of the corporeal things that were to be brought to completion', i. e., I suppose, realized the architectural idea of the Divine Architect for the earthly temple, but without seeing anything corporeal in the form of pattern or model. There is no temple or altar in heaven, for, as Philo writes elsewhere (De Monarchia II. i.), the entire cosmos constitutes the highest and true sanctuary (iepóv) of God, having as its fane (véw) the holiest part of the essence of existing things, to wit, heaven: the other (i.e. lower or earthly temple) is wrought with hand (Xeιpókμntov). Similarly, the altar of the earthly temple has no pattern in heaven, nor even symbolizes aught in heaven: but the candlestick is the symbol of heaven, . . . the altar of incense the symbol of the things of earth' (De Vita Mosis, III. 10). The pure sacrifice with Philo is the righteous soul, but for its presentation he requires no heavenly priest: the true sacrificial victim (iepovyía) is nothing but the piety of the God-loving soul; and its gratitude is immortalized and, unwritten, is yet graven before God and co-eternal with sun and moon and entire universe.

It is possible that in Philo we have a tacit reaction against the material conceptions suggested by the idea of a material temple and altar in heaven, with heavenly ministrants reproducing some semblance of the earthly sacrificial service in heaven. In any case, with Philo the temple, altar, and cultus are corporeal signs of immaterial heavenly realities, and corporeal counterparts of them cannot be in turn located in heaven. Such reaction is even more probably to be detected in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author certainly makes use of the prevailing ideas of the correspondence of things earthly and heavenly, for he speaks unmistakably of the heavenly Jerusalem, though, significantly enough, even here he is contrasting the heavenly realities as in being the immaterial with the material tangible things of earth.

For his own purposes, again, he makes much use of the idea, probably already current among the Jews, of Michael as the merciful high priest, of a heavenly High Priesthood; but immediately and naturally as this is associated, as it is in the case of Michael, with a heavenly altar, he never speaks of an altar; nor, in the sense in which the term is often understood, does he even speak of a heavenly sanctuary or temple; he

thinks like Philo of heaven itself as a holy place or temple, but he never pictures to himself, at least he never pictures for us, a holy building, a temple in heaven. The holy place (rà ayla) into which Christ, having come a high priest of the good things to come, enters once for all (Heb. 911 f.) is not a temple in heaven, but heaven itself, as the writer definitely explains a little later in the chapter (v. 24): For Christ entered not into a holy place (ayıa) made with hands, an antetype of the true, but into heaven itself', i. e. the real type of the earthly temple is not a temple in heaven, but heaven itself. Thus the writer selects from the alternative ideas of his time that of heaven itself as the true temple, and he rejects together with the idea of a temple in heaven that of an altar in heaven, because together with material sacrifice material altars have place only on earth. He pictures his heavenly high priest as indeed an officiant (λELTOUρyòs) in the true temple, i. e. in heaven, yet not like Michael standing beside the altar, but, as he repeatedly says, seated for all time on the throne at the right hand of God (81f., 1012, 122).

A single sacrifice this heavenly high priest offered once on earth; but he does not repeat it in heaven: he does not immolate himself on the heavenly altar. On the other hand, in heaven his priestly activity is twofold: he intercedes and he saves (725).: i. e. without altar service, he performs the same services which the form of Jewish thought on these matters ill adapted to the idea of an altar in heaven which a particular development of the formula 'as in heaven so in earth' had created: the high priest of the Epistle to the Hebrews intercedes directly; the heavenly priest of Jewish thought by presenting the immaterial prayers of suppliants on the material heavenly altar; the high priest of the Epistle to the Hebrews saves directly, bringing the souls of men into the immediate presence of God; the Jewish pictorial alternative, harmlessly perhaps, but unnecessarily, introduces the altar on which Michael daily offers up the prayers of the righteous.

