pasturage for their cattle, 10 an arrangement the purpose and propriety of which will be discussed hereafter. 11 But, in all other respects, they were, by the ordinances of the Pentateuch, marked out not only as strikingly inferior to the priests, but as endowed with a character of no peculiar significance or holiness. As regards their qualification, physical perfection was not required as a necessary condition; any member of the families of Levi, except that of Aaron, was admitted, and served from the twenty-fifth or thirtieth to the fiftieth year of his life. 12 They were initiated in their office by rites of the simplest description; they were neither clothed nor anointed, but merely "cleansed" (7) by purifying water, "waved" before God, and introduced by a sin-offering and a holocaust. 13 They had no distinguishing garments, in which important point, therefore, they did not differ from the common Israelites. 14 After this sketch in which we have endeavoured to admit no features except those warranted by the Pentateuch, while scrupulously excluding or separating from them all elements derived from other sources, we may be prepared to furnish II. AN ESTIMATE OF THE LEGISLATIVE VALUE OF 1. It is true, that the priests of the Hebrews were not, like those of other nations, the supposed depositaries of secret or exclusive wisdom and learning; they simply expounded and diffused the teaching of that Book which was the common heirloom of the whole community; for all had entered the covenant with God on the basis of that Law which Moses handed over not to the priests alone, but also to the elders of the people, 15 of which the kings were ordered to have a copy 10 Num. XXXV. 4, 5; comp. Rosenm. in loc.; Keil on Josh. pp. 272, 273; Såalschütz, Mos. R. pp. 100sqq.; Archäol. II. 86sqq. 11 See infra, Sect. III. 4. 12 Num. IV. 3, 23, 30, 39, 43, 47; comp. 1 Chr. XXIII. 3; and Num. VIII. 23-26; see infra Sect. III. 5. According to the Talmud (Chull. 24a), the limit of 50 years was maintained in the desert only, while it was abandoned already at Shiloh, except in case of failing voice. 13 Num. VIII. 5-22. prepared for themselves to study in it constantly,' and which was to be read, at regular intervals, to the assembled people. Justly, therefore, might Josephus write, "There were in the Temple not any mysteries that may not be spoken of... for what I have now said is publicly known, and supported by the testimony of the whole people, and the operations of the priests are entirely manifest."3 Nor does that Book contain any doctrines that were not within the capacity of the humblest Israelite, for it disclosed no cosmic mysteries or intricate problems of nature, but narrated, in simple language, the origin and early history of the Hebrew race, and enforced moral and religious laws, which were either traced to incidents of that history or are derived from our common humanity. Yet, why were the priests appointed the special, if not the exclusive guardians, of the Law? The reply is, because they were supposed, by their anointment, to have been endowed with the holy spirit which enabled them to penetrate more infallibly into the depths of the revealed word. Thus a supernatural element of the most dangerous kind was introduced. It cannot be called otherwise than hierarchical. The foundation of the system seemed to be a common equality of all Israelites; but the very first layer above it was an exceptional qualification of the priests of so extraordinary a nature, that, in reality, not only all parity between priests and Israelites was destroyed, but almost all spiritual community between them became impossible. Hence the priesthood annulled, in a great measure, the benefits which the diffusion of a moral code like that of the Pentateuch was calculated to produce; for it engendered, in the minds of the people, mistrust in their own ability of fathoming the whole truth of the Law, and thus caused a deplorable feeling of spiritual dependency; and since the priests were supposed to understand the precepts more profoundly than the Israelites, that unfortunate mode of Biblical interpretation was encouraged, which 1 Deut. XVII. 18, 19. 2 Deut. XXXI. 10-13; see p. 569; comp. also XXX. 11-14, "this law is not hidden from thee nor is it far off.... but the word is very nigh to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart"; see De Wette, Vorlesungen über die Religion, pp. 423, 424; Saalsch. Mos. R. I. 116, 117. 