping within their houses, upon beds, couches, tables, and vessels, and infesting persons of all ranks, from the king to the humblest slave. The object of this and several of the other plagues was to give a supernatural intensity and magnitude to the greatest nuisances of the country, and, if produced in a perfect state, was a most extraordinary instance of * Supreme Power overruling the ordi

nary course of nature. This miracle of the invasion of frogs was farther remarkable, that they were induced to change their natural habits, and instead of confining themselves to the waters and moist soils, they spread themselves over the country, intruding into the most frequented and the driest places. In this, as in other instances, the objects of superstition became the instruments of punishThe frog was one of the sacred reptiles of the Egyptians, but whether it was venerated or abhorred is not ascertained.

ment.

The "magicians," with their "enchantments, brought up frogs upon the Land of Egypt." Those magicians, as they are called, resembled the soothsayers, diviners, and interpreters of dreams, who are repeatedly mentioned in the Scriptures. Dr Hales considers them to have been impostors, who exhibited the deceptions of legerdemain or sleight of hand, for which, and for the charming of serpents, the Egyptians were celebrated. They were permitted to imitate some of the miracles, but "though Aaron's serpent swallowed up their serpents, showing the superiority of the true miracles over the false, it might only lead the king to conclude that Moses and Aaron were more expert jugglers than Jannes and Jambres, who opposed them." Dr Hales is supported in this opinion by Calmet. The authors of the " Universal History" allege the following reasons for the magicians taking a part in some of these miracles :-" 1. It was necessary that they should be suffered to exert the utmost of their power against Moses, in order to clear him from the imputation of magic or sorcery, to which, considering the notions that then prevailed, he might have been exposed, if they had not entered into this competition with him, and been at length overcome. 2. In order to confirm the faith of the wavering and desponding Israelites, by making them see the difference between Moses, who acted by the power of God, and the magicians, who acted by some inferior power. 3. In order to preserve them

afterwards from being seduced by any false miracles from the worship of the true God." In the plague of the frogs, the magicians also brought frogs from those parts of the river and ponds where they stood, and thus they were permitted to contribute to the punishment of the Egyptians. "In these accounts of the wonders wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers," says Bishop Horne, "whether they are supposed to have been wrought in reality, or in appearance only-by sleight of hand, or by the power of evil spirits through the permission of God, who was willing to make his power known in this grand contest-the superiority of the God of Israel was manifested, and the contest was yielded by the adversaries, who could not protect themselves or their friends from the maladies and plagues inflicted by Omnipotence."

The extent of this invasion of frogs was indicated by the heaps of their carcases which covered the ground, and corrupted the land; for when Pharaoh relented, and the plague in consequence ceased, notwithstanding the frogs which remained in the Nile as usual, "they gathered them together upon heaps, and the land stank." But the Egyptian tyrant forgot his solemn promise; he "hardened his heart," with a fatality which seems to justify the fine observation of Josephus, that he "had a mind to try the nature of a few more such judgments." The third plague was accordingly ordered to be inflicted. "The Lord said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the Land of Egypt." The command was obeyed, and myriads of this obnoxious vermin covered man and beast; palaces, temples, and houses, were overrun, and the very earth seemed impregnated with insect life. Here, again, the objects of superstition became the instruments of punishment. The Septuagint render the Hebrew word kin nim by ozvies, which means the mosquito gnat, and this reading, which is confirmed by Origen and Jerome, is entitled to

consideration, when we recollect that the Seventy resided in Egypt, where they performed their translation, which, with the opinion of the two Christian Fathers mentioned, forms the best authority on such subjects. Some modern commentators have followed this reading, although it cannot be denied that the generality of interpreters agree with the common translation, which considers the vermin as lice, from the circumstance that these vermin are better known in the West than the mosquito, although neither are as common as in the East. It is perhaps a matter of little moment in what way we understand it; but if the fourth plague, the plague of flies, was literally one of beetles, there should be no hesitation in coinciding with the high united authorities of the Septuagint, Origen, and Jerome. Gnats or lice are common in Egypt, but in this case they were multiplied to innumerable myriads, the very dust of the earth becoming animated. Herodotus tells us that there are surprising numbers of gnats in Egypt, and that the people are provided with a remedy against them. "As the wind," he says, "will not suffer those insects to rise far from the ground, the inhabitants of the higher part of the country usually sleep in turrets. Those who live in the marshy grounds adopt this substitute: Each person has a net with which they fish by day, and which they render useful by night; they cover their beds with these nets, and sleep securely beneath them; if they slept in their common habits, or under linen, the gnats would not fail to torment them, which they do not even attempt through a net." Sir Frederick Henniker gives the following revolting picture of the young Egyptians in Alexandria:-" The most strange, the most disgusting, and the most unavoidable sight in Alexandria is thisthe eyes and mouths of all the children are literally embanked with flies: their mouths are beset as if they were the mouths of honey bottles; the children have no present dread of ophthalmia, but suffer these vermin." "In such a spot"