no other. These are distinguished in the New Testament | and no longer as the s Egypt. The knowledge of from the Hebrews or native Jews, who spoke what was then called Hebrew (a kind of Chaldaico-Syriac), by the appellation of HELLENISTS, or Grecians as they are termed in our authorized English version. These in all other respects were members of the Jewish church; they are repeatedly mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and it was a party of the Hellenistic Jews that requested to see Jesus.' VI. During the time of our Saviour there was a considerable number of Jews resident at Rome: Josephus estimates them at eight thousand; and Philo, who relates that they occupied a large quarter of the city, says, that they were chiefly such as had been taken captive at differen. times, and had been carried into Italy, where they had subsequently acquired their freedom, and were called LIBERTINES. The synagogue of the Libertines, mentioned in Acts vi. 9. is, by some critics, supposed to have belonged to this class of Jews. 2 this circumstance beautifully illustrates Eph. ii. 11-13. where St. Paul, describing the wretched state of the Gentiles before their conversion, represents them as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and, consequently, excluded from all its privileges and blessings. Thirdly, circumcision was an open profession of the worship of the true God, and, consequently, an abjuration of idolatry; on this account we are told that during the persecution of Antiochus the heathen put to death those Jewish women who had caused their children to be circumcised; and such Jews as apostatized to heathenism took away as much as possible every vestige of circumcision. As this rite was an open profession of the Jewish religion, some zealous converts from that faith to Christianity strenuously urged its continuance, especially among those who were of Jewish origin; but this was expressly prohibited by St. Paul. (1 Cor. vii. 18.) The sacrament of circumcision was enjoined to be observed on the eighth day (Gen. xvii. 12.), including the day when the child was born, and that on which it was performed; and so scrupulous were the Jews in obeying the letter of the law, that they never neglected it, even though it happened on the Sabbath-day. (John vii. 22, 23.) This they termed "driving away the Sabbath." If they were obliged to perform circumcision, either sooner or later, it was considered as a misfortune, and the circumcision so administered, though valid, was not deemed equally good with that done on the eighth day: and when this ceremony was deferred, it was never used to drive away the Sabbath. It was for this reason that St. Paul accounted it no small privilege to have been circumcised on the eighth day. Accordingly John the Baptist (Luke i. 59.) and Jesus Christ (Luke ii. 21.) were circumcised exactly on that day. There was a peculiar fitness in the circumcision of Jesus Christ: for, as the Jews reckoned it dishonourable to associate with uncircumcised persons (Acts xi. 3.), it was necessary that he should be circuncised in order to qualify him for conversing familiarly with them, and also for discharging the other duties of his ministry. Besides, as the Messiah was to be descended from Abraham, whose posterity were distinguished from the rest of mankind by this rite, he received the seal of circumcision to show that he was rightly descended from that patriarch: and as every person that was circumcised was "a debtor to the whole law" (Gal. v. 3.), it was further necessary, that Jesus Christ the true Messiah should be circumcised; because, being thus subjected to the law of Moses, he was put into a condition to fulfil all righteousness, and redeem those who were under the law. (Gal. iv. 4, 5.) At the same time that the child was circumcised, we learn Lastly, circumcision was appointed for mystical and moral VII. In consequence of this dispersion of the Jews through- reasons: it was, as baptism is with us, an external sign of out the Roman empire, and the extensive commerce which inward purity and holiness: hence these expressions of they carried on with other nations, their religion became "circumcising the foreskin of the heart," the "circumcision known, and the result was the prevalence of a somewhat of the heart," the "circumcision made without hands," the purer knowledge of the true God among the Gentiles. Hence" uncircumcised in heart," &c. so often occurring in the Scripwe find, that there were many who, though they did not tures.6 adopt the rite of circumcision, yet had acquired a better knowledge of the Most High than the pagan theology furnished, and who in some respects conformed to the Jewish religion. Of this description appear to be the "DEVOUT MEN who feared God," who are frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and particularly the pious centurion Cornelius, of whom the sacred writer has given us so pleasing an account. (Acts x.) VIII. All these persons, with the exception of the last class, were members of the Jewish church, participated in its worship, and regulated themselves by the law of Moses (or at least professed to do so), and by the other inspired Hebrew books, whence their sacred rites and religious instruction were derived. No person, however, was allowed to partake of the sacred ordinances, until he had undergone the rite of CIRCUMCISION. This rite is first mentioned in Gen. xvii. 10-12., where we read that it was a seal of the covenant which God made with Abraham and his posterity. Afterwards, when God delivered his law to the children of Israel, he renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which from that time became a sacrament of the Jewish religion. Hence the protomartyr Stephen calls it the "covenant of circumcision" (Acts vii. 8.); and Jesus Christ also ascribes its institution to Moses, though it was derived from the patriarchs. (John vii. 22.) Besides the design which God proposed to himself in establishing this ceremony, he appointed it for some other ends, suited to the circumstances of the Israelites; a brief consideration of which will illustrate many important passages of Scripture. In the first place, it included in it so solemn and indispensable an obligation to observe the whole law, that circumcision did not profit those who transgressed. (Rom. ii. 25.) Hence the Jews are in the Scriptures frequently termed the circumcision, that is, persons circumcised, as opposed to the uncircumcised Gentiles, who are styled the uncircumcision (Rom. iii. 1. 