and tarfah, or tamarisk tree, grow in great abundance in Wady Gharandel. The former bears small, red, juicy berries, which they squeeze into water: the mann has a strong aromatic taste, like turpentine. One of our guides had a piece of it, which I tasted: they keep it in casks, melt it when required, and spread it on their bread like honey. Some have taken it for the miraculous manna-too absurd an opinion to be confuted. Are we to understand that the effect produced on the bitter waters of Marah, by casting in the tree, showed to Moses by the Almighty (or 'something of a tree,' as the Arabic version runs), was also miraculous? If not, it has been suggested that the mann or the homr juice may have been the specific employed. The homr is, however, a mere shrub, and had the whole valley for miles round been full of tarfah trees, or homr bushes, there would scarcely have been enough to sweeten water sufficient for such a host as that of Israel. Moreover, the Israelites were here within a month after the institution of the Passover, at the vernal equinox, whereas the mann harvest does not take place till June. This alone, I think, must decide the question in favour of the miracle." This traveller goes on to tell us that the Hebrew name of the tree in question was alvah, whence he is led to conclude, from the analogy of the names, it might be identified with the species of acacia to which the Arabians give the name of elluf. But all that is said on this point goes for nothing, as it happens that the tree is not called in Hebrew alvah, nor is any name given to it, but it is indicated simply as ry aitz, a tree. His concluding observation is more correct:-"Whatever the tree was, it can have had no more inherent virtue in sweetening the bitter well of Marah, than the salt had, which produced the same effect when thrown by Elisha into the well of Jericho.*"

This leaves little to be said. As Lord Lindsay proposed his question to an Arab who could not apprehend his precise object, through an interpreter, who probably apprehended it as little, there can be no doubt that the answer applies to the supposition that he wanted to know how a cup of bad water might have its unpalateableness disguised, so as to be made drinkable; and it is much the same, in effect, as might be given in this country to a similar question," Put a little sugar, or a little lemonjuice into it." Probably the Bedouins use both of the articles mentioned—being a sweet and an acid-in making a kind of sherbet. It will not do to think of the Hebrew, as squeezing Lindsay, i. 263-5.

the juice of little red berries, or as mixing up a vegetable gum in the well of Marah, even if a sufficient quantity of either could have been procured to sweeten water enough for the thousands of Israel. This, therefore, being the only case in which the Arabs of Sinai have been brought to mention the only articles known to them as used for the indicated purpose, does the more abundantly prove that they know no tree answering to the description which, without the miracle, it would be necessary to require. In this, as in many other dealings with the miracles, it is easier to understand and believe the miracle itself, than the best explanations which have been given.

The Jewish writers, generally, are so far from looking for any inherent virtues in the "tree," that they, contrariwise, affirm that its natural quality was rather to make that bitter which was sweet, than to sweeten that which was bitter. The Targums call it the bitter tree Ardiphne, which most of the Hebrew interpreters take to signify the same to which botanists give the name of Rhodo-daphne, the rose-laurel.

(3) BAKING, &c., p. 194.-We consider the three cuts which we give here to be very interesting; as they doubtless convey nearly all the information we need concerning the pounding, kneading, and baking, mentioned in the early Scriptures. They may require some little explanation.

'Pounding in a Mortar."-This shows the form of the pestles and mortars, and the mode of using them in pounding any articles in large quantities. The scene in the lower compartment of this cut reminds one who has been in the East of the manner in which rice is husked and cleared. The mortars in the cut are probably like those now employed, hollowed blocks of wood. The pestles are different from those now generally employed, but the manner of use, by men striking alternately, is the same. We see also that the sieve was, in those remote times, used when necessary, to sift that which had been pounded in the mortar.

“Kneading.”- From this we see that dough was kneaded either by the hands, or by the feet-that mixed with the hands being in a more fluid state than that kneaded with the feet. The cut is of additional interest, from its indicating the very probable forms of the "kneading-troughs," in which the Hebrews took their dough with them from Egypt.* These kneading-troughs appear to be made of

Exod. xii. 34.

rushes, or palm leaves, and therefore very portable.

