A careful reader of this narrative is naturally led to inquire; Was it not known beforehand to the Divine leader of the Israelites, that they were not as yet fit to occupy their destined position in Canaan, nor would become so, until the national institutions had had time to form a national character, which they could only do through the education of a younger race? Was it not then designed from the beginning, that there should be this interval between the emigration and the invasion? And, if so, with what propriety can the delay be represented, as it is, in the light of a punishment of their want of courage in not being willing to prosecute the enterprise at once to its completion?

I reply, that in the strictest sense of the words, the delay was a punishment of their pusillanimity; inasmuch

xiv. 11-20, compare Ex. xxxii. 7-14, 30-34. See p. 219. Numb. xiv. 12 might be rendered interrogatively, but it is unnecessary. It may be doubted whether verses 22, 23 were designed to be understood so rigidly as is commonly supposed. See pp. 125, 133. Compare Matt. iii. 5; iv. 23, 24. If it be said, that the express exception of Caleb (24), implies that there was no other exception, I reply, 1. that it might be fit to mention only the exemption of a distinguished person, even though others of less note were exempt also; and, 2. that there certainly was (30, 38) at least one other person exempt, besides Caleb. If the strong expressions in verses 22-24 must not be so understood as to exclude Joshua, neither can it be positively declared, that the subsequent strong expression, (30) which includes Joshua, must needs be so construed as to exclude all others. "These ten times" (22), indefinitely; as we say, a dozen times", "a hundred times", "sexcenties".-"Your children shall wander" (33); literally, shall feed; shall feed cattle; shall lead a Nomadic life, the life of the Bedouins of the present day."Ye shall know my breach of promise" (34). Much ingenuity has been expended upon this clause. I understand it to mean simply; See whether I withdraw from what I have said; You shall learn by your experience, whether I will retract my threat. Compare verse 35. - Upon verses 36-38, which interrupt the connexion, I offer the same observation as upon xiii. 24. I regard the passage as probably a gloss, written after the completion of the forty years, (though possibly indeed from Moses' own hand,) recording the ultimate fulfilment of the threat, in respect particularly to the ten explorers of Canaan. Possibly, however, it was a record (made at the time) of a speedier divine judgment, executed upon them for their agency in the violence related in verse 10.

as, though designed beforehand, it was designed with reference to the existence of that fault. It was this, which made the delay fit, as part of the divine plan for them. Its occasion would have been removed, had they possessed a courage equal to the immediate prosecution of their undertaking; and, accordingly, the only question properly presented by this part of the history is, why the people should be placed in a condition to manifest distinctly this meanness of spirit (as they did at the return of their messengers), and then be told that they were to suffer, in consequence, the inconveniences of an unsettled life of many years, rather than that they should have had their wanderings protracted without any explanation of the cause, or that the cause should have been signified to them without their having first given, in their conduct, any manifestation of its existence. And I apprehend that the course, which we read to have been taken, will appear to any one, on a little reflection, to be the course which might have been expected, and the fittest course to produce the effect designed. Had the Israelites been detained year after year at a distance from Palestine, and the delay been in no wise explained, there would have been no reply for Moses to give to the remonstrances of their discontent. Now, as often as they expressed impatience, he had an answer to seal their lips with; they had shown themselves unequal to the work, which they wished to hasten. Had the reason of the delay been explained to be their want of preparation, still, had there been no notorious fact to appeal to, in proof of that want, its reality would have been denied, and the argument would have lost its efficacy. That the postponement of the invasion of Canaan was part of the original divine plan,-that there was nothing in it contingent upon the people's specific misbehaviour in the wilderness of Paran, -I readily allow.

But, in addition to God's knowing their want of preparation, it was necessary that they should know it too; both to make them acquiesce more readily in the arrangement which it required for the time being, and to present to them a motive, in the interval, for cherishing those institutions, and forming that character, which were eventually to remove the defect.