30. iv. 12. Gal. ii. 7-9. Eph. ii. 11. Phil. iii. 5.); the abstract being put for the concrete. 25-29, Col. ii. 11. Acts vii. 51. Circumcision was that rite of the law by Rom Thus, our Saviour is called the minister of circumcision: and which the Israelites were taken into God's covenant; and (in the spirit of therefore St. Paul says, that whoever is circumcised, is bound it) was the same as baptism among Christians, For, as the form of baptism to keep the whole law. (Gal. v. 3.) For the same reason expresses the putting away of sin, circumcision was another form to the same effect. The Scripture speaks of a "circumcision made without Jesus Christ was circumcised, that he might be made under hands," of which that made with hands was no more than an outward sign, the law, to fulfil the promise of the Messiah, and redeem which denoted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," (Col. ii those who were under the law. (Gal. iv. 4.) Secondly, as this inward and spiritual grace of circumcision the apostle speaks expressly 11.), and becoming a new creature; which is the sense of our baptism. Of only circumcised persons were deemed to be visible members in another place; "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that of the Jewish church, so none but these were permitted to circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one celebrate the great festivals, particularly the passover. On letter." (Rom. ii. 28.) Some may suppose that this spiritual application of inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the this account it was that Joshua commanded all the Israelites, circumcision, as a sacrament, was invented after the preaching of the Gos who having been born in the wilderness remained uncir-pel, when the veil was taken from the law; but this doctrine was only encumcised, to undergo the rite of circumcision, previous 10 own law; for thus did Moses instruct the Jews, that there is a "foreskin of forced to those who had it before, and had departed from the sense of their their entering, the land of Canaan (Josh. v. 4. 6. 9.,; the heart" which was to be "circumcised" in a moral or spiritual way, which occasion God told them that he had removed or red before they could be accepted as the servants of God; and again, that the Lord would circumcise their heart, to love him with all their heart, and away the reproach of Egypt from them; in other words, that with all their soul," (Deut. x. 16. and xxx. 6.); which was the same as to ey should thenceforth be regarded as his peculiar people, say, that he would give them what circumcision signified, making them Jews inwardly, and giving them the inward grace with the outward sign, without which the letter of baptism avails no more now than the letter of circumcision did then: and we may say of the one as is said of the other, "He is not a Christian which is one cutwardly, and baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh by washing with water, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." (1 Pet. iii. 21.) Rev. W. Jones on the Figurative Language of Scripture. (Works, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78.) On this subject Dr. Graves has some excellent remarks, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 241-250. See also an excellent discourse of Bishop Beveridge, entitled The New Creature in Christianity." Works, vol f 1 John xii. 20. See also Acts vi. 1. ix. 29. and xi. 20. and the commenta tors on those passages. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. (al. 13.) lib. xviii. c. 3. (al. 4.) §§ 4, 5. Philo de Legat. ad Caium, p. 1014. Tacitus, Annal. lib. ii. c. 85. Suetonus in Tiberio, c. 36. Wolfius on Acts vi. 1. has detailed the various opinions of learned men respecting the Libertines.-See pp. 251, 252. supra. ii. 1 Macc. i. 63. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xii. c. 7. Deut. x. 16. xxx. 6. Jer. iv. 4. ix. 25, 26. See Acts xiii. 43 50. xvi. 14. xvii. 4. 17. and xviii. 7. Calmet has an elaborate disquisition on the origin and design of cir- Serin. xix. p. 417. et seq. 8vo edit. sumcision Diserte ions, tom. I. pp. 411-422. • Macknight and Whitby on Luke i 21. from the Gospel, that it was usual for the father, or some near relation, to give him a name. Thus John the Baptist and Jesus Christ both received their names on that day. (Luke i. 59. ii. 21.) It appears, however, that the Jews had several names during the period comprised in the evangelical history. Thus it was customary with them, when travelling into foreign countries, or familiarly conversing with the Greeks and Romans, to assume a Greek or Latin name of great affinity, and sometimes of the very same signification with that of their own country, by which name they were usually called among the Gentiles. So Thomas was called Didymus (John xi. 16.); the one a Syriac and the other a Greek word, but both signifying a twin. (See Acts i. 23. xii. 12. 2 Pet. i. 1. Col. iv. 11. &c.) Sometimes the name was added from their country, as Símon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot (Matt. x. 4.); but more frequently from their assuming a new and different name upon particular occurrences in life. (See 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4. 