Egypt, and might have been full of Egyptians, while Pharaoh followed in their rear. Here the Lord wrought deliverance for his people; and it is remarkable, that at this place, Ras 'Attákah, where the Red Sea is about ten or twelve miles wide, every cir cumstance seems to favor the opinion that the passage was made. Here the valley expands into a considerable plain, bounded by lofty precipitous mountains on the right and left, and by the sea in front, and is sufficiently ample to accommodate the vast number of human beings who composed both armies. An east wind would act almost directly across the gulf. It would be unable to co-operate with an ebb tide in removing the waters: no objection, certainly, if we admit the exercise of God's miraculous agency; but a very great impediment in the way of any rationalistic hypothesis. The channel is wide enough to allow the movements described by Moses; and the time, which embraced an entire night, was sufficient for the convenient march of a large army over such a distance; while the depth of the waters, and all the other circumstances, exactly harmonize with the Scripture account. And, "so far as aversion to miracle has had an influence in the hypotheses which have been given, all we shall remark is, that in a case which is so evidently represented as the sphere of miracle, there is but one alternative,—they who do not admit the miracle must reject the narrative; and far better would it be to do so frankly than to construct hypotheses, which are for the most part, if not altogether, purely arbitrary. A narrative obviously miraculous (in the intention of the writer) can be explained satisfactorily on no rationalistic principles: this is not to expound, but to 'wrest,' the Scriptures."-Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature.

NOTE 15, page 55.—The Song of Moses.

Or this sublime composition Bishop Lowth says, "The most perfect example which I know of that species of the sublime ode, possessing a sublimity dependent wholly upon the sublimity of the conceptions and the dignity of the language, without any peculiar excellence in the form and arrangement, is the thanksgiving ode of Moses, composed after passing the Red Sea. Every part of it breathes the spirit of nature and of passion; joy, admiration, and love, united with piety and devotion, burst forth spontaneously in their native colors. To take a strict account of the sublimity of this ode would be to repeat the whole." And the Rev. J. H. Caunter says, “I have no hesitation in affirming that this composition is unequaled by anything of a similar kind. It appears to have been intended for alternate recitation; and this was no doubt accompanied by the musical instruments then in use; and from the choruses it is clear that the whole was sung as a thanksgiving hymn, to solemnize the great deliverance of the Israelites." Kennicott argues in defense of the recitative character of the poem; but Geddes asserts this opinion to be "pure fancy."Lowth's Poetry of the Pentateuch, præl. xxvii, vol. i, p. 255.

NOTE 16, page 57.-The Healing of the Waters.

NUMEROUS speculations have been put forth respecting this healing of the waters, and many and desperate efforts have been made for the purpose of accounting on natural principles for the effects described. It should be remembered, that there can be no doubt as to the strict accuracy of the description. The spot is even now well known, and the bitterness of the water remains. When Dr. Wilson was at the place, in 1843, on his taking some of the water to drink, the Arabs cried out, Murrah, murrah, murrah! “It is bitter, bitter, bitter!" On this subject this eminent scholar and traveler observes, "The Badawin of these deserts know of no process now of sweetening bitter water; but the credulity of rationalism can find one sufficiently potent for the purpose of effecting a change in a supply of the element required for

the two millions and a half of souls comprising the hosts of Israel. Burckhardt has directed our attention to a plant, delighting, like the palm, in a saline soil, and growing near this and similar fountains. It is called Ghackad by the Arabs. The juice of its berries might be adequate, it is alleged, to qualify the nauseous liquid. But where, it may be asked, could a sufficient quantity of these berries be found to make a million or two of gallons of drinking sirup ?"-Lands of the Bible, vol. i, p. 172. But, to make this rationalistic notion appear in all its native absurdity, it is only necessary to add, that the Israelites were at Marah within a month after the institution of the passover at the vernal equinox, whereas those berries do not ripen till June.-Kitto's Cyclopædia, art. Marah.

NOTE 17, page 57.-The Laws given at Marah.

CRITICS are greatly divided in opinion as to "the statute and ordinance" here spoken of. Pool says, it is not to be understood of any particular law, but should be regarded as a general injunction, like that given to Abraham, Genesis xvii, 1: Bishop Horsley, "There he appointed for them" (or prescribed to them) "an express rule," some more precise and definite direction than they had previously received. But perhaps Patrick has the more accurate idea, who regards it as a revelation of some particulars intended for their guidance until they came to Sinai to receive a complete canon of law.

NOTE 18, page 58.—Quails.

A QUESTION has been raised by Bishop Patrick, who, following some earlier writers, rejects the authorized translation of 7 (selav,) and contends that these creatures were not quails, but locusts. But this notion seems to be satisfactorily refuted by Mr. Harmer. The following is an abridgment of his observations:-The bishop rested his objection to the authorized version upon three points: 1. Their coming by a wind; 2. Their immense quantities, covering a circle of thirty or forty miles, two cubits thick; 3. Their being spread in the sun for drying, which would have been preposterous had they been quails; for it would have made them corrupt the sooner; but this is the principal way of preparing locusts to keep for a month or more.

