the despised and embondaged seed of Jacob. History affords us some few instances where kings have laid aside their purple and abdicated their thrones. But in all such cases they have descended to a rank in private life which was surrounded by ease, affluence, and continued respectability; so that their sacrifices were relieved by many countervailing considerations. But Moses descended from the dignity of a court to the degradation of a slave. What was there in the vaunted condescension of Dioclesian or Charles the Vth. to be compared with this? And where, in all the annals of time, shall we find such a surrender made from such motives?

Spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew. Probably one of the task-masters. As the original word for smiting (3 makkeh) is the same with that rendered slew (yak) in the next verse, it is to be presumed that the Egyptian was actmally attempting to kill the Hebrew, and that had it not been for the intervention of Moses, he would have effected his purpose. Thus Ps. 136. 17, To him which smote ( makkeh) great kings;' i. e. that slew. It is important to view this incident in connexion with what Stephen says of it, Acts, 7. 23-25, And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppress ed, and sinote the Egyptian: for he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.' It is undoubtedly to be supposed that Moses was now acting under a divine commission, and that an immediate impulse from the Spirit of God prompted him to the deed here recorded. This is to be inferred from the words of Stephen, for he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them implying that Moses himself

understood this to be the fact. It is
however worthy of note that Diodorus
Siculus informs us that a law existed in
Egypt, which might have been at this
time in force. That whoever saw his
fellow-creature either killed by another,
or violently assaulted, and did not either
apprehend the murderer, or rescue the
oppressed if he could; or if he could
not, made not an information thereof to
the magistrate, himself should be put to
death.' For aught that can be affirmed
to the contrary, Moses might have been
warranted on this ground alone in pro-
ceeding to the extremity he did. The
act however cannot be pleaded as a pre-
cedent on occasions that are not similar.
It bore a striking resemblance to the
conduct of Phineas on another occasion,
Num. 25. 7, 13, a conduct which was
certainly approved of God. If it be ob-
jected that the secrecy observed by Mo-
ses both in performing the act and in
disposing of the body, is scarcely con-
sistent with the idea of his being em-
powered by the call and authority of
God to execute his pleasure on this oc-
casion, it may be observed, that as his
calling, though clear to himself, had
not yet been publicly manifested or ac-
credited, it was fitting that a temporary
concealment should be drawn over the
present occurrence. Thus Ehud, Judg.
3. 21, though moved by an influence
from above, slew Eglon king of Moab
in a private chamber;
and Gideon,
Judg. 6. 27, before his office of deliverer
was publicly known, demolished the
altar of Baal by night. Again, if it be
asked what reason Moses had to sup-
pose that his brethren would have un-
derstood that he was acting by a divine
commission, it may be answered, that
the marvellous circumstances of his
birth and preservation, and subsequent
training in the court of Pharaoh, were
doubtless matters well known and much
talked of among the nation of Israel,
from which they might reasonably infer
that he was raised up for some extraordi-

12 And he looked this way and Wherefore smitest thou thy felthat way, and when he saw that there was no man, he hslew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. 13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong,

He said to him that did the wrong.
Heb. y larasha, to the wicked one.
The Gr. however renders very correctly
by To adikovuri, to the wrong-doer, and
Stephen confirms the same version,
Acts, 7. 26, 'Sirs, ye are brethren, why
do ye wrong (adikɛITɛ) one to another?'
In the case of the offending Egyptian Egyptian? Heb.

15 Now when Pharaoh heard face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the this thing, he sought to slay Mo-land of Midian: and he sat down ses. But Moses fled from the by ma well.