2 Kings xxiv. 17. John i. 42.) The same practice obtains in the East to this day.1 However necessary circumcision was while the ceremonial law remained in force, it became equally indifferent and unnecessary on the abrogation of that law by the destruction of the temple. Until that time the apostles allowed it to be performed on the Jewish converts to Christianity; but they expressly prohibited the imposition of such a yoke on the necks of the Gentile converts: and therefore St. Paul, who has fully proved how unprofitable and unnecessary it is (1 Cor. vii. 19.), thought it proper to have Timothy circumcised, because his mother was of Jewish extraction (Acts xvi. 1-3.); though he would not, on the other hand, allow this ceremony to be performed on Titus, because he was a Greek (Gal. ii. 3.):-thus giving to the church in all ages a most excellent pattern, either of condescension or resolution, in insisting upon or omitting things indifferent according to the difference of times and circumstances. SECTION II. removed, to take care of all the instruments and sacred vessels belonging to it, and when the ariny pitched their tents to set them up again. For the more regular performance of the several duties belonging to the tabernacle, the whole business was divided between the Kohathites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites. The first were principally concerned in carrying the ark and sacred vessels belonging to the tabernacle under the conduct of Eleazar the priest (Num. iv. 16.), which being the most honourable employment, was given to them most probably ont of respect to Moses, who was descended from this family. The Gershonites and Merarites, under the direction of Ithamar, had the burden and charge of every thing else belonging to the tabernacle, as the coverings, hangings, woodwork, cords, pins, &c. (ver. 24-34.) When the Israelites were encamped, these three families of Levites were to pitch their tents round three sides of the tabernacle, and Moses and Aaron with their sons round the fourth quarter; by which means they were so disposed, as to be each of them as near as conveniently they could to their respective charges. Such was the office of the Levites in the time of Moses. Afterwards, when the Israelites were settled in the promised land, this employment of the Levites, in carrying the tabernacle and its utensils, ceased; and therefore David and Solomon appointed them to new offices. They were chiefly indeed employed about the service of the temple: but during their recess, while they were not in attendance there, they were dispersed through the whole country, and employed in the service of the state as well as of the church. David made six thousand of them officers and judges (1 Chron. xxiii. 4.); they also took care to instruct the people where they resided in the Mosaic law, by expounding the several parts of it; and, according to the Jews, they kept the public records and genealogies of the several tribes. In the business about the temple some of the chief amongst them had the charge of the sacred treasures. (1 Chron. xxiii. 20.) Others of a lower rank were to prepare the shew-bread and unleavened cakes, with the proper quantity of flour for the morning and evening service. (1 Chron. xxiii. 29.) From which text it appears also that they had in their custody within the sanctuary the original standard for weights and ON THE MINISTERS OF THE TEMPLE AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL measures, liquid and dry, according to which every thing of OR SACRED PERSONS. this kind was to be regulated. Hence it is we often read in Scripture of the shekel of the sanctuary, not that there were two sorts of shekels, one sacred and another civil, but because weights and measures, being reckoned among the sacred things, were kept in the sanctuary, as they were in the temples of the Pagans, and afterwards in Christian I. Of the Levites.-II. The priests, their functions, maintenance, and privileges.-III. The high-priest.-His functions, dress, and privileges. Succession to the pontifical dignity. -IV. Officers of the Synagogue.-V. The Nazarites; nature of their vows.— -VI. The Rechabites.-VII. The pro-hurches. Many of the Levites were likewise employed phets. THE Jews, on the establishment of their republic, had no King but Jehovah himself; and the place appointed for their sacrifices and prayers was at the same time both the temple of their God and the palace of their sovereign. This circumstance will account for the pomp and splendour of their worship, as well as the number, variety, and gradations in rank of their ministers; which were first established by Moses, and afterwards renewed by David, with increased splendour, for the service of the temple. To this service the tribe of Levi was especially devoted, instead of the first-born of the tribes of Israel, and was disengaged from all secular labours. The honour of the priesthood, however, was reserved to the family of Aaron alone, the rest of the tribe being employed in the inferior offices of the temple: so that all the priests were Levites, but all the Levites were not priests. I. Originally, the tribe of Levi was divided into the three families and orders of Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites (1 Chron. vi. 16, &c.), but afterwards the LEVITES were divided by David (1 Chron. xxiii.) into four clases. Their principal office was to wait upon the priests, and be assisting to them in the service of the tabernacle and temple; so that they were properly the ministers and servants of the priests, and obliged to obey their orders. (Num. iii. 9. 1 Chron. xxiii. 28.) But the particular duties incumbent upon them were different in the time of Moses, while the Israelites were in the wilderness, from those which they had to discharge afterwards, in the days of David and Solomon. In the wilderness the tabernacle was always in a moveable condition as well as the Israelites: and at that time the chief business of the Levites was, when the Israelites journeyed, to take down the tabernacle, to carry it about as the host See Harmer's Observations vol. iv pp. 431-433. sporters, to guard the gates and passages into the temple. Chron. ix. 17.) Others were more honourably employed as singers, and were to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise in the evening (1 Chron. xxiii. 