they knew not what it was." Whether this was an exclamation of furprize, a question of curiofity, or an expreffion of contempt, we fhall not decide. Critics and commentators feem at a lofs how to underftand it. One fays it is this and another that, for they know not what it is. However, it is plain enough that manna, let it mean what it will, was not the proper definition nor description of the admirable provifion. And fo Mofes inform ed them by telling them, "this is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat.” Not. withstanding, they perfifted in giving their own opinion of it, though they were unac quainted both with its name and nature.

* Vide POLI. fynops. criticorum, in loc.

the

+ The derivation of the word manna is variously given by learned men. PHILO JUDEUS and JOSEPHUS make it to fignify what is this? and fo do the lxx. and R. SOLOMON, R. MENACHEM, and others. Accordingly it is thus tranflated in MATTHEW'S, GENEVA, and DowAY verfions. It is fo rendered, also, by the celebrated Dr. GEDDES. But COVERDALE renders it “this is man's;" our translation “it is manna," and others, "it is a portion." The declaration that "they knew not what it was," and the reply of Moses, would lead one to suppose that the phrase before was a question. Our only furprize is that it should afterwards pafs into a descriptive name. Thus we ufe a very vulgar phrase in Speaking of something of which we have forgotten the name, Say "the what do you call it."

and

Compare Deut. viii. 3. where Mofes expressly asserts their entire ignorance of it,

What a ftrange contradiction! But not ftranger than all are likely to fall into who pretend to decide upon matters which they do not understand. 66 They faid one to another it is manna ;" and manna it has been called ever fince. It is no eafy matter to alter names. When people misjudge at first, it is very difficult to rectify their opinion. Ignorance is blind and perverse; prejudice is pofitive and obftinate. What is misconceived and' mifapplied feldom afterwards retrieves its real estimation. Men are apt to judge at large, reflect at random and condemn at a venture; without waiting for a patient examination or fatisfactory evidence. Now, nothing can be more contrary both to equity and found reason than fuch precipitate judgments. Those who build opinions upon conjectures must often be in the wrong. They may make grofs blunders, and do great injuftice. The apoftle Jude gives fuch a rebuke: "Thefe, fays he, fpeak evil of the things they know not." It has been the practice of vulgar ignorance to abuse what it could not comprehend; and to affert that there must be

faults, where it had not the fagacity to dif cover excellence.*

II. BUT I proceed to inquire what this wonderful provifion really was, about which they were fo ignorant.

THAT there should no doubt remain in the minds of those to whom it was fent, Mofes informed them that it was the bread which the Lord had given them to eat. In like manner David calls it "the corn of heaven," and "angels' food." The Scripture describes particularly its appearance and properties, and mentions its coming down with the dew; alike the gift of refreshment from above. And it retains ftill its fame in the Eaft, being called "celeftial fweetmeat."

"Trifles light as air," often tried in the balance and found wanting, fink as deeply in unfurnished minds, and make as much impreffion there, as difficulties of a weightier nature; like feathers defcending in a void with a force and velocity equal to that of much more substantial and massy bodies.”

SEED.

† Pfal. lxxviii. 24, 25. See also its true name in Nehemiah ix. 15.

"Les orientaux appellent la manne qui tomba aux Hebreux dans le Defert, la Dragée ou Confiture de la Toute Puiffance, ce que les Arabes fignifient par Haluat al Kodrat, et les Turcs par Kodret Kalvafi." HERBELOT, biblioth. Orientale. The Greeks called it aeromeli, aerial boney. ATHEN. l. 11, and Dios. lib. 2. cap. 101.

Nor can there be any propriety in denying to the gift its real character and intrinfic value, because its appearance was not prepoffeffing. It is fufficient that its origin was divine, and its ufes excellent. If this could not recommend it, we may expect that the best things and richeft bleffings will be treated with neglect or fpurned with contempt.

THAT it poffeffed remarkably palatable and nutritive qualities is evident both from the di vine defign of its beftowment, and from its ufe. The author of the book of Wisdom fays that it fo accommodated itself to every one's taste as to prove agreeable to all. His words are," thou feddeft thine own people with angels food, and didft fend them from heaven bread prepared without their labor; able to content every man's delight, and agreeing to every taste. For thy fuftenance declared thy sweetness unto thy chil dren, and, ferving to the appetite of the eater, tempered itself to every man's liking."*

FROM modern famples of this fubftance, as it is gathered in the Eaft, we perceive that it

Wisdom xvi. 20, 21.