and restoring peace of mind, for chasing away worldliness and securing nobleness of thought and feeling? Sprinkling of blood, burning of incense, and a sin-laden goat sent to the prince of fabled demons. Not even reading from the Law and spiritual instruction by public teachers were enforced (comp. Neh. IX. 1-3, 5 sqq.). But by a natural process of moral refinement, in later times, when the destruction of the Temple rendered the prescribed ceremonial impossible, the Day of Atonement was conceived in a different spirit, and the active co-operation of the penitent sinners themselves was insisted upon; the Mishnah already (Taan. II. 1) points out that, with reference to the people of Nineveh, the prophet Jonah (III. 10) did not say, "And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting", but "He saw their deeds that they returned from their evil ways;" and that the prophet Joel (II. 13) exclaimed, "Rend your hearts and not your garments," to which passages many prophetic utterances not less excellent might be easily added (comp.esp. Isai. LVIII. 3-7); and for further proofs it is only necessary to refer to the admirable section on Repentance in the great work Yad Chazakah of Maimonides. Yet an excessive formalism, encumbering and almost extinguishing the beautiful idea of the Day, remained, and must remain as long as the ordinances of

an early Eastern civilisation are accepted as binding and unalterable. PHILOLOGICAL REMARKS.- Ebn Ezra (on ver. 29) contends that the stranger was indeed bound to abstain from work, but not to fast; however, the most developed levitism permitted, in the chief obligations of religion, no difference between all the members of the community. Philo (De Septen. c. 7) considers the Day of Atonement under five aspects (1.) as an exercise of temperance through fasting; (2.) as a proof of self-control, the Jews abstaining from food at the very season when they had just gathered in all their stores of fruit; (3.) as an act of gratitude, the people remembering in their abundance the privations of their ancestors; (4.) as a means of preserving the even flow of reason, which might by checked or disturbed by taking food constantly; and (5.) as a time of praying for forgiveness of sins, not on account of our own merits, but through the mercy of God who prefers pardon to punishment. The last point only is to the purpose. With regard to the typical acceptation of the Day of Atonement, which has been busily developed from the time of the Epistle to the Hebrews down to our day, we refer to our previous remarks on the subject (Comm. on Lev. I. pp. 158, 161; comp. Spencer 1. c. 1059, 1065; Deyling, Observ. I. 96-98; Michael. Typ. Gottesgel. pp. 71-74, 165-169).

ers of temptation and seduction to the evil demon Azazel, to whom they annually sent a goat laden with the sins which they deemed his work (pp. 292-294; I. pp. 377-379).

Thus we are brought far into the Persian period, when the above command, burdensome under any circumstances, was at least not quite impracticable; for at that time the Jews lived together in a comparatively small circle round Jerusalem, from whence access to the Temple was easy. But not even the boldest or most ambitious priest could have ventured to frame such a law for the time when the whole land was inhabited from "Dan to Beersheba ;" however, the writer, though as usual faithfully preserving the period and scenery of the Hebrew wanderings in introducing Aaron and his sons, the camp and the Tabernacle, really intended to legislate for Hebrew settleinents in Canaan; this is evident from the words with which he concludes this ordinance: "This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations" (ver. 7); and in order to mark its importance, he addresses it, under God's supreme authority, to every member of the community, both priests and Israelites, because all were directly concerned in its execution (vers. 1, 2). Yet Jewish tradition, shrinking from the exorbitant demands it imposes, declared, against the obvious tenour of the passage, that it is only meant

interdict their offering, beyond the precincts of the Temple; and some Rabbins were of opinion that, even while the Temple existed, it was only operative in places near Jerusalem (and tradition taught which places were called near), whereas in more distant localities the clean animals were freely killed and eaten, a view which Karaite writers strongly opposed (comp. Mishn. Zevach. XIII. 1; Talm. Chull. 17a; Siphra in loc., fol. 83b ed. Schlossb.; Rashi and Ebn Ezra in loc.; Maimon. Maas. Hakkorb. XVIII. XIX, and in Seph.

the, שלא לשחוט קדשים בחוץ .Hammits

90th negative precept; but on the other hand, Aaron II in n and on our passage).

It may be doubtful whether the priests received the portions which, in all proper thank-offerings, were allotted to them by the Law, since our command, while mentioning the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fat, is silent about the disposal of the breast and right shoulder; but the priests could not be left unrewarded, and at the meals that followed even thank-offerings in the wider sense, Levites were always among the invited guests. Certain it is that we have here no parallel to primitive usages, such as prevailed, for instance, in Homeric times: then the slaughtering of animals was indeed connected with a sacrifice, but it was presided over by the chief of the family himself, and performed in his own house; and the repast was strictly a domestic feast hallowed by pious gratitude towards the gods; whereas

במוקדשים) to apply to real sacrifices

~), and forbids their slaughtering, whereas the following law (vers. 8, 9) and that of Deuteronomy

the levitical regulation tended to deprive the Israelites of all personal authority in matters of religion, and to subject them entirely to priestly control: that these pretensions met with no large share of success, may be gathered from the constant struggles carried on between the hierarchical and the popular party down to the Roman time. Not more decisive are other apparent analogies: thus, whenever the Persians sacrificed, they took away the flesh of the victim, and ate it themselves (Herod. I. 132; Strab. XV. 732); but it does not follow, that whenever they desired to eat flesh, they sacrificed the animal to the gods. The Mohammedans regard no meat as lawful, unless the slaughtering of the beast is accompanied by a Divine invocation (see supra p. 22); but such expressions of submission and piety are widely different from a sanctification of the animal on the national Altar by means of the priests. Nearest akin to our law are the ordinances of the Hindoos, who are permitted to partake of meat mainly in connection with sacrifices and other acts of devotion (Manu V. 31 sqq.); but those ordinances are too wavering and uncertain to be reduced to well-defined principles (see supra pp. 41-43).

The second law (vers. 8, 9) is chiefly remarkable for its peremptoriness and its comprehensiveness; for it enjoins the offering of all sacrifices at the national Sanctuary under penalty of excision, and it expressly includes the strangers. The former point proves that the priesthood now felt themselves strong to op

pose menace to popular disobedience; and the latter, that the organisation of the community had begun to be accomplished from a theocratic point of view; and both the one and the other are unerring criteria for the date of this section. On more than one occasion we have shown, that during long periods the chief Sanctuary was utterly disregarded as a religious centre, and that at all times heads of families and leaders, kings and prophets, offered sacrifices wherever they deemed fit or convenient; and our law appears to convey as much a remonstrance as an injunction (see Comm. on Gen. pp. 737-740; on Lev. I. pp. 27 sqq.; and espec. pp. 19–24).

It is not easy to determine the false deities after whom the Hebrews were going astray, and who in our text are described by a term meaning "he-goats" ("). Now it is well-known, that goats were, on account of their proverbial lasciviousness, regarded by the ancients as the types of prolific generation, and were honoured as such by many and peculiar rites of religion. The Egyptians inhabiting the Mendesian district, or worshipping in temples dedicated to Mendes, abstained from offering goats, and sacrificed sheep instead; and though it may be doubtful whether Mendes, whom Greek writers identify with Pan, or any other Egyptian deity, was, like Pan, represented with the face and legs of a goat, it is certain that in some provinces this animal, especially the male, was held sacred to Mendes, whom the Egyptians counted