30.); and this we find they did in a very solemn manner at the dedication of the temple. (2 Chron. v. 12, 13.) The whole body of the Levites in David's time amounted to thirty-eight thousand, from thirty years old and upwards (1 Chron. xxii 3.), of which number he appointed four-andtwenty thousand to attend the constant duty and work of the temple; and these being divided as the priests were into fourand-twenty courses (as appears from 1'Chron. xxiii. 24. and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17.), there were one thousand for each week. Six thousand again were to be officers and judges, as already mentioned, four thousand for porters, and four thousand for singers. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4, 5.) The four-and-twenty courses of singers are mentioned in 1 Chron. xxv. 8-31. This disposition of them was afterwards confirmed by Solomon when the temple was finished (2 Chron. viii. 14.); and all these had their chiefs or overseers as well as the priests. (Ezra viii. 29.) The duty of the porters was not only to be a mili tary guard upon the temple, but also to take care that no person who was unclean or uncircumcised might enter the court of the Israelites. (2 Chron. xxiii. 19.) And however mean their employment was, yet it was the pious desire of David, rather to be a door-keeper in the house of God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. (Psal. lxxxiv. 10.) The order of singers was instituted by David, and it appears that the whole book of psalms was composed for this kind of devotion. David (by whom the greatest number was com posed) directed many of them to the chief musician, for this very purpose, that they might be used in the service of the house of God. And we have one particular instance in which a Novels of Justinian, nov. 123, cap 15. it is said, that David delivered this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren. (1 Chron. xvi. 7.) The principal persons of this order, who had the superintendency over all the rest, were Heman and Asaph of the line of Gershon, and Jeduthun of the line of Merari, of whom we have an account in 1 Chron. xxv. The mere circumstance of birth did not give the Levites a title to officiate; they were obliged to receive a sort of consecration, which consisted chiefly in sprinkling them with water, in washing, and in offering sacrifices. (Num. viii. 6, 7, 8.) The usual age, at which the Levites were to enter on their office, was at five-and-twenty years, and they continued till fifty. (Num. viii. 24, 25.) But there was a particular precept which restrained the Kohathites (one of the three branches) from being employed to carry the holy things belonging to the sanctuary, till they were of the age of thirty (Num. iv. 30.), probably, because these being the most valuable and important of all the moveables belonging to the tabernacle, required therefore persons of greater experience and strength. Afterwards, when David new-moulded the constitution of the Levites, he (by the same authority which empowered him to give directions about the building and situation of the house of God) ordered that for the future the Levites should be admitted at the age of twenty years. (1 Chron. xxiii. 24.) It does not appear by the first institution of the Levites that they had any peculiar habit in the ceremonies of religion by which they were distinguished from other Israelites. None of the Levites, of what degree or order soever, had any right to sacrifice, for that was the proper duty of the priests only: the Levites, indeed, were to assist the priests in killing and flaying the sacrifices, and, during the time they were offered up, to sing praises to God: and in this sense the two passages in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31. and 2 Chron. xxxi. 2. are commonly understood; neither had they any title to burn incense to the Lord; and though the speech of Hezekiah (mentioned in 2 Chron. xxix. particularly ver. 11.) seems to imply otherwise, yet we ought to consider that he is there speaking to the priests as well as to the Levites. It was on account of their aspiring to the priest's office in this particular of burning incense, that Korah and his company (who were Levites) were miraculously destroyed, and their censers ordered to be beaten into broad plates, and fixed upon the altar, to be perpetual monuments of their presumptuous sacrilege, and a caution to all the children of Israel, that none presume to offer incense before the Lord but the seed of Aaron, who alone were commissioned to the priestly office. As the Levites were subordinate to the priests, so they (the Levites) had others under them, called NETHINIMS whose business it was to carry the water and wood that was wanted in the temple for the use of the sacrifices, and to perform other laborious services there. They were not originally of Hebrew descent, but are supposed to have been chiefly the posterity of the Gibeonites, who for their fraudulent stratagem in imposing upon Joshua and the Hebrew princes (Josh. ix. 3-27.) were condemned to this employment, which was a sort of honourable servitude. We read in Ezra, that the Nethinims were devoted by David and the other princes to the service of the temple (Ezra viii. 20.), and they are called the children of Solomon's servants (Ezra ii. 58.), being probably a mixture of the race of the Gibeonites, and some of the remains of the Canaanites, whom Solomon constrained to various servitudes. (1 Kings ix. 20, 21.) They had a particular place in Jerusalem where they dwelt, called Ophel, for the conveniency of being near the service of the temple. (Neh. iii. 26.) In order to enable the Levites to devote themselves to that service, forty-eight cities were assigned to them for their residence, on the division of the land of Canaan; thirteen of these were appropriated to the priests, to which were added the tithes of corn, fruit, and cattle. The Levites, however, paid to the priests a tenth part of all their tithes; and as they were possessed of no landed property, the tithes which the priests received from them were considered as the firstfruits which they were to offer to God. (Num. xviii. 