between Migdôl and the sea; before (3) Bá'al-Tsephôn, oppo site it (in) shall ye encamp upon (5) the sea." (Exod. xiv, 2.) "And they [the Egyptians] overtook (a) them [the Israelites] encamping upon the sea; upon (3) Pi-ha-Chirôth, which is before Bá'al-Tsephôn." (Ver. 9.) "And they [the Israelites] removed from Etham, and he [Israel] returned () upon (3) Pi-ha-Chirôth, which is before Ba'al Tsephôn; and they encamped before Migdôl." (Num. xxxiii, 7.) The meaning of Pi hahiroth, if it be Hebrew, can only be Mouth of the Gorges, (root,, to bore ;) or if Egyptian (as Gesenius and Fürst prefer) it is doubtless Sedgy Spot, (Coptic, pi-achi-roth, "the place of meadows," according to Jablonski.) In either etymology it would most properly designate a grassy shore, as at the opening of a valley with a brook into the sea. Such a spot is found in the reedy plain (sometimes called Badeah) at the mouth of a wide valley just south of Jebel Atâkah. Our Egyptian dragoman, who was thoroughly familiar with these localities, called it Wady Ghubbeh ("cane-valley ;") Robinson calls it Wady Tawarik, others Wady Mûsa, and still other names are assigned to it. Baal-zephon is doubtless a Hebrew rendering of the name of a place "sacred to Typhon," the Greek form of the Egyptian malignant deity, of whose haunt in this vicinity there are traces in ancient writers. (See the Hebrew Lexicographers.) In that case it was probably a mountain, or at least an eminence, in accordance with the heathen preference for hills as sites of shrines. Migdol is the common Hebrew word for a tower, and was, therefore, most likely also a commanding position. It occurs, however, as the name of a town in this quarter of Egypt, (Jer. xliv, 1; xlvi, 14,) and may be nothing more than a Hebraized form of the Coptic megtol, many hills." (See the authorities in Gesenius.) In Ezekiel xxix, 10; xxx, 6, it recurs in the phrase, which may most naturally be rendered from Migdol of Seveneh; in the English Bible, "from the tower of Syene," after the Vulgate, a turrc Syene; but the rendering of the Septuagint ȧnò Maydλov ἕως [once καὶ] Συήνης, suggests that the latter name should be pointed, to Sevên, thus marking out the natural limits of Egypt, from Migdôl on the north to Assuan on the south, precisely as to-day; and this conclusion is generally adopted by modern scholars. Fürst in his "Hebrew Lexicon," gives a curi

ous interpretation of this whole geographical question: "From Migdôl a road led to Baal-zephon, the later Heroöpolis, on the Red Sea, and, therefore, the Red Sea is mentioned with it. Exod. xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7." Most readers, however, will prefer to see in these texts, so carefully worded in almost exact agreement with each other, a precise indication of the very spot where the Israelites crossed; and if the above reasons be correct, we ought to find on each side of the crossing-place a conspicuous landmark, probably a mountain. This we exactly have at the valley in question, with Jebel Atâkah (“hill of liberty," so our dragoman translated it) on the north, and Jebel Abu-Daraj ("hill of the father of steps," that is, long march) on the south, and a fine well-watered plain between, suitable for an encampment. In this position the Israelites would be effectually hemmed in by the sea in front, the mountains on either hand, and the Egyptians in their rear. The enemy, of course, came directly down from Memphis along Wady et-Tih, ("the Valley of Wandering,") which terminates in the wady in question, thus intercepting the Israelites, who could not escape along the narrow rocky margin of the shore around the point called Ras Atâkah. Our company tried to travel that rough coast and found it impracticable enough. Small companies, as was the case with Dr. Durbin, may indeed pass slowly along it, but not so great and encumbered a multitude as the Israelites. Besides, it is about a day's march by this route from Ras Atâkah to Suez, and the Egyptians might readily liave intercepted the fugitives by sending a detachment around the other side of the mountain.