"Baking."-This cut is very variously instructive:-a and e are ovens ; a man is cleaning out that at a, and the one at e is alight, and nearly ready for use, the ascending points at top represent flames. Ovens of this shape are still used in Western Asia, though not exclusively. They are sometimes of brickwork, and sometimes of stout earthenware, daubed with mud or plaster, to retain the heat. No doubt the Israelites had such when in their more settled state, but probably not in the desert; for although those of earthenware are portable, they are inconvenient to remove, and liable to injury. But the mode of baking at d, upon a propped pan, or plate of metal, under which a fire is kindled, is so simple, and the apparatus so portable and lasting, that it is still much employed in baking those thin cakes into which the western Asiatics like to make their bread. This is probably the "pan" mentioned in Lev. ii. 5, 7; but whether the "oven" of verse 4 be that which we have just noticed, we cannot say. There are other ways of baking; but the only other convenience like an oven which they were likely to possess, would be a pit dug in the ground. The men at b and c are making dough into cakes, and the man at ƒ is bearing the cakes upon his head to the oven. Unquestionably, the Hebrews were in Egypt well acquainted with all the processes which these cuts exhibit.

(*) MIRACLES:-THE MANNA, p. 195.Seeing that all the miracles of the Old Testament must necessarily pass historically under our notice, we are very anxious to be rightly understood on the subject; and the manna affords a very favourable opportunity for explanation. And yet we have but little to say which will not have been anticipated by any one who has paid a reasonable degree of attention to the manner in which the miracles which have already occurred has been related, and to the remarks which have incidentally been made.

It will have been seen, then, that our dispo sition is, and has been, not to multiply miracles after the sort in which this has been done by many more zealous than wise friends of revelation. In all cases we allow the miracle without question, which is distinctly claimed to be such in the Scriptures, and where the circumstances clearly indicate that a miracle was necessary, we say necessary," because we are persuaded that the Almighty has almost invariably chosen to act through natural agencies and under the laws which he has imposed

66

on

nature, whenever they are adequate to produce the required result. But there is another class of events which are not expressly declared to be miracles in the Bible, but which many interpreters conclude to be such, from the appearances which they take and from the circumstances with which they are connected. To these we shall apply the rule of necessity also; and if we find that a miracle was indispensable, we shall believe that a miracle took place, not else. This is because we believe it is one of the beautiful peculiarities of the Bible, that it has none of those gratuitous and barren wonders which form the mass of the pretended miracles which the various systems of false religion produce. While therefore we despise the feeling which induces many who are afraid to deny miracles absolutely, to nibble at the great miracles with the view of reducing them to almost human probabilities: lament, on the other, that opposite feelingwrong in a right direction-which leads many good people to magnify into miracles all events which are in the least degree removed from the course of every-day experience.

we

As much of all the confusion of statement incident to the subject arises from confusion of ideas, or rather from the want of distinct ideas, it would be well if we had distinct terms for describing or rather for distinguishing—

1. Miracles of Fact.

2. Miracles of Time.

3. Miracles of Circumstance.

And in that case we think it might be found out that many persons who have been set down as unsound in this test matter of miracles, were, in fact, without its being perhaps clear to their own minds, only uncertain about the class to which one or more particular miracles should be referred.