21-24.)2 II. Next to the Levites, but superior to them in dignity, vere the ordinary PRIESTS, who were chosen from the family of Aaron exclusively. They served immediately at the altar, prepared the victims, and offered the sacrifices. They kept up a perpetual fire on the altar of the burnt sacrifices, and 1 See p. 16. suprà. Home's Script. Hist. of Jewaii. pp. 214-221. Schulzii Archæol. Hebr. pp. 227-231 also in the lamps of the golden candlestick in the sanctuary; they kneaded the loaves of shew-bread, which they baked, and offered on the golden altar in the sanctuary: and changed them every Sabbath-day. Every day, morning and evening, a priest (who was appointed at the beginning of the week by lot) brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer of incense, which he set upon the golden table, and which on no account was to be kindled with strange fire, that is, with any fire but that which was taken from the altar of burnt sacrifice. (Lev. x. 1, 2.) And as the number and variety of their functions required them to be well read in their law, in order that they might be able to judge of the various legal uncleannesses, &c. this circumstance caused them to be consulted as interpreters of the law (Hos. iv. 6. Mal. ii. 7, &c. Lev. xiii. 2. Num. v. 14, 15.), as well as judges of controversies. (Deut. xxi. 5. xvii. 8-13.) In the time of war, their business was to carry the ark of the covenant, to sound the holy trun pets, and animate the army to the performance of its duties. To them also it belonged publicly to bless the people in the name of the Lord. The priests were divided by David into twenty-four classes (1 Chron. xxiv. 7-18.); which order was retained by Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 14.); and at the revivals of the Jewish religion by the kings Hezekiah and Josiah. (2 Chron. xxxi. 2. xxxv. 4, 5.) Ås, however, only four classes returned from the Babylonish captivity (Ezra ii. 36-39. Neh. vii. 39-42. xii. 1.), these were again divided into twenty-four classes, each of which was distinguished by its original appellation. This accounts for the introduction of the class or order of Abiah, mentioned in Luke i. 5., which we do not find noticed among those who returned from the captivity. One of these classes went up to Jerusalem every week to discharge the sacerdotal office, and succeeded one another on the Sabbath-day, till they had all attended in their turn. To each order was assigned a president (1 Chron. xxiv. 6. 31. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14.), whom some critics suppose to be the same as the chief priests so often mentioned in the New Tes tament, and in the writings of Josephus.3 The prince or prefect of each class appointed an entire family to offer the daily sacrifices: and at the close of the week they all joined together in sacrificing. And as each family consisted of a great number of priests, they drew lots for the different offices which they were to perform. It was by virtue of such lot that the office of burning incense was assigned to Zacha rias the father of John the Baptist, when he went into the temple of the Lord. (Luke i. 9.) According to some Jewish writers, there were three priests employed in the offering of the incense; one, who carried away the ashes left on the altar at the preceding service; another, who brought a pan of burning coals from the altar of sacrifice, and, having placed it on the golden altar, departed; a third, who went in with the incense, sprinkled it on the burning coals, and, while the smoke ascended, made intercession for the people. This was the particular office which fell by lot to Zacharias; and it was accounted the most honourable in the whole service. This office could be held but once by the same person.4 The sacerdotal dignity being confined to certain families, every one who aspired to it was required to establish his descent from those families: on this account the genealogies of the priests were inscribed in the public registers, and were preserved in the archives of the temple. Hence, in order to preserve the purity of the sacerdotal blood, no priest was permitted to marry a harlot or profane woman, or one who had been d'vorced; and if any one laboured under any bodily defect, this excluded him from serving at the altar. Purity of body and sanctity of life were alike indispensable; nor could any one undertake the priestly office, in the early period of the Jewish polity, before he had attained thirty years, or, in later times, the age of twenty years. According to Maimonides, the priest whose genealogy was defective in any respect was clothed in black, and veiled in black, and sent without the verge of the court of the priests; but every one that was found perfect and right was clothed in white, and went in and ministered with his brethren the priests. It is not improbable that St. John refers to this custom of the a See Matt. xxvii. 1. Acts iv. 23. v. 24. ix. 14. 21. xxii. 30. xxiii. 14. xxv. 15. xxvi. 10.; and also Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 8. §8. De Bell. Jud. lib. iv. c. 3. $7. c. 4. $ 3. et de vita sua, §§ 2. 5. Macknight, and Wetstein, on Luke i. 9. sua, $ 1. Ezra ii. 62. Neh. vii. 64. Josephus contra Apion, lib. i. §7. et in vita • Lev. xxi. 7. 17-23. Num. iv. 3. 