the sensibilities of Egypt and her king in tender points. Thus, the Nile was Egypt's pride and glory, indeed her very life, and not improbably (as some maintain) was worshiped by the Egyptians as one of their gods. How terrible then to wake in the morning to find it one vast sea of blood!-to have only blood for themselves and their cattle to drink; blood every-where for the eye to rest upon in place of the glory of the Nile! How terribly suggestive of their national sin-of the male infants of the Hebrews murdered there, and of the resources of Israel's God to punish the guilty!

So we must suppose that frogs were often inconveniently plenty in Egyptian waters. This visitation of such masses of them brought an evil by no means foreign to their experience. The miracle lay in their numbers and was none the less a miracle because there had been frogs there before. It must have been excessively annoying and humiliating,-if the frog as a near neighbor is as unamiable in that country as in this.

Essentially the same must be said of the lice [gnats]; of the flies; and of boils. All these were forms of evil not unknown in Egyptian life; but yet in the present case were truly miraculous and fearfully afflictive.

Their cattle were so useful and so highly esteemed that some of them were made objects of idolatrous worship. The golden calf of Hebrew history was an Egyptian idea. There was special pertinence therefore in this fearful slaughter among Egypt's gods!

The hail, with most terrific lightning, was by far the more appalling because rain rarely falls there; hail and lightning yet more rarely.

In the natural course of events, locusts are among the fearful visitations of Oriental countries-not unknown in Egypt. In this case the fearfulness of the plague lay in their numbers, and the miracle was none the less because they had had some experience before of this form of desolation.

3. The case of the magicians.

The entire account of them is in these words. After Aaron had cast down his rod before Pharaoh and it became a serpent, "Then Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did so with their enchantments. For they cast down

every man his rod and they became serpents; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods" (Ex. 7: 11, 12). Again, after the miracle of turning the water to blood, "The magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments" (7: 22). After the miracle of the frogs, "the magicians did so with their enchantments and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt" (8: 7). Next, when all the dust became lice, "the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man and upon beast. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh-This is the finger of God” (8: 18, 19). Finally, under the plague of boils, "The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boil was upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians" (9: 11). We hear of them in this history no more.

The Hebrew word for "sorcerers" involves the practice of magic arts and incantations. The word for "magicians of Egypt" contemplates them originally as writers, the learned class, but couples with that the idea of special skill in horoscopy-the interpretation of dreams and the doing, or at least pretending to do, things beyond the skill of the uninitiated. The word for "enchantments" originally suggests secret arts, things covered, veiled from the public gaze. The passage Deut. 18: 10-14, gives most if not all the nearly synonymous words by which this class of men and their arts were designated, showing also that they were regarded before the Lord with most intense abhorrence as an abomination. By the Mosaic law the practice of these arts was punishable with death (Ex. 22: 12).

In regard to the case of the magicians as presented in this history, the point of chief interest will be thisDid they really perform miracles? Did they in fact turn rods into serpents, and water into blood, and produce some frogs in addition to what were there before?

-I am not sure that we have data sufficient to determine with certainty whether these things ascribed to them were simply tricks of hand, arts of jugglery; or whether there was really some power exerted, more and other than human.- The cases were of a sort in which deception was at least supposable. All the waters it would seem were turned to blood before their effort was made. If so, they had to do with what was

already blood and had only to make it appear to be water before they began operations. So of the frogs. When frogs were every-where in such numbers, it would not be specially difficult to make it appear that they produced yet more. The turning of rods into serpents is not unknown in the tricks of jugglery the world

over.

