the first title which all the kings of Egypt bore. Phre also occurs, Gen. xli. 45, in the name of the priest at On or Heliopolis, city of the sun, Potiphera, that is, consecrated to Phre. This name is also very common on the Egyptian monuments.'

See also Wilkinson, Egypt and Thebes, p. 5, note, and Manners and Customs, Vol. I. p. 43.

CHAPTER III.

THE SIGNS AND WONDERS IN EGYPT.

THE CONNECTION OF THE SUPERNATURAL WITH THE NATURAL IN THE PLAGUES OF EGYPT.

THE part of Exodus which we now proceed to examine, is of great importance for our object, first and principally in that the supernatural events described, all find a foundation in the natural phenomena of Egypt, and stand in close connection with ordinary occurrences, and also on account of the many separate references in the narrative, which show how very accurate the author's knowledge of Egypt was.

As respects the first point, many have wished to make the connection of the wonders with the natural phenomena of Egypt, an argument against the Pentateuch. So indeed the English deists. have done, as, for example, Morgan. Among those more recent, v. Bohlen is conspicuous. Moses, he remarks, in order to avoid the suspicion of self-deception, was at least obliged to express himself in the mildest manner possible among his contemporaries, who were so well acquainted with Egypt, if he wished to make the commonly observed natural phenomena avail as miracles. But it is perfectly clear, that these occurrences, as they are related, notwithstanding their foundation in nature, always maintained their character as miracles, and consequently are sufficient to prove what they are intended to prove, and to accomplish what they did accomplish. Attempts to merge the supernatural in the natural, such as have been made by Du Bois Ayme, and then by Eichhorn, will not accomplish their design. Indeed, the unusual force in which the common exhibitions of nature here manifest themselves, and especially their rapid succession, while at other times only a single one exhibits

1

Comp. Lilienthal, die gute Sache der göttl. Offenb. Th. 9. S. 33. 2 S. 56. der Einl.

3 Notice sur le séjour des Hebreux en Egypte, Description, t. viii. In his Treatise, De Acgypti Anno mirabili.

4

itself with unusual intensity, as well as the fact that Eichhorn, notwithstanding all the unnatural misrepresentations in which he allowed himself, yet found material for a treatise on the wonderful year of Egypt,-if we at the same time consider these events in connection with the changing cause of them, and also take into account the exemption of the Land of Goshen,-bring us to the limits of the miraculous; for the transition to the miraculous is reached. by the extraordinary in its highest gradation.1

But we are brought into the sphere of the miraculous itself, by the circumstance that these things are introduced and performed by Moses, that they cease at his request, and a part of them at a time fixed upon by Pharaoh himself. Hence the connection with natural phenomena can be made to avail against the Pentateuch, only when, going beyond the present narrative, we limit what in it can be explained by the natural occurrences of Egypt, and establish the presumption, that the remainder belongs to fiction. But this assumption wants all foundation. Not until the historical character of the Pentateuch is disproved, is it necessary, in conformity with the natural philosophy of Egypt, to separate truth and fiction from one another, although it is then better to transfer the whole narrative to the province of mythology, since the natural in it acquires its significance merely through its connection with the supernatural. And so soon as it shall be separated, we can no longer comprehend how Moses could make use of this to prove anything, and how it produced the consequences ascribed to it.

But, that the natural is in itself a presumption against the supernatural, and thus furnishes an argument against the historical veracity of the Pentateuch, cannot be affirmed. If we exert ourselves to bring forward any one tenable reason for this, we shall soon see that we have allowed an entirely arbitrary assumption. On the contrary, that the connection with the natural

1 Even Du Bois Aymé in a manner acknowledges this. He says, Descr. t. 8. p. 110: "Que l'on écarte donc de la description des plaies d' Egypte les exaggérations poétiques permises à celui, qui decrit avec transport les phénomènes qui ont servi à la délivrance de son peuple, et l' on verra tout prestige s'évanouir; mais le concours de tant d' événemens extraordinaires quoique naturels, et leur résultat sur le cour, endurci du Pharaon, pourrout néanmoins être considérés comme une preuve frappante de la protection divine."

