So that all that was done at this passover, was meant to be done in express agreement with what "was written." And yet in the next sentence, D. C. admits that "there is no specific direction that the blood of the Paschal lambs should be sprinkled by the priests." So that in order to keep the passover, "strictly according to what was written," the priests sprinkled the blood according to what was not written. Not that we impute any violation of the Law to the priests in the time of Hezekiah. Since the second passover, the practice had been altered on competent, i. e. prophetic, authority; as we see in the later chapters of Ezekiel, the prophet, by Divine command, makes numerous alterations respecting the law of sacrifices. But, says D. C., according to the strict injunctions of the Levitical law, "all burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings, should be killed before Jehovah' at the door of the Tabernacle." But the passover is neither a burnt-offering, nor a peace-offering, nor a sin-offering, nor a trespassoffering. It is an offering per se, and therefore these strict injunctions do not apply to it.

6

There is only one passage in the Pentateuch, which gives the least colour to the theory, about the sprinkling of the blood at the second passover, and it is therefore urged repeatedly, and on that account we quote it at length. In Levit. xvii. 1-7, we read, "This is the thing which the

Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the Tabernacle of the Lord: blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a-whoring. From this, it appears that the Israelites were in the habit, even in the wilderness, of offering to strange gods, generally outside the camp, in the open field. To prevent this, God commands that whether the Israelite kills an animal for ordinary eating in the family, or as a voluntary sacrifice, he must bring it to the door of the Tabernacle, and have the blood sprinkled, &c.

And

But the passover belongs to neither of these cases. It was not killed for ordinary use in the family, nor as a voluntary offering; but by command, on a special occasion, and according to its own special ceremonies. It is not therefore included in this command, which only relates to these two cases.

BISHOP COLENSO, CHAP. XXII. War on Midian.

D. C.'s last difficulty is one of his own making. He says, "From the death of Aaron, the first day of the fifth month, to the completion of the conquest of the land of Og, we cannot reckon less than six months, and are thus brought to the first day of the eleventh month, which leaves no time for the march to the plains of Moab, Numb. xxii. 1; nor, 2ndly, Balak's sending twice to Balaam, his journey and prophesying, xxii.-xxiv.; nor, 3rdly, Israel's abiding in Shittim, and committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab; nor, 4thly, the death of the 24,000 by the plague; nor, 5thly, the second numbering of the people (xxvi. 6); nor, 6thly, the war upon Midian, during which they burnt all their cities and all their goodly castles, and which must surely have required a month or six weeks for such a transaction." The objection, as I have said, rests entirely upon D. C.'s own conjectures as to the time required for certain transactions, for there is not in the Penta

teuch itself the least note of time.

Are we then to pronounce the Pentateuch unhistoric, because D. C. conjectures that certain events must have occupied six months? That is a great strain, not upon faith, but credulity. But how does he reckon? Thus:

"1. We are told that 'Aaron died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year of the wanderings,' Numb. xxxiii. 38; and they mourned for him a month, Numb. xx. 29. 2. After this, 'king Arad fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners;' whereupon 'the Israelites attacked these Canaanites, and utterly destroyed them and their cities.' Numb. xxi. 3. For which two transactions we may allow another month." But how does D. C. know that this took place after the mourning? In the Hebrew text, there is no "after this." It may have been during the month of mourning of which the king of Arad took advantage, or it may even have been before the death of Aaron; for when Mount Hor was mentioned, it was natural immediately to notice the death of Aaron, and to defer the relation of the war with Arad. Then again, even if it were after the death and mourning of Aaron, what reason is there for supposing that the conquest occupied a month? It could only be a small portion of Arad's territory, situate on this side of the mountain barrier in the south, that they could have conquered, and a

single successful battle might have put them in possession of the whole. It could not have been a great or important conquest, or the Israelites could at once have pushed their way into Canaan, without going round about Edom. A week would have been sufficient for the whole affair. At all events, there is not the slightest ground for saying, that it occupied a month. His next calculation is, "3. Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the way of the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom, Numb. xxi. 4; and the people murmured, and were plagued with fiery serpents, and Moses set up the serpent of brass, Numb. xxi. 5-9, for all which we must allow at least a fortnight." But why? Was it not likely that as soon as ever the people heard of the necessity of the retrograde and round-about journey, they murmured, and spake against God; and that the Lord sent fiery serpents among them, of which, according to the accounts of modern travellers, there were plenty in the neighbourhood? For all this, a single day was sufficient. And when they saw that many of the people died, which might easily happen in a few hours, was it likely that they would wait a week or ten days before they asked for help? For this, one day more would be quite sufficient. Count another day for making the brazen serpent, and D. C.'s fortnight is cut down to three days. But then, D. C. goes on: "4. They now marched,