any of those abominations; for the men that were in the land before you did these things, and the land vomited them out.  Take care that the land spue not you out also as it spued out the nations that were before you.”  Similarly xx. 23 seq.:  and in a legislative work such utterances prove more than they would in a prophecy.  Now as our section departs from Deuteronomy, it approaches to Ezekiel.  This is its closest relationship, and that to which attention has been most drawn.  It appears in the peculiar fusion of cultus and morality, in the notion of holiness, in a somewhat materialistic sense, as the great requirement of religion, and in the fact that the demand of holiness is made to rest on the residence of the people near the sanctuary and in the holy land. 1

****************************************** 1.  On Leviticus xxii. 24, 25, compare Kuenen’s Hibbert Lectures. ******************************************

But the affinity is still more striking in the language:  many unusual phrases, and even whole sentences, from Ezekiel, are repeated in Leviticus xvii. seq. 2

******************************************* 2.  Compare Colenso, Pentateuch and Joshua, vi. p. 3-23.  Kayser, op. cit. p. 177- 179.  Smend on Ezekiel, p. xxv. ********************************************

The 10th of the 7th month is in Leviticus xxv. 9 as in Ezekiel, new-year’s day, not, as in the Priestly Code, the great day of atonement.  This led Graf to regard Ezekiel himself as the author of this collection of laws in Leviticus; and Colenso and Kayser followed him.  But this is out of the question; notwithstanding the numerous points of contact both in linguistic and material respects, the agreement is by no means complete.  Ezekiel knows no seed of Aaron, and no wine at the sacrifices (Leviticus xxiii. 13); his festival legislation shows considerable differences, and in spirit is more akin to the Priestly Code.  And if he were the author he would have said something about the proper place in the cultus of the Levites and of the prince.

The corpus in question, which Klostermann called, not inappropriately, the Law of Holiness, inclines from Ezekiel towards the Priestly Code:  in such pieces as xvii. xxi. xxii. it takes some closeness of attention to see the differences from the latter, though in fact they are not inconsiderable.  It stands between the two, somewhat nearer, no doubt, to Ezekiel.  How are we to regard this fact?  Jehovist, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, are a historical series; Ezekiel, Law of Holiness, Priestly Code, must also be taken as historical steps, and this in such a way as to explain at the same time the dependence of the Law of Holiness on the Jehovist and on Deuteronomy.  To assume that Ezekiel, having the Pentateuch in all other respects as we have it, had a great liking for this piece of it, and made it his model in the foundation of his style of thought and expression—­such