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. Maimonides has enumerated not fewer than 140 bodily defects which disqualified persons for the priesthood See Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 12. § 2. and com pare Carpzov's Apparatus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, p. 89. et seq. Jewish sanhedrin in Rev. iii. 5. Those priests, whose birth was pure, lived in certain apartments of the temple, in which was deposited wood for the altar, and were employed in splitting and preparing it, to keep up the sacred fire. No particular ceremony appears to have taken place at the consecration of the ordinary priests, who were admitted to the exercise of their functions by "filling their hands," as the Scriptures term it, that is, by making them perform the offices of their order. But when the priests had departed from their religion, or had been a long time without discharging their functions (which happened under some of the later kings of Judah), it was deemed necessary to sanctify anew such priests, as well as those who had never exercised their ministry. (2 Chron. xxix. 34.) The priests were not distinguished by their sacerdotal habits, unless when engaged in the service of the altar. Of hese garments there are four kinds mentioned in the books of Exodus (xxviii.) and Leviticus (viii.); viz. 1. Linen Drawers. These were prescribed for the express purpose of covering their nakedness; that is, to preserve the priests from an indecorous and ludicrous appearance, when they stood either above the heads of the people, or when their office required a variety of bodily gestures in the view of the multitude. This garment would prevent those indecent exposures of their persons, which some beathen idolaters esteemed honourable, and even religious in the worship of their gods. 2. A Linen Tunic, which reached down to the ankles, fitting closely to the body, and the sleeves of which were tightly drawn round the arms: it was without seam, and woven from the top throughout. Such was the tunic worn by Jesus Christ, for which the soldiers cast lots.2 3. A Girdle or long sash, made of linen curiously embroidered, and intended to bind the coat closely around them, and thus to serve at once the purposes of warmth and strength, of convenience and ornament. 4. The Tiara was originally a pointed kind of bonnet or turban, made of several rolls of linen cloth twisted round the head; but in the time of Josephus it approached somewhat to a globular form.3 of man or beast, were dedicated to God, and by virtue of tha devotion belonged to the priests. The men were redeemed for five shekels (Num. xviii. 15, 16.): the first-born of impure animals were redeemed or exchanged, but the clean animals were not redeemed. They were sacrificed to the Lord; their blood was sprinkled about the altar, and the rest belonged to the priest; who also had the first-fruits of trees, that is, those of the fourth year (Num. xviii. 13. Lev. xix. 23, 24.), as well as a share in the tithes of the spoils taken in war. (Num. xxxi. 28-41.) Such were the principal revenues of the priests, which, though they were sufficient to keep them above want, yet were not (as some writers have imagined) so ample as to enable them to accumulate riches, or to impoverish the laity; thus their political influence, arising from their sacred station, as well as from their superior learning and information, was checked by rendering them dependent on the people for their daily bread. By this wise constitution of Moses, they were deprived of all power, by which they might injure the liberty of the other tribes, or ir any way endanger the Israelitish polity, by any ambitious views or prospects: for not only were all the estates of the Levites and priests, but also their persons, given into the hands of the other tribes, as so many hostages, and as a security for their good behaviour. They were so separated from one another, that they could not assist each other in any ambitious design; and they were so dispersed among the other tribes, that these could attach the whole subsistence as well as arrest all the persons of the Levites and priests at once, in the event of any national quarrel, or if they were suspected of forming any evil designs against the other tribes of Israel. Hence we may perceive, that, whatever power or influence the Mosaic constitution gave the Levites to do good, the same constitution carefully provided, that they should have no power, either to disturb the peace, or to endanger the liberties of their country.4 III. Over all the priests was placed the HIGH-PRIEST, who enjoyed peculiar dignities and influence. He alone could enter the Holy of Holies in the temple: the supreme administration of sacred things was confined to him; he was the final arbiter of all controversies; in later times he presided In order that the priests, as well as the Levites, might be over the sanhedrin, and held the next rank to the sovereign wholly at liberty to follow their sacred profession, they were or prince. His authority, therefore, was very great at all exempted from all secular burthens or labours. Of the Le- times, especially when he united the pontifical and regal vitical cities already mentioned, thirteen were assigned for dignities in his own person. In the Old Testament he is the residence of the priests, with their respective suburbs sometimes called the priest by way of eminence (Exod. (Num. xxxv.); the limits of which were confined to a thou- | xxix. 30. Neh. vii. 65.), and sometimes the head or chief of sand cubits beyond the walls of the city, which served for the high-priests, because the appellation of high-priests was out-houses, as stables, barns, and perhaps for gardens ofen to the heads of the sacerdotal families or cources, who herbs and flowers. Beyond this they had two thousand cubits members of the sanhedrin. This appellation, in the more for their pasture, called properly the fields of the suburbs. Testament, includes not only the person who actually (Lev. xxv. 34.) So that there were in the whole three thou- the office of high-priest of the Jews, but also those who, sand cubits round the city; and in this sense we are to under-having once filled that office, still retained the name. (Matt. stand Num. xxxv. 4, 5. where the word suburbs compre- xxvi. 57, 58. Luke xxii. 50. 54. John xi. 49. 