might be a supply for the wants of others ; who, in return, might supply their wants, in case circumstances should arise to admit of it and require it ; that so there might be, under all circumstances, an equality: as it is written, "He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack3'." This sense does not at all oppose that which I have before given : on the contrary, it rather confirms the former sense ; for it supposes that the overplus was col- lected accidentally , as it were, in the first instance, and with- out any express intention to dispose of it to others : but on its being found to exceed their own wants, they liberally dispensed it to supply the wants of others ; the donors at one time being the recipients at another ; and the obligations conferred being mutual, as occasion required.
This, too, is still agreeable to the order of God's providence in the world. No one can tell what change of circumstances may arise, to elevate or depress any child of man : but events continually occur to render a reciprocation of friendly offices both practicable and necessary, and to call forth amongst our- selves the dispositions that were exercised amongst the persons spoken of in our text.]
But, to enter more fully into the design of God in this fact, we must notice it,
II. As a mystical ordinance or appointment —
That the manna was a type of Christ, is beyond a doubt: our blessed Lord himself drew the parallel, in the most minute particulars13 — — — On this ac- count the manna is called " spiritual meatc:" and when, in the bestowment of it, there was so remark- able a circumstance perpetuated throughout the whole camp for forty years, we cannot doubt but that it was intended to convey some particular and very im- portant instruction. Nor does the construction put upon it by St. Paul in one point of viezv at all mili- tate against a different construction of it in another •view. His interpretation refers to it only as a tempo- ral ordinance : but, as it was a spiritual ordinance also, we must endeavour to derive from it the in- struction which, in that viezv, it was intended to con- vey*1 I think, then, that we may see in it,
a 2 Cor. viii. 13—15. h John vi. 31—58. c 1 Cor. x. 3. d St. Matthew's explanation of Isai. lhi. 4, 5. (See Matt. viii. 16, 17.) does not invalidate the construction put upon it by St. Peter,