3 Joseph. Ap. II. 8, nihil amplius neque mysteriorum aliquorum ineffabilium agitur etc. In the Mishnah (Yom. III. 11) some men are severely censured because they refused to teach others 4 certain accomplishments in connection with the sacred service which were hereditary in their families. Comp., on the other hand, with regard to the Druids and others, Diod. Sic. V. 31; Caes. Bell. Gall. VI. 13, 14; Mela, III. 6, 23; Strabo IV. iv. 3-5, pp. 197, 198; Porphyr. Abst. iv. 6; see Bahr, Symb. II. 25-30. 4 It appears indeed that copies of the Law, by no means numerous or common, were mostly in the hands of the Levites; comp. 2 Chr. XVII. 7—9; also Deut. XXXI. 9. discovers extraordinary and hidden meanings in the plainest texts, and which degenerated into mysticism or pharasaical playfulness. For the history of all religious and philosophical systems proves that similar aberrations are unavoidable from the moment that the simple and intelligible words of the masters or founders are made the subject of speculative enquiry by a separate class of men. 2. It will, therefore, be easy to judge of the value of the declaration that the Hebrews were to form "a kingdom of priests". Great importance has been attached to this term, and lofty theories have been built upon it. But was the institution of the priesthood designed to make it a reality? The family of Aaron was represented as specially elected by God for a particular and holy mission. Thus it was severed from the rest of the people, and raised above it to an unapproachable distance. It monopolised all the sacred functions which, in any way, tended to connect the Israelite with his God. But this was not sufficient; the common Hebrew was not only debarred from the more significant rites of public or private worship; he was to be absolutely excluded from all participation in sacred things. Not even the menial and most subordinate labours of the Sanctuary was he permitted to perform. For this purpose, another body of men, the Levites, was interposed between him and the priests. If he dared to appropriate to himself even any of these low offices, it was a crime of death. In a word, he was, by the precepts of the Pentateuch, utterly deprived of the natural privileges which he enjoyed in a simple state of society. The Hebrews were, by the Law, not made "a nation of priests", but they ceased to be one. A hierarchy was organised. We find, in the Hebrew writings, a strong and marked contrast between priests and people. The apparent parallels in ⚫ the designation of the one and the other (p. 561) were no more than a theory without a practical embodiment. The pretence that the Hebrews 5 See pp. 143–146. 6 We are, in this respect, almost reminded of Polybius' view of the Roman priesthood and religion; he calls the superstitious fears of the gods (delolJaμovia) the chief pillar of the state; for wise legislators, he says, surrounded religion with "mysterious terror and similar jugglery” (τοιαύτη τραγωδία) to check by fear the multitude which is everywhere frivolous, easily carried away by unlawful desires, blind anger, and hot passions (Polyb. VI. 56). The authority of the Egyptian priests 6 7 extended even to the dead, since it was in their power to grant or to deny an honourable sepulture. 7 Comp. Isai. XXIV. 2; Hos. IV. 9; Jer. I. 18. Even Ewald (Alterthümer, p. 282), who takes rather an ideal view of the Hebrew priesthood, admits, though but passingly and lightly, the very striking separation between priests and people; and Riehm (Stud. und Krit. 1865, p. 42) is compelled to observe, "The idea that Israel is a nation of priests, has really but a very subordinate force for the individual themselves renounced their priestly privileges (p. 562), is illusory; for even if it be taken as historically true, it would alter nothing in our estimate of the priestly institutions. For while the resignation of the Hebrews could only have been temporary, the priestly institutions were meant to be unchangeable for all future times: if an untutored people just loosed from oppressive fetters, was disqualified for sacerdotal dignities, it need and ought not to have remained so after centuries of training through the Law. How different was the voice of enlightened prophets who fervidly longed for the time when the Lord would pour out His spirit over "the house of Israel", 2 nay over "all flesh", a sentiment attributed in the Pentateuch to Moses also in the memorable words, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them". The expression "kingdom of priests" remained a phrase which, so far from being realised, was rendered impossible by the leading principles of the Pentateuch; it had no influence upon the development of the nation; it was a fine but fleeting idea of a gifted mind; and the only notion, vague as it is, that can, from the system of the Pentateuch, be attached to it, is that the Hebrews should one day become the links between God and the