The particular path by which the Israelites reached Ras Atâkah from Ajrûd has not been agreed upon by the advocates of this point of crossing. Sicard thought they came down Wady et-Tih from Memphis; but this, as we have seen, is not at all likely. Most others suppose that they came first to Suez, and then along the shore. But if they came that way, why might they not escape by the same? As we have just seen, they could do neither. There remains, therefore, the supposition that they passed around partly behind and across Jebel Atâkah. This exactly tallies with the command to "turn" back from Etham. From Ajrûd the route would thus be not merely a deflection, but in part an actual retrogression, as the

accompanying map shows. A path is laid down on several of the maps of this region between the highest and westernmost summits of Jebel Atâkah, which the fugitives would most naturally take. By this route the distance for the third day's march from Ajrûd to the spring on the shore at the mouth of Wady Tuwârik would be a little less than thirty miles, the average allowed above for each of the previous days' travel. Thence to the extremity of Ras Atâkah is not quite ten miles, and thence to Ayun Mûsa is scarcely seven miles more. The journey does not seem to us to be an impracticable one under the urgency of the circumstances. It might be materially shortened for each of the succeeding days, especially the last, by locating Etham on the Haj route, somewhat to the west of Ajrûd; a supposition not at all forbidden by any known fact.*

4. Captain Moresby (in Aiton's "Land of the Messiah," p. 118 sq.) is of the opinion that the Israelites crossed at Ras Ta

* Kurtz ("History of the Old Covenant," Clarke's translation, Edinb., 1859, 4 vols. 8vo.) has an extended observation (i, p. 357 sq.) on the time that elapsed upon the route from Rameses to the Red Sea, which he argues must have been more than the three days that appear in the narrative, (by implication only, however, for there is no express statement to that effect.) We condense his statements into the following points: (1.) Jewish tradition assigns seven days, and this seems to have been the origin of the Passover week. (2.) The term "journey," denotes only an encampment, while the successive days of travel are expressed by, or "day's journey." (3.) In Numbers x, 33, we find stations three days apart, with no locality named between. (The same, we may add, is the case in Numbers xxxiii, 8, 16.) (4.) It would have been impossible for the Israelites all to rendezvous at one place and start together, especially as they all kept the Passover in their own homes the preceding night, and were not allowed to leave till morning. (Exod. xii, 22.) (5.) The distance, under any calculation, was too great for a three days' continuous march. (6.) The message to Pharoah of their movements at Etham (xiv, 5) requires at least four days from that point to the Red Sea-two for him to get the information, and two more for his army to be got ready and overtake the Israelites. To these arguments we may add the fact that a whole month was consumed (Numbers xxiii, 3; Exodus xvi, 1) in making the first eight stations, (Numbers xxxiii, 5-11,) containing-so far as the narrative directly states-but ten days of inarching. As the balance of the time could hardly have been all spent in camp-of which, moreover, there is no mention in the account-there arises a suspicion that the most prominent stations only are named, or those where more than one night's halt was made, or some noteworthy incident occurred. Of course the fugitives would travel faster, longer, and more continuously, till they were escaped from Egypt, and more leisurely after the event at the Red Sea had relieved them from danger. Be all this as it may, it is in any case clear that they could as easily journey from Ajrûd to the mouth of Wady Tawarik in one day, as they could from Tell Ramsîs to Ajrûd in two.

rafîneh, south of Mount Abu-Derâj, some sixty miles below Suez, where the sea is twenty miles wide and two hundred and fifty feet deep. This accords with certain traditions of the Arabs of the Desert, who name the warm springs in th rocks opposite after Pharoah. The inducement, however, to this view seems chiefly to be a desire to exaggerate the miracle.

Among the four localities named, the choice really lies between Suez and Ras Atâkah, and of these we decidedly prefer the latter.

