shaped like the inverted calyx of a flower, in size and probably also somewhat in shape.

According to the Rabbis, it was eight yards high (!!). Fastened to it by two (according to

the Rabbis, by three) ribbons of 'blue lace' was the symbol of royalty--the 'golden plate'

(or Ziz), on which, 'Holiness unto Jehovah' was graven. This pla te was only two fingers

wide, and reached from temple to temple. Between this plate and the mitre the high-priest

is by some supposed to have worn his phylacteries. But this cannot be regarded as by

any means a settled point. According to the distinct ceremony of the Talmud, neither

priests, Levites, nor the 'stationary men' wore phylacteries during their actual service in

the Temple. This is a strong point urged by the modern Karaite Jews against the

traditions of the Rabbis. Can it be, that the wearing of phylacteries at the time of Christ

was not a universally acknowledged obligation, but rather the badge of a party? This

would give additional force to the words in which Christ inveighed against those who

made broad their phylacteries. According to Josephus, the original Ziz of Aaron still

existed in his time, and was carried with other spoils to Rome. There R. Eliezer saw it in

the reign of Hadrian. Thence we can trace it, with considerable probability, through

many vicissitudes, to the time of Belisarius, and to Byzantium. From there it was taken

by order of the emperor to Jerusalem. What became of it afterwards is unknown;

possibly it may still be in existence. 33

It only requires to be added that the priests' garments, when soiled, were not washed,

but used as wicks for the lamps in the Temple; those of the high-priest were 'hid away.'

The high-priest wore 'a fresh suit of linen vestments' each time on the Day of

The priesthood ministering in the Temple were arranged into 'ordinary' priests and

various officials. Of the latter there were, besides the high-priest, 34 the 'Sagan,' or

suffragan priest; two 'Katholikin,' or chief treasurers and overseers; seven 'Ammarcalin,'

who were subordinate to the Katholikin, and had chief charge of all the gates; and three

'Gizbarin,' or under-treasurers.

These fourteen officers, ranking in the order mentioned, formed the standing 'council of

the Temple,' which regulated everything connected with the affairs and services of the

sanctuary. Its members were also called 'the elders of the priests,' or 'the counsellors.'

This judicatory, which ordinarily did not busy itself with criminal questions, apparently

took a leading part in the condemnation of Jesus. But, on the other hand, it is well to

remember that they were not all of one mind, since Joseph of Arimathea belonged to

their number--the title by which he is designated in Mark 15:43 being exactly the same

word as that applied in the Talmud to the members of this priestly council.

It is difficult to specify the exact duties of each of these classes of officials. The 'Sagan'

(or 'Segen,' or 'Segan') would officiate for the high-priest, when from any cause he was

incapacitated; he would act generally as his assistance, and take the oversight of all the

priests, whence he is called in Scripture 'second priest' (2 Kings 25:18; Jer 52:24), and in

Talmudical writings 'the Sagan of the priests.' A 'Chananjah' is mentioned in the Talmud

as a Sagan, but whether or not he was the 'Annas' of the New Testament must be left

undecided. The two Katholikin were to the Sagan what he was to the high-priest,

though their chief duty seems to have been about the treasures of the Temple. Similarly,

the seven Ammarcalin were assistants of the Katholikin, though they had special charge

of the gates, the holy vessels, and the holy vestments; and again the three (or else

seven), 'Gizbarin' assistants of the Ammarcalin. The title 'Gizbar' occurs so early as Ezra

1:8; but its exact meaning seems to h ve been already unknown when the LXX

a