At the beginning of the fifteenth chapter, the Israelites are addressed with some new regulations, prescribing additions to the ritual of Burnt and Peace Offerings, such as to give a character of greater sumptuousness to those ceremonies, and referring to the ultimate establishment in Canaan as a thing certain, though it was to be so long deferred. When the people should "be come into the land of their habitations", and be better able to command the means, they were to accompany the sacrifice of each animal, whether a kid or lamb, a ram, or a bullock, with a Meat Offering of flour, a Drink Offering of wine, and a quantity of oil, proportioned in each case to the value of the victim which was immolated. And the same rules, in this respect as in others, were to be observed by any transient sojourner in the country, who should desire to testify his respect for the national divinity; a provision obviously intended to prevent departures from the simplicity and uniformity of the ritual, such as might have been brought in through the example of foreigners, who would naturally be disposed to dispense themselves from a punctilious observance of it.*

* Numb. xv. 1-16. A half hin of wine, and the same quantity of oil, were to be presented with each bullock, a third part of that measure with a ram, and a quarter part with a lamb; of flour, the proportions were to be as three, two, and one. The flour and oil were to be made into cakes. The present law is an extension of that previously given (Ex. xxix. 40,) in respect to the daily Burnt Offering. A hin was a little over a gallon. A "tenth-deal" was probably a tenth part of an ephah, which was about a bushel.

We have next a direction respecting a new perquisite to the priests. It had before been commanded, that, at every Pentecost, two loaves should be brought to them by each householder, from the first-fruits of the wheat harvest. That provision is now so extended as to give them a similar claim to a loaf made from the first gatherings of all kinds of grain, its size, as far as we know, being left to the giver's discretion. This law, like the last, and like the similar one of older date, was first to go into effect after the establishment in Canaan. The whole revenue, designed eventually for the priesthood, was not at present wanted, while the number of priests was so small, and the dignity of their order, in a community but partially organized, did not require so liberal a support as would be suitable in later times. When it should be wanted, it would be afforded all the more readily, on account of the law prescribing it being of a date nearly simultaneous with the origin of the institution.*

The regulations which occupy the next following verses, I think have been correctly understood as having reference to those laws respecting sacred offerings, a portion of which had just been recited. Whoever should with presumption and defiance violate those laws, was to incur the high penalty which is called "cutting off from the people." The individual, who should break any one of them unintentionally and ignorantly, was, on coming to a knowledge of the transgression, to manifest his repentance by presenting a Sin Offering of the kind formerly described; and this, whether the offender was of native or foreign birth. If a like error had

Numb. xv. 17-21. The later Jews understood this law as binding them to bring first-fruits of five kinds of grain; viz. wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt. For the previous law, respecting two wheaten loaves at the Pentecost, see Lev. xxiii. 17.

Numb. xv. 27-31. Compare Lev. iv. 27-35.

occurred in an act performed in behalf of the nation, its sense of the fault was to be manifested in a manner somewhat altered from what had been before prescribed, and more costly and imposing. Instead of a bullock only for a Sin Offering, which had been first ordained, a Sin Offering of a kid is now substituted, to be accompanied with the holocaust of a bullock, with the addition of its appropriate Meat and Drink Offerings, as these had been lately regulated. It would appear, that as the people became more familiar with the law, there was a fitness in repressing infractions of it by an increase of the penalty incurred.*

Next follows a narrative, apparently having no other connexion with the context than that of time, and inserted in its place as the record of a passing incident. A sabbath-breaker was detected in the act. The proceedings against him were deliberate; "they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him." It was not, that there was any doubt that he must die; that had been explicitly determined by previous directions. But it was the first instance which had called for an infliction of the threatened penalty, and, as in the case of the blasphemer, the son of Shelomith, Moses had first to seek instruction respecting the manner in which execution should be done. As in that instance, to make the punishment exemplary, he

* Numb. xv. 22-26. Compare Lev. iv. 13-21. I have spoken of this law as having reference to errors in the observance of the ritual, as the nature of the topics in the context suggests. Perhaps, however, it also contemplated an extension of the meaning of "Sins of Ignorance" on the part of the congregation, making them cover the case of the commission of any offence within its borders, when the criminal had escaped detection. Compare verse 24. Public vigilance would be stimulated, by a provision, making the community liable in what was virtually a fine, for failing to ascertain the perpetrator of an illegal act. And such, in fact, as we shall have occasion to see, was the spirit of other regulations. † See Ex. xxxi. 14; xxxv. 2.