51.) When hends both the houses, without the walls, and also the fields. the high-priest became old, or had accidentally been exBut though the tribe of Levi had no portion in Canaan posed to any pollution, a D (saGaN) or substitute was apassigned them in the first division of it, yet they were not pointed to perform his duties. Zephaniah, the second priest, prevented from purchasing land, houses, goods, or cattle, out (Jer. lii. 24.) is supposed to have been the sagan or deputy of their own proper effects. Thus we read that Abiathar had of the high-priest Seraiah. Such an officer seems to be inan estate of his own at Anathoth, to which Solomon banished tended in John xviii. 13. and Acts iv. 6.; in which passages and confined him (1 Kings ii. 26.); and the prophet Jeremiah, Annas is called a chief priest either as having formerly been who was also a priest, purchased a field of his uncle's son in high-priest, or as then being actually his sagan. his own town. (Jer. xxxii. 8, 9.) Such were the residences allotted to the priests. Their maintenance was derived from the tithes offered by the Levites out of the tithes by them received, from the first-fruits, from the first clip of wool when the sheep were shorn, from the offerings made in the temple, and from their share of the sin-offerings and thanksgivingofferings sacrificed in the temple, of which certain parts were appropriated to the priests. Thus in the peace-offerings, they had the shoulder and the breast (Lev. vii. 33, 34.): in the sin-offerings, they burnt on the altar the fat that covered certain parts of the victim sacrificed; the rest belonged to the priest. (Lev. vii. 6. 10.). To him also was appropriated the skin or fleece of every victim; and when an Israelite killed an animal for his own use, there were certain parts assigned to the priest. (Deut. xviii. 3.) All the first-born also, whether 1 Lamy. Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. p. 213. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 2. See also the Observations cf Ernesti, Inst. interp. Nov. Test. part ii. c. 10. $88. pp. 371-373. It was for a long time supposed that the art of making such vests was irrecoverably loe. Braunius, however, rediscovered it, and procured a loom to be made, in which tunics were woven all of one piece. See his treatise de Vestitu Sacerdotum Hebræorum, lib. i. c. 16. p. 264. Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 3. Antiquities, pp. 155-157. VOL. II. Tappan's Lect. on Jewish P In order that the person of the high-priest might be deemed more holy, he was inaugurated with great splendour; being invested (after ablution was performed) with the sacred habiliments which conferred this dignity, and anointed with a precious oil prepared and preserved for this exclusive purpose. (Exod. xxix. 7. xxx. 23. et seq. Lev. viii. 12.) But, after the erection of the second temple, this anointing ceased, and the inauguration of the high-priest was accomplished by arraying him with the pontifical robes worn by his predecessor. Besides the garments which were common to the highpriest, as well as to the inferior members of the sacerdotal order, there were four peculiar to himself; viz. 1. The Coat or Robe of the Ephod, which was made of blue wool; on its hem there were seventy-two golden bells, sepa rated from one another by as many artificial pomegranates. As the pomegranates added to the beauty of the robe, so the 4 Schulzii Archæologia, Hebraica, pp. 231-236. Lowman's Civil Government of the Hebrews, p. 124. Godwin's Moses and Aaron, p. 18. Lightfoot's Hora Hebraica, and Kuinöel, on Luke iii. 2. Similar bells are still in use in the East. See Hasselquist's Travels p. 58., and D'Arvieux's Travels in Arabia the Desert, p. 226. sound of the bells gave notice to the people in the outer court of the high-priest's entrance into the holy place to burn incense; in order that they might then apply themselves to their devotions, as an expression of their concurrence with him in his offering, and of their hope that their prayers, accompanied with the incense offered by him, would ascend as a fragrant odour before God. 2. The Ephod was a vest, which was fastened on the shoulders, the hinder part reaching down to the heels, while the fore part descended only a little below the waist. It was of fine twisted linen, splendidly wrought with gold and purple: to each of the shoulder-straps of this ephod was affixed a precious stone, on which were engraven the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 3. The Breastplate of Judgment, or oracle, was a piece of cloth doubled, one span square, and of similar texture and workmanship with the ephod: on it were set twelve precious stones, containing the engraved names of the twelve sons of Jacob, and also the words Urim and Thummim, signifying "lights and perfections," and emblematical of divine illumination. Concerning the nature of the Urim and Thummim, learned men are not agreed. All that we know with certainty is, that when the high-priest went to ask counsel of Jehovah, he presented himself arrayed with this breastplate, and received the divine commands. This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon's temple. As God was the political sovereign of the Hebrews, the highpriest was of course his minister of state: the names of the twelve tribes being worn at his breast, when he went to ask counsel of his sovereign, were a fit pledge and medium of divine direction. At the same time, these names being worn both on his breast and shoulders would forcibly instruct him to cherish the tenderest affection, and to exert his utmost power, for their welfare.' 4. The last peculiarity in the dress of the high-priest was a Crown or Mitre, on the front of which was tied, by a blue riband, a plate of pure gold, on which were engraven (KODESH LØJEHоvaн), or Holiness unto the Lord, emblematical of that holiness which was the scope and end of the law. With all these vestments the high-priest was necessarily arrayed when he ministered in the tabernacle or temple, but at other times he wore the ordinary dress of the priests; and this, according to some learned persons, was the reason why St. Paul who had been long absent from Jerusalem, knew not that Ananias was the high-priest, when he appeared before him in the sanhedrin. (Acts xxiii. 