These two violent deeds of Moses nave been the cause of a good deal of apologetic on the part of the Church. Sticklers for law have been shocked at him. Dr. Alexander Whyte tells us that St Augustine's comment on it is thi "T affirm that this man(the taskmaster), though criminal, ought not to have been put to death by one who had no legal right to da so." I dare say That is the. dry legal mind speaking. No doubt Moses ought to have gone to the Egyptian police court and have taken a summons out against the bully, under the Egyptian. "Protection of Slaves and Moral Welfare Society," and have got the man fined five vounds. Per. haps Moses ought. But he did not. He went for the wretch and killed him. I suppose it was man-sloughier. Mozes did not go to a lawyer. He didn't take, what Carlyle called "the dryasdust view" of the deed at all. No. And here is the surprise. Neither does God, according to the—story. It naks as if God was with Moses right through. This old book of Soa, the moral guide of our race still, hasn't an analogy for Moses and his violence-to bless itself with. Not it. It seems to back Moses. It is left to Church fathers to apologize for him. Evidently it has no use for the dry legal proper view of it. For very soon this volcanic shepherd, and ex-courtier, and refugee from the wrath of Pharoah, sees & burning bush in' the desert, and hears God call him, and not the "dryasdusts,"" from the midst of bush. And Moses is chosen to do the -very thing he had had vaguely in his "mind, to deliver his nation from the house of bondage, and lead them to Canaan. I preached
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.