and then he makes a solemn assembly, and yet on that day dismisses the people to their homes. *

In regard to the New Moons, or the first day of every month, the Mosaic law prescribes (in addition to the burnt and meat offerings) a he-goat for a sin offering (Num. xxviii. 15). In Ezekiel's scheme of the feasts, these new moons are entirely omitted, except for the first month, though afterwards incidentally alluded to. The Mosaic law also provided on the tenth of the seventh month for a day of atonement, with special and very peculiar sacrifices (Lev. xvi.). All this is condensed, as it were, in this vision, into two sacrifices, each of a young bullock, one upon the first and one upon the seventh day of the first month, with particulars in regard to them (to be mentioned presently) which seem to refer to the day of Atonement. Now, it is certain from the history of David (1 Sam. xx. 5, 18, 24) and from other historical records (2 Kings iv. 23; 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2 Chron. ii. 4; viii. 13; xxxi. 3), as well as from allusions in the preexilic prophets (Isa. i. 13, 14; [lxvi. 23; Ps. lxxxi. 3]; Hos. ii. 11; Amos viii. 5) that the new moons were kept as sacred feasts in the ages before the exile, as it is known that they were also afterwards (Ezra iii. 5; Neh. x. 33). The omission of these new moons from this description of the feasts is particularly instructive, because Ezekiel himself, in other parts of the vision (xliv. 17; xlvi. 3), incidentally, but repeatedly, mentions the "new moons" (in the plural) as days to be sanctified by special sacrifices, and requires the prince to provide the same offerings for them as for the Sabbath (xlvi. 6).† He thus shows that he was familiar with them and expects them to be continued, but in this setting forth of the cycle of the feasts he does not mention them. This cannot be taken then for a part of the

development of a priestly law.

He differs from the Mosaic law also in the ritual of the blood of these sacifices on the first and seventh days of the first month. The Levitical law gives no directions for the blood of the offerings on the first day of the month, doubtless because it followed the ordinary rule and was simply sprinkled on the side of the altar; but it required

*The inconsistency which Kuenen (Relig. of Isr. Note II. on chap. viii. vol. ii. p. 296, 7) thinks he finds between the passages above cited is wholly imaginary. Solomon observed seven days for the dedication of the altar in imitation of Lev. viii.-x., and then kept the feast for seven days after the altar had been consecrated. Hence i Kings viii. 65 speaks of "seven days and seven days, even for fourteen days," and then of the following" eighth day"; while 2 Chron. viii. 9 explains more fully "they kept the dedication of the altar seven days and the feast seven days."

The word is, in this last case, in the singular, as is also the Sabbath; but both are evidently used collectively.

the blood on the day of Atonement to be brought within the Holy of Holies and sprinkled before and upon the mercy seat. Ezekiel again compromises and directs that the blood of the sin offering on the first and seventh days of the first month shall be put "upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court." There may be here a reminiscence of the day of Atonement, but nothing like a generic law which could have been specialized into the particular observances of the Mosaic law. It is rather a purely ideal ritual, which nobody ever thought of There is no such congruity between it and the as a development hypothesis would require.

reducing to practice. Levitical regulations.

We may now consider, in a few words, the general cycle of the feasts. As is well known, the Mosaic law prescribes three great feasts, that of the Passover for seven days, preceded by the putting away of leaven and the killing of the Paschal lamb; that of "weeks" or Pentecost, lasting only one day; and that of Tabernacles, lasting seven days, and with an eighth special day added; these three great annual festivals are all expressly recognized in Deuteronomy (xvi. 1-16), which is held by all to be pre-exilic. Besides these, the first day of every month, the weekly Sabbath, and the day of atonement were to be kept holy and marked by special sacrifices. The observance of nearly all of these is recognized in the historic and the older prophetical books. The cycle of Ezekiel's vision is very different. He omits the feast of weeks, the Day of Atonement, and the new moons (except that of the first month,) and inserts a new feast on the seventh day of the same month. This last, in connection with that on the first day of that month, he seems to intend as a compensation for the missing Day of Atonement; for he describes the sacrifices of the two (xlv. 20) as "for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house." If this interpretation is correct, we have here an incidental recognition of the older observance of the Day of Atonement, although it is not mentioned. however this may be, Ezekiel's cycle of feasts accords neither with what went before nor with what followed after him. Yet, as already said, it is plain from his incidental allusions to the New Moons that, in this point at least, he knew of the old order, and expected it to go on; and it is noticeable that the sacrifices prescribed for the New Moons (xlvi. 3-6) are not the same as the special sacrifices of the first month (xliv. 18-20). Those were to be in each case "a young bullock" for a sin offering; these, six lambs and a ram for a burnt offering (xlvi. 4). It is clear, therefore, that he did not intend this vision

But

to form the basis of an actual cultus; but knowing the old observances, expected them to continue.

Before leaving this part of the subject, it may be well to refer briefly to a few other places in which Ezekiel evidently recognizes the Mosaic law, although either altering or omitting its provisions. In xlii, 13 he requires the priests to eat in the appropriate "holy chambers" "the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering." He says nothing of the peace offerings, though he elsewhere repeatedly mentions them (xliii. 27; xlv. 15, 17; xlvi. 2, 12), nor does he anywhere give the ritual for them. On the other hand, in the following verse (and also in xlvi. 18, 20) the prophet is more explicit than the law, requiring that "the priests'" garments wherein they minister "shall not be carried" out of the holy place into the outer court. There is no such general direction in the Levitical law; but the same thing is required in certain special cases, and may therefore be thought to be implied in all (see Lev. vi. 10, 11). Now, whatever theory is adopted concerning the relation of Ezekiel to the Mosiac law must equally explain this omission and this insertion. The theory of the later development of the law does neither; for, in the one case, it would be a violent supposition that the ritual of the peace offerings and the directions about eating them were evolved from the prophet's silence, and in the other case, it would be very strange that in such a matter as the care of the priests' robes the later law should be the less definite. But the hypothesis of the greater antiquity of the law explains both facts satisfactorily; Ezekiel had no occasion to repeat important provisions of the law with which both he and the people were familiar, but it was natural that in a matter of detail, he should express what was probably the common understanding of the law.