A complete history of the idea of correspondence between things earthly and heavenly in relation to temple, altar, and cultus it is impossible, for lack of material, to construct, and in these lectures it has been impossible to touch on all the ideas and

expressions in Jewish literature which have been affected by it directly or by way of reaction. But two broad lines should be evident: one which starts from the conviction that the things of earth, including temple, altar, and sacrifices, are the material counterparts of immaterial heavenly originals, and thus makes earth correspond to or symbolize heaven; and the other which transfers to heaven more or less exact counterparts of the material things of earth and so makes heaven reproduce earth. Broadly, the Epistle to the Hebrews represents in the earliest Christian literature the first of these lines, the Apocalypse the second. Both of these writings exercised great influence over at least the form of later Christian doctrine; the abolition-and not merely, as in Jewish thought, the suspension-of animal sacrifice is one of the points in which the Epistle to the Hebrews became normative of all Christian thought; on the other hand, the heavenly altar, which plays so conspicuous a part at all events in that form of the Apocalypse which the Church finally received, plays a prominent part at many periods, more especially in Eucharistic thought. And here we may perceive in Christian doctrine a certain parallelism to the double treatment which the heavenly altar and the sacrifices offered on it had received in Jewish thought. On the one hand, spiritual immaterial sacrifices are constantly associated with this heavenly altar and the altar is immaterialized to correspond with this view. As in Jewish so in Christian thought, it is in particular the prayers ascending to heaven that are treated as the sacrifices presented on this altar, and with these are associated at times other Christian activities. In Irenaeus, as already cited, it is our prayers that ascend towards the heavenly altar. On the other hand, in proportion as the material Eucharistic elements are regarded as the sacrifice offered on the Christian earthly altar, is the way opened up for a visualized and more materially conceived heavenly altar. And the need has been found for continuing such natural developments. So Bellarmine writes of the altar on high': 'this is not to be understood so stupidly as to make us think that in heaven any bodily or sensible altar has been built, and that the sacrament of the body of the Lord ought to be borne to it actually and bodily by the hands of angels: but that there is an altar, that is, a spiritual altar, in heaven . . . no one can deny without wishing

to deny the Scriptures' (Stowe, ii. 367). Into the various attempts to maintain along with the conception of a heavenly altar the immaterial, spiritual character of the heavenly service, it is impossible to enter here. But this allusion to it may be allowed to round off this survey of the influence of remote thought on the correspondence of things earthly and heavenly on Jewish and, in part through it, on Christian sacrificial theory.

XII

THE HEBREW PRIESTHOOD: ITS ORIGIN,

HISTORY, AND FUNCTIONS

i

THE TERMS FOR THE CULTIC PERSONS

IN continuation of lectures on sacrifice, I propose now to lecture on the Jewish priesthood. The association of the priesthood with sacrifice commonly, though perhaps incorrectly, regarded as at all times essential,1 was, at any rate during a large part of Jewish history, intimate. It will be part of our aim to determine if it was essential, and if not, yet how far and in what respects it was intimate. But no thorough study of the Hebrew priesthood or any other can be limited to the priests as ministers of sacrifice; in particular there arises the question of the relation of the priesthood to two other great institutions of the Hebrews— prophecy and monarchy. The union of the priestly and monarchic offices in the same persons is a well-known fact of the later Maccabaean rulers; the status of priest and the exercise of prophecy were united in Jeremiah, the prophet who was of the priests of Anathoth, and Ezekiel, who was both prophet and priest. The union of all three offices of prophet and priest and king in a single person belongs—if strictly regarded—to the realm of idea or interpretation rather than of actual Jewish history.2 But in the realm of interpretation the union of the three offices

1 Cp., e. g., Philo, De Vit. M. ii. [iii.] 29, § 224 (Mangey, p. 167), on passover-all priests because they officiated at sacrifice.

2 Though civil government, the high-priesthood, and prophecy were ascribed to John Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xiii. 107; B. J. 1. 23); but the title of king was first assumed by his son Aristobulus (Ant. xiii. 111; B. J. 1. 31).

יהונתן and Alexander's הכהן הגדול ראש חבר היהודים Cp. Hyrcanus coins