2 See Ex. viii. 5 seq.

serves for confirmation to the supernatural, is clear from the following reasons.

Since we have shown that the natural ground-work of these wonderful events cannot be made an argument against the Pentateuch, it belongs to us also to point out how far it is in favour of the same. Here comes into view, first, the fitness of this character of the miracle to the end designed. The supernatural presents generally in the Scriptures, no violent opposition to the natural, but rather unites in a friendly alliance with it. This follows from the most intimate relation in which natural events also stand to God. The endeavour to isolate the miraculous can aid only impiety. But there was here a particular reason also for uniting the supernatural as closely as possible with the natural. The object to which all of these occurrences were directed, according to chap. viii. 20., was to show that Jehovah is Lord in the midst of the land. Well-grounded proof of this could not have been produced by bringing suddenly upon Egypt a succession of strange terrors. From these it would only have followed that Jehovah had received a momentary and external power over Egypt. On the contrary, if the events which annually return were placed under the immediate control of Jehovah, it would be appropriately shown that He was God in the midst of the land, and the doom of the false gods which had been placed in his stead would go forth, and they would be entirely driven out of the jurisdiction which was considered as belonging to them.1

Further, later fiction would aim specially at the dissolution of all connection between the supernatural and the natural, on the supposition that the dignity of the former would be marred, and that the omnipotence of the Lord and his love for Israel would Le obscured, through this connection. It would make it an object to

Even the earlier commentators have occasionally hinted at this reason for a connection of the supernatural with the natural, yet without giving to the thought its full importance. Thus, Calvin, for example, in his remarks upon the account of the plague of frogs, says: Aegyptios ante quasi precario vitam duxisse ostendit deus, quia singulari beneficio protexerat ab incursu ranarum. Scimus Aegyptum ob multas paludes et lentum ac prope stagnantem Nilum multis ranis et venenatis bestiis fuisse refertam. Nunc quum subito erumpunt ingentes turmae, agrorum superficiem obtegunt, penetrant etiam in domos et cubicula, denique in regium palatium conscendunt facile apparet fuisse ante cohibitas sola dei manu atque ita deum Hebraeorum fuisse regni illius praesidem et custodem,

concentrate upon Egypt the strangest terrors. The consideration of the significance of the connection of the supernatural with the natural, which has just been pointed out, would not be sufficient to counterbalance this advantage, even if it could be supposed that this delicate manner of considering the subject, so far removed from common observation, would have been understood. And even aside from this view, a fictitious account could never succeed in sustaining so accurately the Egyptian character in connection with the supernatural, in preventing the obtrusion of an element which was not Egyptian. Were it even probable that individual Israelites of later times had an accurate acquaintance with Egypt, it would be of little advantage, since the thing would necessarily not take its shape from them merely, but far more from the prevailing ignorance of Egypt. Thus, therefore, the connection of the supernatural with the natural, throughout the whole, is an argument for the credibility of the narrative, for its composition at the time it purports to have been made, and consequently for its Mosaic origin.

MOSES' ROD CHANGED TO A SERPENT.

After these general remarks, we turn to particular explanations. A sign which is of a harmless nature, precedes, in Ex. vii. 8-13, the signs which are comprehended in the number ten as a perfect number, and which are also plagues. Trial is first made, whether Pharaoh, in reference to whom Calvin so strikingly says, "There is presented us in the person of one abandoned, an example of human arrogance and rebellion," will not become wise without severe measures. Moses' rod is changed into a serpent; the Egyptian magicians accomplish, at least in appearance, the same thing but Moses' rod swallows up their rods. This counterwonder of the Egyptian magicians is founded on the peculiar condition of Egypt: much more is the Mosaic sign,—the same by which indeed Moses had already, by the divine command, proved his commission from God, among the elders of his people. Moses was furnished with power to perform that which the Egyptian magicians most especially gloried in, and by which they most of all supported their authority.

1 Nobis in unius reprobi persona superbiae et rebellionis humanae imago subjicitur.