he miracles and
plagues connected with the exodus. The Egyptian king, on this occasion,
consulted the _philosophers_ and _augurs_. These learned men evidently
regarded the serpent-rod miracle as but a more skilful form of one of
the tricks of serpent-charmers. They showed Pharaoh the possibility of
reddening the Nile water by artificial means, or perhaps by the
development of red algae in it. They explained the inroad of frogs on
natural principles, probably referring to the immense abundance
ordinarily of the ova and tadpoles of these creatures compared with that
of the adults. But when the dust of the land became gnats ("lice" in our
version), this was a phenomenon beyond their experience. Either the
species was unknown to them, or its production out of the dry ground was
an anomaly, or they knew that no larvae adequate to explain it had
previously existed. In the case of this plague, therefore, comparatively
insignificant and easily simulated, they honestly confessed--"This is
the finger of God." No better evidence could be desired that the savans
here opposed to Moses were men of high character and extensive
observation. Many other facts of similar tendency might be cited both
from Moses and the Egyptian monuments.]

[Footnote 13: That in Genesis, chap. ii.]

[Footnote 14: Kitto's Cyclopaedia, art. "Creation."]

[Footnote 15: Much that is very silly has been written as to the extent
of the supposed "optical view" taken by the Hebrew writers; many worthy
literary men appearing to suppose that _scientific_ views of nature must
necessarily be different from those which we obtain by the evidence of
our senses. The very contrary is the fact; and so long as any writers
state correctly what they observe, without insisting on any fanciful
hypotheses, science has no fault to find with them. What science most
detests is the ignorant speculations of those who have not observed at
all, or have observed imperfectly. It is a leading excellence of the
Hebrew Scriptures that they state facts without giving any theories to
account for them. It is, on the contrary, the circumstance that
unscientific writers will not be content to be "optical," but must
theorize, that spoils much of our modern literature, especially in its
descriptions of nature.]

[Footnote 16: Prof. Hitchcock.]

[Footnote 17: McCosh, "Typical Forms and Special Ends."]

[Footnote 18: I adopt that view of the date of Job which makes it
precede the Exodus, becau