1 Acts 7. 29. Hebr. 11. 27.

halhorgani attah omer, sayest thou to
kill me? See Note on Gen. 20. 11. We
here behold a striking specimen of the
base constructions which an ill mind will
put upon the best words 'and actions.
What right had he to charge Moses
with a murderous intention? He had
indeed slain an Egyptian, but an Egypt-
ian was not a Hebrew, nor had he any
grounds to suppose that Moses would
go farther than the provocation war-
ranted. The occasion called simply for
a reproof, and a reproof was the head
and front of his offending; yet the ag-
gressor would turn away the force of
his rebuke by pretending that he aimed
at nothing less than his life! Besides,
why should he cast the slaying of the
Egyptian in Moses' teeth, when he had
really done it from his regard to his
own countrymen? Should not this quar-
relsome Hebrew have taken it rather as
a proof of Moses' favorable feelings
towards himself than as an evidence of
a wish to harm him? If he had not
loved the Hebrews would he have dis-
patched one of their enemies? But
reason and humanity speak in vain to
those whom a guilty conscience leads
to pervert the wisest and the kindest
counsels.- - Surely this thing is
known; i. e. his slaying the Egyptian.
Heb. haddabar, this word. See
Note on Gen. 15. 1. Moses was satis-
fied from this that the Hebrew whom
he had liberated the day before by
slaying the Egyptian, had divulged the
circumstance, and not doubting that it
would soon come to the ears of the
king, began to be in dread of his life.

15. When Pharaoh heard this thing, &c. He soon learnt that his fears were well founded. Pharaoh was apprised of the fact of his having put an Egyptian to death, and Moses was at once

m Gen. 24. 11. & 29. 2.

marked as the victim of his wrath. This was perhaps not so much with a view to avenge the death of a single individual of the Egyptian race, as because Moses had by this act discovered himself to be a friend and favorer of the oppressed Israelites, and given the king reason to suspect that he was secretly cherishing the purpose of one day attempting to effect their liberation. His only safety therefore was in flight. This would subject him to great trials and privations, and had his heart been less firmly fixed in the great purpose which he had adopted, he would have sought rather to make his peace with the king, his benefactor, and to retain his place at court. But he had made his election, and now chose rather to wander through dreary deserts than to be reconciled to the enemies of his people. The providence which thus withdrew the destined agent of deliverance from the field of action in the very outset of his work, would seem at first view extremely mysterious and adverse. But infinite wisdom saw that he needed a quite different training from that which he would receive in a luxurious court, in order to fit him for the hard services which awaited him. He sends him to school therefore for forty years in the desert to qualify him the better for leading his people through their forty years sojourn in the desert.

6

God,' says Henry, fetches a wide compass in his plans, but his eye is continually upon the grand point at which he aims.'-It is not to be supposed that there is any real discrepancy between this passage and Heb. 11. 27,

16 n Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.

17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and p watered their flock.

P Gen. 29. 10.

were often united in one and the same person. The humble occupation of his daughters will be no objection to this view of the title, if the difference between ancient and modern customs be duly considered. See Note on Gen. 48. 45. Nearly all the ancient versions, besides the Chaldee, adhere to the sense of 'priest ;' but whether he were the priest of a true or false religion, is not so clear. Being in all probability descended from Midian the son of Abraham by Keturah, it is perhaps most reasonable to infer that he retained the leading doctrines of the faith of his great progenitor, though possibly corrupted in some measure by the admix. ture of errors originating in the surrounding systems of heathen idolatry. From what we are subsequently informed of Jethro, he seems to have possessed a knowledge of the true God, and to have been imbued with sentiments of piety; and this supposition is strengthened when we consider the improbability of Moses' entering into a marriage alliance with the family of an idolater.

n ch. 3. 1. Gen. 24. 11. & 29. 10. 1 Sam. 9. 11. the head of the children of Israel.- 'priest,' as is shown in the Note on ¶ Dwelt in the land of Midian. Heb. Gen. 41. 18, and accordingly in the earyesheb, sat down; the same wordly ages of the world both these offices in the original with that applied in the ensuing clause to his seating himself by the well. Probably in both cases the time implied is that of his first arrival in Midian, the one referring us in general to the country in which he stopped on his route, the other to the particular place which was the scene of the incidents subsequently related. Coming to that land he halted in his sojourning, and finding a refreshing well of water he sat down or tarried a longer time than usual by the side of it. Otherwise we seem to be forced to the awkward construction that the dwelling mentioned in our translation, which implies somewhat of a permanent abode, was prior to his sitting by the well, which evidently is not the sense of the passage. -Midian was a country in Arabia Petræa, deriving its name from Midian, the fourth son of Abraham by Keturah. It was situated on the south of the Dead Sea and the land of Moab, and probably comprehended the whole country, as far south as the Red Sea. It is at least certain, that if the country of Midian did not actually reach to Sinai, there were colonies of the Midianites who settled near that mount, and who also gave the surrounding districts the name of the 'Land of Midian.' Among those emigrants who preserved the worship of God in comparative purity when lost amongst their countrymen in the north, was Jethro, with whose family Moses here comes into connexion.