With respect to their coming by means of a wind, it is well known that locusts were carried by this instrumentality; and Mr. Harmer asks, “Why might not the same agent bring quails ?" It is certain that these are birds of passage, and that their flight is influenced by the temperature. Maillet says, that as soon as the cold is felt in Europe, turtles, quails, and other birds, come to Egypt in great numbers. If, then, the change of climate is thus shown to be the certain cause of the migrations of these birds, what difficulty is there in supposing that a hot, sultry wind, by presenting a more genial temperature, might have brought this multitude of quails to the Hebrew camp?

With respect to their numbers, the bishop exaggerates. He supposes a day's journey to be sixteen or twenty miles, and thence infers that a circle of this radius was covered two cubits deep with these creatures. But whether these were quails or locusts, this is a violent rendering of the text. Num. xi, 31. Josephus seems to have taken the correct view of the subject, who says, that this multitude of birds, wearied with their flight, flew about two cubits, that is, three or four feet, from the ground; so that the people could take them at pleasure; the miracle consisting in their coming at that precise time, and in such numbers, and so slowly, that a cloud of birds, fifteen or twenty miles in breadth, was two days and one night passing over the camp.

But the learned prelate appears to rest his objection mainly on the fact of spread

ing these creatures in the sun to dry. This, the bishop complains, supposing they were quails, no interpreter has explained. A passage from Maillet is a complete answer to this complaint. This writer states, that great numbers of birds take refuge in one of the islands near Alexandria; that these were taken in such numbers, that the crews of vessels in the harbor had no other flesh allowed them. The manner of preserving was by stripping off the feathers with the skin, and then burying them in the hot sand for a short time, by which the moisture is absorbed, and the flesh preserved from putrefaction. Maillet expressly mentions quails as among the birds so caught and preserved in the harbors of Egypt; and if the Israelites are supposed to have acted in a similar manner on their departure from that country, all the difficulty of the case is removed. (See Harmer's Observations, vol. iv, p. 359.)

NOTE 19, page 59.-The Manna a Miracle.

In accordance with the practice, so prevalent in modern times, of excluding the miraculous agency of God from his interpositions on behalf of his people, and explaining away whatever may appear as superhuman, or above the ordinary operations of nature, much learned ingenuity has been employed in this case for the purpose of showing that the manna was a natural and ordinary production. Hence "it has been assumed by modern lexicographers, and other writers in Germany generally, that the manna here spoken of is a sort of gum, still found in certain parts of the deserts of Arabia, and elsewhere in the East. But nothing can be more improbable than this; for, 1. Had this been the case, the Israelites could not have been ignorant of what it was. 2. It would not have bred worms, nor have stunk. 3. It would not have been found in a double portion on the day preceding the Sabbath, and not at all on that day. 4. Its being a small round thing, like coriander-seed, is proof sufficient that it was not the gum above-mentioned; as is the fact, 5. That it continued to fall during the whole forty years of the sojourning of the Israelites in the desert, and ceased on the morrow after they had entered Canaan.—Dr. Lee's Hebrew Lexicon, 367, a.

To these may be added another and equally decided and important proof of the miraculous character of this supply the manna of the Scriptures fell around every encampment of the Israelites in the entire circuit of their journeying from the coast of the Red Sea through the deserts of Sinai, in the wilderness of Zin, on the borders of Edom, and to the banks of the Jordan; and in sufficient quantities to sustain millions of people. Against these facts it is nothing to object, that the leaves of the tamarisk naturally exude a substance, very much like that which Moses describes. Did these plants so universally abound, that at every encampment a certain supply of manna, sufficient in quantity to feed a nation, was sure to be obtained? When, since the days of Moses, could one million of people have been sustained by manna, following the route of the Israelites? And if this is acknowledged to be impossible, how captious and puerile do these attempts appear, which are put forward for the purpose of depreciating or destroying the effect of this great miracle! Those who bow to the authority of Holy Scripture will have no doubt on this subject, as it declares that the manna was specially provided by the goodness of God, and was altogether peculiar and previously unknown. "He fed thee with manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know." Deut. viii, 3, 16. It may be observed that the words in Exodus xvi, 15, are improperly rendered in the authorized version, and much ambiguity thrown around the subject in consequence: the passago should be read, "When the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, What is it? For they knew not what it was." The interrogation, "What is it?" (Man-hu) being adopted as the name of the substance, is left untranslated in the text.

NOTE 20, page 60.-The smitten Rock.

