the wilderness may have been a natural production of that climate and country. There is even now a substance produced in that country and in other countries that passes under that name, though the quantity is very inconsiderable. It is not difficult to suppose that the quantity, in ancient times, may have been much greater than at present. At all events, allowing the manna to have been a natural production, there must have been a miracle in furnishing so great a quantity, and in restricting its supply to six days in the week. And in these modifications we see reason for placing this on the second list of miracles before described. One or two considerations may be added that will throw light on this subject. It does not positively appear that the manna did not fall on the seventh day, as on other days, though this is not the common understanding of the language where this circumstance is alluded to. That the people did not find any on the Sabbath day, may be understood as asserting merely that they did not seek for any. And when it is said that some of them went out to see the manna on that day but did not find any, the meaning may be the same. They may have seen it, without finding it, according to the phraseology employed in the prohibition. I think the language will bear this construction. That the manna was the principal food of the Israelites, during their sojourn in the wilderness, is rather assumed, than clearly deduced from the record. It is certain that they had other food to some extent. The two instances of an extraordinary supply of quails, shows that there might have been a moderate supply at other times. Besides, there were other wild animals fit for food in that country, to which the people could have had access. Furthermore, they had with them their flocks and herds; and to say they did not use them, is an unwarranted assertion. They doubtless ate the milk and the flesh of their animals; and they might have derived a considerable proportion of their sustenance from that source. We must not get a false

impression of this subject from the statement that the wandering of the Hebrews was in the wilderness; for this term does not denote a barren country, but only one that is not thickly inhabited.

235. Again, it is worthy of inquiry, on the assumption that the people lived principally on manna, how they had subsisted up to the time the manna was furnished. I suspect that we shall come nearest to the truth, if we consider this supply to make up what the people lacked, from other sources, rather than as constituting their principal support. And here may be a proper place to correct another error somewhat allied to the one just noticed. The people sometimes complained for the want of water, and were miraculously supplied. It was not because they had no water, but it was because their supply was not as abundant as they desired, or because it was not as good as they wished. If it were not so, why should they have been censured for their complaints? The censure presumes that they ought not to complain. But if they had no water, their murmuring was well founded, and the censure was unjust. On the other hand, if they had water, it may be asked, why should they have been indulged with more or better by a miracle? The only view of this subject that admits of a reconciliation of these difficulties, is this that the people were supplied with water, of a certain kind and to a limited extent, and that they would not have complained in view of any hardships arising from this source, if they had possessed a fortitude and endurance equal to the enterprize they had undertaken, and the vast benefits they hoped to reach. The miraculous supply, however, was to assure them of the divine protection, and give them additional confidence in the providence of God. It was not what they had any right to claim, or murmur, not to have received before, but it was a favor divinely bestowed and claiming their gratitude and trust. Another difficulty is removed by these views. How

could such a vast multitude have been supplied with water at a single well, or even at the twelve wells of Elim, as the record seems to imply; and when we consider the immense herds of cattle they had with them, that must, in like manner, have been supplied, the difficulty is greatly increased. The latter consideration adds a difficulty, to be sure, but it takes away one at the same time. The milk of their animals would lessen the demand for water with the people. The true view of this subject is, that the references to a single well, or to several wells, in any one place, are intended to point out an extra accommodation supply not absolutely indispensable, but exceedingly convenient, while the ordinary supplies were obtained from other wells to which no allusion is made, or from low grounds where water of a poorer quality could be obtained.

a

We shall have occasion to say many more things, in regard to the miracles recorded in this part of the Scriptures; but this we prefer to do in connection with the narrative of other events of which we shall treat in another part of this work, rather than to extend the present chapter, which has already far exceeded the dimensions intended at the outset.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT.

CONTENTS.-Hebrew Families in Egypt; Cruel Policy of Pharaoh; Birth and Exposure of Moses; He Sympathizes with His People; Flees to Midian; He is Commissioned to Deliver His People from Bondage; Burdens of the People; Genealogy of Aaron and Moses; Rods Changed to Serpents, and the Water to Blood; The Frogs, Lice and Flies; The Murrain, Blain and Hail; The Locusts; The Darkness; Death of First Born.

SECTION I.-HEBREW FAMILIES IN EGYPT.

236. It was very natural that the history, contained in this book of Exodus, should be prefaced with a

general statement of the number of families and persons, that came down from Canaan to that country. Hence the following passage:

EXODUS I.

1. Now these are the names of) the children of Israel which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

2. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah.

3. Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin.

4. Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, are here put down in the order of their birth. Then follows Benjamin. Joseph would be named before Benjamin, but being already in Egypt, he is not put down in this order.

Then the writer gives us the names of the children of the handmaids; first, those of Rachel's maid, and then those of Leah's maid; of the former, Dan and Naphtali; of the latter, Gad and Asher. Gen. xxix. 31-35; xxx. 14-21; xxx. 1-8, 9-13.

The seventy souls are put down in Gen. xlvi. 8-27, thus:

This reckoning leaves out Dinah, the daughter, and includes Er and Onan that died in Canaan, and did not come into Egypt, and Joseph and children that were in Egypt. Or if we suppose Er or Onan omitted in the last list, we may include Jacob himself and Dinah, to make up the number.

SECTION II.-CRUEL POLICY OF PHARAOH.

EXODUS I.

6. And Joseph died, and all his 15. And the king of Egypt spake brethren, and all that generation.

237. The increase of the people is evidently spoken of by the author of this book with gratification. It was what had been promised to them, and what they most desired. The fact, too, contains a reason why they became an object of fear to the Egyptian king, and why he sought to oppress them. It may be added, that Egypt had once been under the govern