In xliii. 11 it is required that the priests' sin offering should be burned in the appointed place of the house, without the Sanctuary." This refers to a building "in the separate place" which is provided only in Ezekiel's vision (xli. 12-15; xlii. 1, 10, 13), and of which there is no trace either in the Pentateuch or in the temple of the restoration. In such cases it was simply required in the law that the body of the victim should be burned "without the camp" (Lev. iv. 12, 13, 21; xvi. 27, &c.). No doubt such a building as Ezekiel provided would have been a great convenience; but it was never erected.

The provision for large landed estates for the priests has already been mentioned; but in view of this the statement in xliv. 28, that the priests' office and perquisites "shall be unto them for an inherit

ance: I am their inheritance: and ye shall give them no inheritance in Israel," can only be looked upon as a reminiscence of the expressions in the Mosaic law, without any nice regard to the other parts of the vision.

The provision for the Sabbatical year was distinctly pre-exilic, since it is given at length in Deut. xv.; yet there is no trace of its observance before the exile, and its non-observance is given by the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxxvi. 21) as the determining reason for the length of the captivity. We know that it was observed after the restoration (1 Mace. vi. 49; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, § 6; Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. 2, § 4). Here again is an important and characteristic institution, certainly forming part of the Hebrew legislation before the captivity, neglected until that period, and observed afterwards. Exodus (xxiii. 10, 11) and Leviticus (xxv. 2–7) contain the commands for it, but Ezekiel does not mention it. He certainly is not in this respect a bridge. between Deuteronomy and Leviticus, betweeen pre- and post-exilic legislation.

The omission of all mention of tithes in Ezekiel, a provision certainly in force from the earliest to the latest times, can only be accounted for on the supposition of its familiarity.

In the Mosaic law all the males of the people were required to present themselves at the sanctuary at the great annual festivals (Ex. xxiii. 14, 17; xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16); there is no such command in Ezekiel, doubtless because it was already entirely familiar. But in xlvi. 9, while speaking of the gate by which the prince shall enter, he incidentally recognizes the custom, "But when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the solemn feasts," &c. He has made no provision for this, but recognizes it as a matter of course.

The omission in ch. xliii. is not only very striking in itself, but is of especial importance in its bearing upon the main question under discussion. In vs. 18-27 a detailed order is given for the seven days consecration of the newly erected altar, at once recalling the similar consecration of the altar in Lev. viii. But in that case the consecra

tion was a double one,-of the altar and of the priests; here the priests are entirely omitted. Why? Evidently because the altar only was new and required to be consecrated; the priests had been consecrated of old.

But the question may be asked in regard to the changes of ritual, Why could there not have been deviations by the later priests from the scheme of Ezekiel, just as well as by Ezekiel from the laws of Moses? Simply because there is a good reason for them in one case and none at all in the other. If Ezekiel wished his description to be

understood ideally, it was important that he should introduce arbitrary variations from the recognized law and custom; but if he intended to set forth a scheme of actual future worship, there is no known reason why his successors should have deviated from it.

Passing now to what may be called the economic, or political features of the vision, there are only three points which call for especial attention, and even these but briefly; the provision for the cost of the sacrifices, the division of the land, and the regulations respecting the prince.

There is no distinct provision in the Mosaic law for defraying the cost of the general sacrifices, and we are told that this was still one of the many questions in dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees at a much later date. But it is fully and clearly settled in Ezekiel's vision. The cost is to be wholly borne by the prince (xliv. 17, 21-26; xlv. 4-7), who is to be provided with ample territorial possessions (xlv. 7, 8; xlviii. 20-22). As far as we have any record, this arrangement was quite new, and it was never followed It was, however, so wise and excellent a solution of the difficulty that we can only wonder at its never having been adopted, if any Israelite had ever looked upon this vision as a basis for theocratic legislation.

out.

The division of the land has already been spoken of in connection with the evidence of the ideal character of this vision; but there are one or two other points which require mention. A striking feature of it is the ample provision here made for the prince with the proviso that it shall belong inalienably to him and his sons (xlvi. 1718); for in connection with this assignment it is said (xlv. 18) "And my princes shall no more oppress my people," and again (xlvi. 18) "the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression." A vivid remembrance of the exactions and oppressions of former kings was evidently in the prophet's mind, and he provides a new and wise remedy. It was unfortunate for his people that they never thought of making this the basis for actual legislation, and so avoiding once for all the evils under which they continued to suffer.

Another very curious provision is that at the southern end of the "oblation" a strip of land is reserved, 5,000 by 25,000 reeds (xlviii. 15-19), in the midst of which is to be the city with its "suburbs" 5,000 reeds square. The remainder, i. e., two pieces of land, each 5,000 by 10,000 reeds, is set apart that "the increase thereof shall be for food unto them that serve the city. And they that serve the city shall serve it out of all the tribes of Israel." It is quite unnecessary to point out the purely Utopian character of such an arrange