vmon, to be acting under special Divine Ezekiel would not have deviated so largely guidance (eh. xliii. 10, 11; xl.iv. 5). Canon as he has done from the rites prescribed in Driver (' An Introduction to the Literature the priests' code had these been in opemtiou of the Old Testament,' p. 183) admits that and invested with authority (see Driver, the argument from Ezekiel's deviations from 'An Introduction,' eto., p. 133), the newer the so-called priest-oode in favour of the criticism should explain how the priests' later origin of the latter, if" taken by itself, code came to deviate from the Torah of would not, perhaps, be e. decisive oue," and Ezekiel, which, if it was not then in actual even adds that, "however doubtful it may operation, was at least investetl with Divine be whether Ezekiel presupposes the authority. Is it not every way as logical compkted priests' code, it is difficult not to to infer, from the deviations of the priests' conclude that he presupposes pa,·ts of it" code (suppo,ing it to be post-exilic) from (ibid., p. 138). But if none of it ex.isted the Torah of Ezekiel, that the author of the before Ezekiel, then a counter-question to priests' cotle could not have kuown of the that of Cornill may be put, " How is it to existence of Ezekiel's Torah, and therefore be explained that the unknown author of that it could not then have been in existence, the priests' code shonld have allowed him- as vice versa that Ezekiel hacl no acquaint- self to deviate so fir from the arrangements o.nce with the priests' code, and that there- which Ezekiel, a prophet acting under fore it had not in his day been composed? J ehovah's guide.nee, had established?" The impartio.l reasoner, with no theory to The natural reply is that when the priests' uphold, will recognize that the two arguments C'-Ode was composed, Ezekiel's Torah did not run exactly pari_ passu. exist. If the newer criticism believes thai
HOMILETICS. Ver. 7.-The Prince's portion. In the division of the land and its produce, while care was taken for the maintenance of the priesthood by means of the sacrifices, arrangements were also made for the support of the government by assigning a certain portion to "the prince." Christ, as "Prince of Peace," the Head of the spiritual kingdom, has a right to claim his portion in all that we possess. L A PORTION SHOULD BE RESERVED FOB OUB HEAVENLY PRINCE. All that we have should be devoted to Christ, and nothing used except as he may be pleased with the purpose to which it is directed. In all our daily pursuits, if we are true Christians, we should not forget that Christ owns us, and therefore owns all our property. But it is not enough to allow this truth and even endeavour to act upon it. As the idea of the sacred- ness of all days is sometimes pleaded in excuse for the misuse of Sunday, so the notion that all we have belongs to Christ may be used as a plea for escaping from all direct acts of sacrifice on behalf of his cause. But we have to remember that our Master claims a portion for his immediate use. Some of our time should be devoted to Christ's work, some of our money to the furtherance of hie kingdom among men. What we give to a missionary 10ciety should be considered as especially a part of the Prince's portion. Does the Prince have all that is due to him in this way? II. THE PRINCE REQUIRES AND WILL UBE RIB PORTION. What we give wisely to the cause of Christ is not wasted as a merely ceremonial oblation. It is not like a sacred libation which is spilt for no practical purpose. The money and labour spent in the cause of Christ should bear fruit in advancing his cause. By the economy of Provi- dence this great work is left to Christ's people. If they do not give their Prince his portion, the rights of the kingdom will be crippled, and its progres8 among men will be hindered. Great and rich as he is, Christ has graciously condescended to make the spread of his kingdom on earth depend on the gifts and labours of Christian men and women. Thus we may say the Prince needs his portion. III. 'l'BE PRINCE HAB EARNED lilS PORTION. Democratic people grow impatient at the claims of princes, whom they consider to be idle and useless. But some p-inces have their missions in the world. Christ came to do a great work. He was no indolent Prince, only eager to clutch at his dues, and giving his people nothing in return. The account lies just the other way. He who was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich (2 Cor. viii. !J). Christ has given himself for his pegpl~. He has now ascended up on high, to give gifts to men (Eph. iv. 8). When we gne him anything, we are only returning somo portion of wha,t we tirsl; received OH. XLV, 1-25.] THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET EZEKIEL. 41!).