6

"THE Bible affords us no data for precisely fixing the position of the smitten rock. It is merely mentioned as the 'rock in Horeb,' and it was probably contiguous to or a part of Sinai. It is too seldom borne in mind, that, though the Israelites were supplied with water from the rock when they were stationed at Rephidim, there is nothing in the Scripture narrative which should lead us to suppose that the rock was in the immediate neighborhood of that place. The Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee the elders of Israel: and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thy hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. The water of the smitten rock was probably that which was alluded to by Moses, when he said, 'I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust, and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the Mount.' The water may have flowed to the Israclites when encamped at Rephidim, at the distance of miles from the rock, as the winter torrents do now through the Wádís of Arabia Petræa. In fact, the language of the Psalmist would lead us to conclude that this was actually the case: 'He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths. He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.' The rock, too, may have been smitten at such a height, and at a place bearing such a relation to the Sinaitic valleys, as to furnish in this way supplies of water to these Israelites, during the first of their journeyings "from Horeb by way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-Barnea.' Deut. i, 2. On this supposition new light is perhaps cast on the figurative language of the apostle, when he speaks of the 'rock following' the Israelites. On this supposition, also, we see a reason why the rock should have been smitten to yield a large supply to flow to a distance, even though springs and small rills might have been found pre-existent in Sinai." Speaking afterward of Rephidim, the same author says, “It is to be particularly noticed, that the water from the rock in Horeb could easily flow to them at this very place, on the only road practicable to them from the Wády Feirán (near Mount Paran) to Sinai. I was greatly struck with the regular descent from Sinai of this water-channel through the Wádi esh-Sheikh ; and I cannot resist directing particular attention to the impression connected with it which I have mentioned."—Lands of the Bible, vol. i, pp. 233-235, 254.

NOTE 21, page 60.—Amalek.

COMMENTATORS generally inform us that the Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz, the son of Esau; and ingenious speculations have been propounded as to the motives which induced this attack, based upon the supposed derivation of the tribe. But a moment's inquiry will be sufficient to show that this notion is groundless. Observe, first, the line of descent in the families of Esan and Jacob:*

A glance at this is sufficient to show, that a tribe, whose father was contemporary with the grandfather of Moses, could not have been so numerous as to send out an army whose number and prowess held the strength of all the twelve tribes of Israel at defiance, and placed the existence of the Hebrew people in trembling jeopardy for a whole day. The almost miraculous multiplication of the Israelites renders this impossible.

But this is not the only difficulty. The Amalekites are mentioned as one of the tribes which were smitten by Chedorlaomer and the confederate kings, in the days of Abraham. Genesis xiv, 7. This high antiquity of the Amalekites is fully justified by the language of Balaam, who said, "Amalek was the first of the nations." Num. xxiv, 20. It is further worthy of remark, that Moses does not in any way allude to their having any relationship to Israel; nor did the Edomites, when the Amalekites were destroyed by Saul, manifest any sympathy for them, or put forth any efforts in their behalf, as might have been expected, if, having sprung from the grandson of Esau, they had been an integral part of the Edomite family.

These views are supported by the Arabian historians, who deduce the genealogy of Amalek thus: Noah-Ham-Aram-Uz-Ad-Amalek. The founder of this nation would thus be placed some generations older than Abraham. They say also, that the Amalekites, in ancient times, possessed the country about Mecca; whence they were expelled by the Jorhamite kings.-See Ancient Universal History, vol. i, p. 383.

Pressed by these difficulties, Calmet supposed there might be three tribes called by this name: 1. Amalek the ancient, located near the Jordan. Gen. xii. 2. Amalek in the region to the cast of Egypt. And here it must be observed, that there is a place in the wilderness of Sinai which at this day is called Wády Am-halik. 3. Amalek, son of Eliphaz. Without referring to the last, may it not be reasonably concluded, that the first and second were the same people? In those early times large and powerful bodies were migratory, even more so than they are at present in those regions. And as intelligence of the exodus of the Hebrews was noised abroad, and it was said that they had come out of Egypt with great substance, the Amalekites might have thought that by assailing them they would be sure of a rich booty; and, as far as our information extends, nothing but the interposition of Heaven prevented the gratification of their cupidity. The malediction of Balaam supports this opinion.

NOTE 22, page 62.-Jethro's Visit to Moses.

GREAT difference of opinion obtains amongst interpreters as to the precise period when this visit of Jethro to Moses took place. Selden, Lightfoot, and Horsley, contend that it occurred after the giving of the law; and this opinion is adopted by Townsend, and defended by Dr. Adam Clarke. On the other hand, Dr. Hales, Bishop Patrick, Shuckford, and the authors of the Universal History, suppose it to have happened while the Israelites lay at Rephidim, and according to the order in which the event is recorded in the Mosaic narrative. The subject of this controversy cannot be discussed here at length. It will be sufficient to observe, that, after due deliberation, the latter opinion appears well founded; and that the arguments advanced in favor of the other do not so much affect the date of the visit, as the time when his advice to Moses was acted upon. Bishop Patrick, therefore, appears to have solved the difficulty, by supposing that Jethro visited the camp at Rephidim, although the judges were not appointed, agreeably to his advice, until after the giving of the law.