16. The priest of Midian had seven daughters. Heb. kohen. Chal. 'The prince of Midian.' The original word signifies 'prince' as well as

17. The shepherds came and drove them away. Heb. Dyegareshum, where the pronominal suffix answering to them' is in the masculine, and not in the feminine gender; from which we are doubtless to understand that the daughters of Reuel were accompanied by men-servants who were under their direction. It would be strange indeed for a company of unprotected females to be thus employed, and equally strange, if they were without assistance, that such savage rudeness should be prac

18 And when they came to a Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to-day? 19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew wa

q Numb. 10. 29. ch. 3. 1. & 4. 18. & 18. 1. &c.

tised toward them by the shepherds. See Note on Gen. 29. 3. Moses stood up and helped them. Heb. Dp

yakom va-yoshian, arose and saved them. Gr. εppvoaro avras, delivered them. Here again we are probably required to suppose a fact not expressly mentioned in the sacred record, viz. that Moses travelled with attendants. Joining his servants with those of Reuel, a party was formed sufficiently strong to overpower the shepherd-boors who had so rudely attempted to drive away the flocks of the young women. Watered their flock. Heb. Y tzonam. Helped to water them. Here too the pronominal suffix 'their' is in the masculine gender.

is clear they were if they were different
persons; we cannot but give a decided
preference to the former opinion, which
makes Jethro and Reuel the same per-
son, but, for reasons now unknown to
us, called by different names. As to
Hobab, mentioned afterwards, Num. 10.
29, he is expressly affirmed to be the
son of Reuel (Raguel) 'Moses' father-
in-law,' which would seem to preclude
all controversy on the subject. But see
Note in loc. How is it that ye are
come so soon to-day. Heb.
miharten bo, hastened to come.

19. An Egyptian delivered us, &c. This they inferred from his speech and dress, or they had learned from his own mouth the country from which he came. Drew (water) enough for us.

Heb. 3 daloh dalah, drawing drew. The word 'enough' is inserted in our translation in order to bring the expression somewhat nearer to the em. phasis of the original.

20. Why is it that ye have left the man? It is not, we presume, to be con

18. Came to Reuel their father. The assignment of the names Reuel, or Raguel (Num. 10. 29), Jethro and Hobab, to the proper persons is no easy matter. It is supposed by many that Jethro and Reuel were but different names of the same person. Others consider Reuel as the father of Jethro, and the grand-father of the maidens here spoken of, but call-strued as a breach of propriety on the ed their father in conformity to a very common idiom in the original, of which see examples, Gen. 31. 43. 2 Sam. 19. 25. 2 Kings, 14. 3. 16. 2. 18. 3. So Targ. Jon. They came to Reguel, their father's father.' But as Reuel seems obviously to have been the same person as the priest of Midian, who had the seven daughters, an office which he probably would not have held had his father been alive, and as he is the one who is said v. 21, to have given Moses his daughter to wife, an act more appropriate to a father than to a grandfather, provided both were living, as it

part of the daughters, that they did not invite Moses home to their father's house. It would have had a very questionable air had they introduced a stranger into the paternal mansion without any previous notice to its proper head. On the contrary, they demean themselves with all the decorous reserve appropriate to their sex. It does not appear even that they solicited protection, but modestly received it; and when rendered they rather looked their thanks than uttered them. This was sufficient, for no noble or sensible mind, like that of Moses, would be in danger