as an element into the language itself of Holy Writ, and the simile, the illustration, the metaphor, are still telling forth the great Eastern apophthegm, that of "all things WATER is the first." Of such value was the well-so fruitful a source of contention in those parched and thirsty lands was the possession of a well!

Now applying these passages to the question before us, I think it will be seen, that the sudden gushing of the water from the rock, (which was the sudden discovery of an invaluable treasure,) and the subsequent onset of the Amalekites at the very same place for both occurrences are said to have happened at Rephidim, though given as perfectly distinct and independent matters, do coincide very remarkably with one another; and yet so undesigned is the coincidence, (if indeed coincidence it is

after all,) that it might not suggest itself even to readers of the Pentateuch whose lot is cast in a torrid clime, and to whom the value of a draught of cold water is therefore well known: still less to those who live in a land of brooks, like our own, a land of fountains and depths that spring out of the valleys and hills, and who may drink of them freely without cost and without quarrel.

If then it be admitted, that the issue of the torrent from the rock synchronises very singularly with the aggression of Amalek, yet that the narrative of the two events does not hint at any connection whatever between them, I think that all suspicion of contrivance is laid to sleep, and that whatever force is due to the argument of consistency without contrivance as a test, and as a testimony of truth, obtains here. Yet

here, as in so many other instances already adduced, the stamp of truth, such as it is, is found where a miracle is intimately concerned; for if the coincidence in question be thought enough to satisfy us that Moses was relating an indisputable matter of fact, when he said that the Israelites received a supply of water at Rephidim, it adds to our confidence that he is relating an indisputable matter of fact too, when he says in the same breath, that it was a miraculuos supply--where we can prove that there is truth in a story so far as a scrutiny of our own, which was not contemplated by the party whose words we are trying, enables us to go, it is only fair to infer, in the absence of all testimony to the contrary, that there is truth also in such parts of the same story as our scrutiny cannot attain unto. And indeed it seems to me, that the sin of Amalek on this occasion, a sin which

was so offensive in God's sight as to be treasured up in judgment against that race, causing Him eventually to destroy them utterly, derived its heinousness from this very thing, that the Amalekites were here endeavouring to dispossess the Israelites of a vital blessing which God had sent to them by miracle, and which he could not so send without making it manifest even to the Amalekites themselves, that the children of Israel were under his special care -that in fighting therefore against Israel, they were fighting against God. And such,

persuade myself, is the true force of an expression in Deuteronomy used in reference to this very incident-for Amalek is there said to "have smitten them when they were weary, and to have feared not God;"* that is, to have done it in defiance

* Deuteronomy, xxv. 18.

of a miracle, which ought to have impressed them with a fear of God, indicating as, of course it did, that God willed not the destruction of this people.

XVI.

AMONGST the institutions established or confirmed by the Almighty whilst the Israelites were on their march, for their

.

observance when they should have taken possession of the land of Canaan, this was one"Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year-thou shalt keep the Feast of Unleavened bread-thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib, for in it thou camest out from Egypt, and none shall appear before me empty :-and the Feast of Har