We may as well define that by Miracles of Fact we would mean events which are different from the ordinary course of nature, such as raising the dead, dividing a sea or a river, or causing the advancing shadow to recede. By Miracles of Time we mean events of which it was foretold that they would occur at a particular time, and which did accordingly occur. In some cases it might be doubtful whether the event were a miracle or not, but for the precise correspondence in time with the inti mation previously given. This is as much a prophecy as a miracle, and might be called a Prophecy-Miracle. By the third class,—Miracles of Circumstance-we would be understood to denote the application of ordinary circumstances to effectuate purposes so special and determinate as to evince the interposition of a Divine power. Many of the Old Testament

miracles are of this class, and if they occurred in our own day, would probably be called rather "over-ruling providences" than "miracles." But in truth every marked act of over-ruling providence is a miracle. Thus we have three terms which we shall take the liberty to employ when determinate expressions are required. These are-Fact Miracles, Prophecy Miracles, Circumstance Miracles. With reference to the second of these, it is not, perhaps, necessary to observe that the prophecy, though sufficient of itself in particular cases to constitute a miracle, may be and frequently is connected with both the other classes of miracles.

The history of the manna, to some observations on which we have not unsuitably prefixed these remarks, seems to us very remarkable. We incline to think it the greatest of the Old Testament miracles, and the one that least adinits of even a plausible explanation on natural principles. Yet there is not, for this very reason, one of the miracles which more vigorous efforts have been made to explain, all ending in most egregious failure. In fact, this is not one miracle, but a most astonishing combination of many. It was a regular supply of food-a substitute for corn during nearly forty years; it fell around the camp of the Israelites regularly, in all places and at all seasons during all their removals; the supply was regularly intermitted one day in every week, compensated by a double supply the preceding day; it became unfit for use if kept to the next day, and yet once a week it might be kept for two days; and when the miracle was about to be discontinued, as no longer necessary, a pot full of it was directed to be laid aside, and preserved as a memorial to future generations. And all these marvellous circumstances are not mere abstract qualities of the manna, declared to recommend it to our admiration, but are historical facts,-facts inseparably involved with the history of a people.

It, therefore, would seem, as we have intimated, to be an attempt of no common hardihood to bring this particular miracle, or rather this closely compacted set of miracles, within the limits of a natural probability. Yet this attempt has been made by several very able writers; and on this stone they have all stumbled. No one of them has ventured to look fairly through it in all its circumstances, and some have got rid of it in some such quiet way as this:-"The manna is still collected from trees which may have been formerly very

numerous in the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai.'

The case is as stated in the extract given from Lord Lindsay in the second note. In some of the valleys of Sinai grows a species of tamarisk, from which exudes a substance to which the Arabs give the name of mann, and which is alleged to be the manna by which the Hebrews were sustained in the wilderness. We have compared the various accounts of the appearance, qualities, and use of this substance with that which the Scripture gives of the manna, and the result is that the differences in all these points are great and irreconcilable, while the faint resemblances are not at all peculiarly offered by this product, but are such as are offered by numerous other substances similarly produced. It is clear that what has led to its being taken for the manna is first, that the Arabs call it mann, and second, that it is found in the peninsula of Sinai; but for this no one would ever have fancied for a moment that it was, or had any relation to, the manna of Scripture. Now with respect to the name, it will be recollected that the food bestowed on the Israelites took its name from their previous ignorance of it leading them to ask one another, "What is this ?" and if, therefore, the Arabs in giving the name of mann to the product in question, have in view any reference to the manna of the Israelites, it must be derived from their conclusion that it was the same article with which that people were fed; or else from their merely giving to a product useful and agreeable in itself, the name of manna in the way of honour and praise, without any notion of its being the same substance. If the name of mann, as applied to this substance, be not merely an accidental coincidence, by which no reference at all to the manna of the Hebrews is intended, the latter would seem the most probable conclusion; for it should be carefully noted that the identity is entirely a fancy of European travellers, not one of whom alleges that the Arabs themselves, who name it mann, even hint at any connection between it and the manna of the Scriptures.

It is clear, from the very name, that the Israelites were previously unacquainted with the substance which they called manna; and it is strongly implied in the command to preserve a vessel of it for a memorial, that it would be seen by them no more: for to preserve a specimen of that which nature continued abundantly to produce, would have been absurd. In considering this matter, it appeared impor

Sejour des Hébreux en Egypte,' 132.