Of two facts we may be very sure. (1) They had no help from God. Their wonders were not wrought by God's power. We may put this denial on two independent grounds: (a.) The moral purpose of their work utterly forbids the least participation on God's part. God never fights against himself. (b.) Their power was infinitely less than divine. Compared with God's, it was shown to be simple weakness. "Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." Before the plague of lice they were compelled to succumb, and (utterly against their will and against their interest) they declare to Pharaoh-"This is the finger of God"! It utterly distances all our skill. We can not approach it. Before the boils, they writhed in agony. They could not even screen themselves from the terrible infliction. Moreover it is made plain throughout the whole transaction that they were powerless to remove even the slightest of these plagues. If they had possessed this power Pharaoh would have put them to this service. It is plain they shrank from even the attempt. The whole scene was a competition between God's power as manifested through his servants, Moses and Aaron, and the power of Egypt's magicians-resulting in most overwhelming proof that the latter had not the first element of God's power in it.It follows therefore that if the magicians had extra-human help-if they had any power beyond human skill, they obtained it from Satan. We may readily suppose they were in league with him, working according to his will. He may have sharpened their wits by his influence, helped their arts by his suggestions, and possibly may have given them superhuman aid in the line of physical power. It is not given to us to know the exact limits of his power to aid his servants. It is not essential that we should know precisely where these limits are. We know enough to impress the injunction-"Be sober, be vigilant, because of your adversary the devil" (1 Pet. 5: 8).

It may always be our consolation that whenever he matches his power or his skill against the Almighty, he will come off, as in the case before us, utterly worsted in the fight, overwhelmed with defeat and shame.

4. Some attention should be given to the divine purpose and policy in shaping the demand made upon Pharaoh to let the people go. The point of special importance here is one which has been thought to involve the question of strict moral honesty-it being claimed that the divine demand at first ran on this wise: "Let us go three days' journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God" (Ex. 3:18)— leaving Pharaoh to assume that, this being granted, they would return to his service.

The facts on this point are:

(1.) It was never promised or even intimated that they would return. If Pharaoh construed the words of God and of Moses to imply this, he did so on his own responsibility.

(2.) The demand made upon him that he should let the people go was based in part at least on the religious duty of sacrificing to God in the wilderness (Ex. 5: 1, 3)-an entirely appropriate demand-one which Pharaoh ought to have appreciated, and one which would be more likely to have weight with him than any other. For he was himself a worshiper of his own gods; he knew the strength of the religious element in human nature; he was able to recognize the universal rights of conscience by which every man may claim to worship God according to his own convictions of duty. If Pharaoh would not yield to this request he would yield to none. The policy pursued was, therefore, the most hopeful and the least likely to arouse opposition.

(3.) Even the severest honesty did not require that the Lord should put this demand in its most revolting form in the outset. True, he might have said from the beginning: "My people shall never return"; but this would have at once foreclosed all hope of gaining Pharaoh's consent.

(4.) If the question of the return of the people was thus left a very little open-or more correctly, was not peremptorily closed, it served the better to test the

heart of Pharaoh. It left the way open to ply him with inducements most likely to be successful; and at the same time if he proved obstinate and self-willed, he might show it by bantering over the conditions, higgling as tradesmen and their customers sometimes do over the price, negotiating like diplomatists for the most favorable terms. But this was the fault of Pharaoh, not of God.

(5.) Most frequently the demand was made in these significant words: "Let my people go that they may serve me (Ex. 8: 1, 20, and 9: 1, 13). Israel is my son; his service is due to me and I claim it (Ex. 4: 22, 23). You have no right to his services; I demand therefore that you let my son go that he may serve me. This is at least sufficiently definite, and is by no means open to the slightest imputation of lacking in the point of honesty.

5. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

In this topic, as in the one next preceding, the point of chief interest is the moral one-that which locates the moral responsibility for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart-that which defines and places truthfully the really responsible agency in the case. Was this hardening the work of God, by his immediate hand? Was it wrought by his power so exclusively and in such modes as to overrule and throw out of account Pharaoh's own responsible agency?

Or was the responsible agency that of Pharaoh only, altogether his and his alone? Did he harden his own heart, in the exercise of his own free will, in carrying out the purpose and desire of his own soul, essentially as other sinners and as all sinners do?

This question is one of immensely vital moment. Let us approach it with both care and candor.

We may reach the true answer by studying, (1.) The history of the case;

(2.) What is said of God's purpose in this matter (3.) What he has taught us of his character, and of his agencies in the existence of sin.

(1.) The history of the transaction will doubtless throw light on the question-How came Pharaoh's heart to be hardened? How was it done?