heathens, just as the priests are the links between God and the Israelites; though it is very doubtful, whether this meaning was intended by the words, "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."6 members of the community", and then alludes to the barriers which excluded them from direct communion with God. 1 Entirely erroneous is therefore the common view of the subject, upheld by a host of writers, and thus expressed by Hengstenberg (Auth. des Pent. II. 7), "All the arts by which the priests of other nations raised themselves and their duties, did not exist among the Hebrews; these had no hierarchy; the influence of the priests depended on the goodwill of the people"; comp. Saalschütz, Mos. R. I. pp. XVII, 24—28, 120, 121; Philippson on Num. XVIII. 1, p. 763; Israel. Religionslehre, III. 201 sqq.; a. o. 2 Ezek. XXXIX. 29. 3 Joel III. 1, 2; comp. Isai. XI. 9; LIV. 13; Jer. XXXI. 34; etc. 4 Num. XI. 9. 5 Comp. Isai. LXI. 6. 6 Jost (Gesch. des Judenth., I. 146) explains "The Hebrews were, like priests, to keep entirely aloof from the manners and pursuits of other nations which indulged in sensual desires and rude violence" — which negative definition is both too narrow and too indistinct. It is of very little moment that, at the initiation of the Levites, some share in the ceremonies is permitted to the Israelites, who, naturally through the elders, lay their hands upon the Levites (Num. VIII. 10; great weight is attached to this circumstance by Saalschütz, Mos. R. I. 98): however, not the Levites but the Aaronites are the priests; moreover, it is Aaron who presents to God the Levites (ver. 11), whom the Israelites merely mark as their substitutes and who then are "separated" from the body of the people (ver. 14). 3. The chasm between the priests and the people was perpetuated and widened by the principle of hereditary right, according to which the priesthood was for ever restricted to one family. It may be that this principle facilitated the traditionary preservation of the ritual ordinances, and that it favoured a higher degree of culture within the priestly order; but it completed the seclusion so effectually that it is idle to deny a caste of priests among the Hebrews, no less distinct and exclusive than that of the Hindoos or Egyptians.7 4. Irrespective of the separation itself between priests and people, it is necessary to refer to the manner in which the Pentateuch describes that separation to have been effected. It was God who singled out the family of Aaron as His ministers, His representatives, and the teachers of His Law; and it was He who confirmed this election by miraculous interference, the budding staff of Aaron and the fearful destruction of Aaron's opponents, of Korah and his associates. What is the true scope and import of these statements? They imply the artful fiction of an author or of authors, who attempted to promulgate their own devices as Divine or supernatural arrangements, and thus to awe an impressionable nation into their acceptance and reverential observance. If the laws of priesthood had been represented as the work of a human legislator, they would simply have been a human failure, because they degraded the people instead of elevating it; but as the pretended emanation of a Divine will, they are both a failure and a fraud; and to the weakness of human judgment is added the offence of human arrogance and deceit. All this was very different among the Greeks. They had no proper order of priests who claimed to be the privileged expositors of divine things and to have the mission of serving as mediators between the gods and men. "Greece was not favourable for hierarchical aspirations, and the priests had none of the means by which a perceptible influencemight be exercised upon the minds and thoughts of the poeple, such as the instruction of the young, preaching, or the cure of souls in any 7 The remark of Bähr (Symb. II.34), "that in cases of urgency, non-Aaronites also were permitted to perform priestly functions", is entirely erroneous; the Law admits such "cases of urgency" under no pretence whatever; and the historical instances of nonAaronites officiating as priests, prove the non-existence of the Law at the time of their occurrence (see infra, Sect. IV. 10,11). An instructive parallel to the separation between priests and people is the account of Chaeremon with respect to the Egyptian priests, σεμνοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς παρεῖχε καὶ τὸ δυσεπίμικτον .. τὸν δ ̓ ἄλλον χρόνον ... ἁπλούστερον μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐπεμίγ νυντο, τῶν δὲ ἐξωτικῶν τῆς θρησκείας οὐδενὶ συνεβίουν, ἐφαίνοντο δὲ αεὶ θεῶν ȧyalpȧtwv ¿yyús (Porph, Abst. IV. 6). |