5.) The frequent and violent changes in the pontifical office, which happ in those times, confirms the probability of this conjec The supreme pontiff was not allowed to rend his garm as the other Jews did, on any occasions of domestic calan (Lev. xxi. 10.); but in the time of Jesus Christ it had become lawful, or at least was tolerated as an expression of horror at hearing what was deemed blasphemy against God. This will explain the conduct of Caiaphas, who is said (Matt. xxvi. 65.) to have rent his garments.3 The Jewish writers have discovered much recondite meaning in the pontifical vestments. According to Josephus and Philo, the high-priest's linen garments represented the body of the earth; the glorious robe which encompassed it, heaven; the bells and promegranates, thunder and lightning. Or, the ephod of various colours is the universe; the breastplate, the earth in its centre; the girdle, the sea; the onyx-stone on each shoulder, the sun and moon; the twelve jewels in the breastplate, the twelve signs of the zodiac; the mitre, heaven; and the golden plate, with the name of God engraven on it, the splendour of Jehovah in heaven. Some Christian divines have allegorized them in a manner equally extravagant; but such wild comments serve no other purpose than to throw an air of romance, of uncertainty, and of ridicule over sacred things. It is sufficient for us to be assured, that these minute prescriptions were adapted to vise and excellent purposes, in the comparatively infant state of the church; and, particularly, that they served the general uses of an emblematical and typical religion, which was intended to impress moral and spiritual truth by sensible and striking representations.4 The high-priest, who was the chief man in Israel, and appeared before God in behalf of the people in their sacred services, and who was appointed for sacrifice, for blessing, and for intercession, was a type of Jesus Christ, that great high-priest, who offered himself a sacrifice for sin, who blesses his people, and who evermore liveth to make intercession for them. The term priest is also applied to every true believer, who is enabled to offer up himself a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Christ. (1 Pet. ii. 5. Rev. i. 6.)5 The pontifical dignity, in its first institution, was held for life, provided the high-priests were not guilty of crimes that merited deposition. For we read that Solomon deprived Abiathar of this office for being concerned in treasonable practices with Adonijah, who aspired to the throne of Israel. (1 Kings ii. 27.) At its first institution, also, the high-priesthood was made hereditary in the family of Aaron (Num. iii. 10.), who was the first person invested with this dignity. (Lev. viii. 1. et seq. Heb. v. 4, 5.) From Aaron it descended to Eleazar, his eldest son, from whom it passed in long succession to Eli; from him, on account of the wickedness of his sons, the dignity subsequently devolved to the descendants of Ithamar the second son of Aaron. (1 Sam. ii. 35, 36.) In the reign of Solomon, however, it returned again into the family of Eleazar by Zadok (1 Kings ii. 35.); in which it remained until the Babylonian captivity. During this period the high-priest was elected by the other priests, or else by an assembly partly consisting of priests. The first high-priest, after the return from the captivity, was Joshua the son of Josedek, of the family of Eleazar; whence the succession went into a private Levitical family. The office was then filled by some of the princes of the Maccabean family. According to the law, it was or ough to have been held for life; but this was very ill obeyed under the Roman government, especially during the time of out Saviour, and in the latter years of the Jewish polity, when election and the right of succession were totally disregarded. The dignity, sanctity, and authority of the high-priest were then almost annihilated; and this office was not unfrequently sold to the highest bidder, to persons who had neither age, learning, nor rank to recommend them; nay, even to individuals who were not of the sacerdotal race; and sometimes the office was made annual. This circumstance will account for the variations in the lists of the succession to the highpriesthood contained in the Scriptures, in Josephus, and in the Talmudical writers; and will also explain the circum stance of several high-priests being in existence at the same time, or, rather, of there being several pontifical men who, having once held the office for a short time, seem to have retained the original dignity attached to the name. 4 Besides the authorities already cited in the course of this article, the reader who is desirous of investigating the nature and functions of the Jewish priesthood is referred to Reland's Antiquitates veterum Hebræo rum, part ii. cc. 16. pp. 141-238.; Ikenius's Antiquitates Hebraica, part i. cc. 10, 11. pp. 105-128.; and to Schacht's Animadversiones ad Ikenii Antiquitates, pp. 471-544. Dr. Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 5. pp. 95-174. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. i. pp. 351-262. Dr. Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. pp. 401. 915-918. and vol. ii. pp. 377-380. 397. 681.; Carpzovii Antiquitates Hebr. Gentis, pp. 64-110. The typical nature of the Jewish priesthood, especially of the highpriest, is discussed by the Rev. W. Jones, in his Lectures on the Figurative Language of Scripture, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Works, vol. iii. pp. 58-62. 223-227.) Josephus de Bell. Jud. lib. iv. c. 3. §§ 7, 8. That this was the case with Annas and Caiaphas, is fully proved by Dr. Lardner, Credibility, book ii. c. 4. §1. (Works, vol. i. pp. 383-386.) The various successions of the high-priests are given at length by Reland, Antiq. Hebr. part ii. c. 2. pp. 160-168. Utrecht, 12mo. 1717; and by Calmet, Dissertations, tom. i. pp. 487-490., and Dict. voce Priest, from whom we have copied the Table in the following pages. Antiq. Jud. lib. viii. c. 2. §2. c. 4. §3 |