Besides the works cited above, and the commentaries on Exodus, the question has been discussed by the following among the more modern writers: Kitto, "Pictorial History of the Jews," (London, 1843, 2 vols., sinall 4to.,) i, p. 187 sq.; Latrobe, "Scripture Illustrations," (London, 1838, 8vo.,) p: 29 sq.; Raumer, Beiträge zur biblischen Geographie, (Leipzig, 1843, Svo.,) p. 1 sq.; Mr. Sharpe, in Bartlett's "Forty Days in the Desert," (London, 2d ed., large 8vo.,) p. 23 sq.; Wilson, "The Lands of the Bible," (Edinburgh, 1847, 2 vols., 8vo.,) i, 149 sq.; Olin, "Travels in Egypt," etc., (New York, 1843, 2 vols., 12mo.,) i, 342 sq.; Durbin, "Observations in the East," (New York, 1845, 2 vols., 12mo.,) i, p. 120 sq.; Porter, in Murray's "Hand-book for Syria," (London ed., 1868, 12mo.,) i, 9 sq.; Palmer, “Desert of the Exodus," (New York, reprint, 1872, 8vo.,) p. 42 sq.; Bonar, "The Desert of Sinai," (New York, reprint, 1857, 12mo.,) p. 82 sq.; Morris, "Tour through Turkey," etc., (Phila., 1842, 2 vols., 12mo.,) ii, 219 sq.; F. A. Strauss, "Sinai and Golgotha,” (Berlin, 1850, 12mo.,) p. 147 sq. One of the most recent monographs on the subject, that of Unruh, der Zug der Israeliten aus Egypten nach Canaan, (Langensalza, 1860, 8vo.,) after extending the Gulf of Suez so far north as nearly to join a deep bay of the Mediterranean, locates Succoth at the narrow isthmus, Pihahiroth at Suez, and the other scriptural localities (Etham, Migdôl, and Baal-zephon) east of the gulf, which on this view was not actually crossed at all. This is the rationalistic theory fully carried out. The lively writer (Kinglake) of "Eōthen," (London, 1844; New York, reprint, 1845, 12mo.,) p. 188, thus briefly puts the main points of the controversy: "There are two opinions as to the point at which the Israelites passed the Red Sea: one is that they traversed only the very small creek at the northern extremity of the inlet, and that they entered the bed

of the water at the spot on which Suez now stands; the other that they crossed the sea from a point many miles down the coast. The Oxford theologians, who, with Milman, their professor, believe that Jehovah conducted his chosen people without disturbing the order of nature, adopt the first view, and suppose that the Israelites passed during the ebb tide, aided by a violent wind. One among many objections to this supposition is, that the time of a single ebb would not have been sufficient for the passage of that vast multitude of men and beasts, or even for a small fraction of it. Moreover, the creek to the north of this point can be compassed in an hour, and in two hours you can make the circuit of the salt marsh over which the sea may have extended in former times. If, therefore, the Israelites crossed so high up as Suez, the Egyptians, unless infatuated by divine interference, might easily have recovered their stolen goods from the encumbered fugitives by making a straight detour."

ART. III.-TAXATION OF CHURCH PROPERTY.

The Exemption from Taxation of Church Property and the Property of Educational, Literary, and Charitable Institutions. By CHARLES W. ELIOT, President of Harvard College.

Religion and the State. By ALVAH HOVEY, D.D. Boston. 1874.

IN order to understand the true question of church taxation, it must be separated from another with which it has been entangled. The question is not as to taxing powerful ecclesiastical establishments holding property yielding large revenues. It is generally agreed that church property devoted to business and yielding revenues should be taxed. The real question is this, and only this, Shall tax be levied upon church edifices, the lands they occupy, and the furnishings they contain--the property directly used for religious worship? The question relates to the sixty-three thousand church edifices in the United States; the largest number of which are humble structures built by the free-will offerings of the most publicspirited of the people, and are held solely for religious ends. We must, however, discard side issues like the following:

First: there is a vague feeling that the exemption of churches is a kind of "dead-headism." Accordingly it is