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, were 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

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 trumpets, 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.) As, 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. 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 Zacharias 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 divorced; 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

3 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. 67. c. 4. § 3. et de vita sua, $§ 2. 5. 4 Macknight, and Wetstein, on Luke i. 9.

s Ezra ii. 62. Neh. vii. 64. Josephus contra Apion, lib. i. §7. et in vita sua, $1. Lev. xxi. 7. 17-23. Num. iv. 3. 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. Maimonides has enumerated not fewer than 140 bodily defects which disqualified persons Home's Script. Hist. of Jews, vol. ii. pp. 214-221. Schulzii Archæol. for the priesthood. See Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 12. § 2. and com Hebr. pp. 227-231. pare Carpzov's Apparatus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, p. 89. et seq.

1 See p. 16. suprà.

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 these garments there are four kinds mentioned in the books of Exodus (xxyiii.) 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 heathen 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.

of man or beast, were dedicated to God, and by virtue of that 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

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 some-tration of sacred things was confined to him; he was the what to a globular form.3

In order that the priests, as well as the Levites, might be wholly at liberty to follow their sacred profession, they were exempted from all secular burthens or labours. Of the Levitical cities already mentioned, thirteen were assigned for the residence of the priests, with their respective suburbs (Num. xxxv.); the limits of which were confined to a thou- | sand cubits beyond the walls of the city, which served for out-houses, as stables, barns, and perhaps for gardens of herbs and flowers. Beyond this they had two thousand cubits more for their pasture, called properly the fields of the suburbs. (Lev. xxv. 34.) So that there were in the whole three thousand cubits round the city; and in this sense we are to understand Num. xxxv. 4, 5. where the word suburbs comprehends both the houses, without the walls, and also the fields. But though the tribe of Levi had no portion in Canaan assigned them in the first division of it, yet they were not prevented from purchasing land, houses, goods, or cattle, out of their own proper effects. Thus we read that Abiathar had an estate of his own at Anathoth, to which Solomon banished and confined him (1 Kings ii. 26.); and the prophet Jeremiah, who was also a priest, purchased a field of his uncle's son in 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.

2 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 2. See also the Observations of 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 lost. 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. Tappan's Lect. on Jewish Antiquities, pp. 155-157.

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 adminisfinal arbiter of all controversies; in later times he presided over the sanhedrin, and held the next rank to the sovereign or prince. His authority, therefore, was very great at all times, especially when he united the pontifical and regal dignities in his own person. In the Old Testament he is sometimes called the priest by way of eminence (Exod. xxix. 30. Neh. vii. 65.), and sometimes the head or chief of the high-priests, because the appellation of high-priests was given to the heads of the sacerdotal families or courses, who were members of the sanhedrin. This appellation, in the New Testament, includes not only the person who actually held the office of high-priest of the Jews, but also those who, having once filled that office, still retained the name. (Matt. xxvi. 57, 58. Luke xxii. 50. 54. John xi. 49. 51.) When the high-priest became old, or had accidentally been exposed to any pollution, a D (saGaN) or substitute was appointed to perform his duties. Zephaniah, the second priest, (Jer. lii. 24.) is supposed to have been the sagan or deputy of the high-priest Seraiah. Such an officer seems to be intended in John xviii. 13. and Acts iv. 6.; in which passages Annas is called a chief priest either as having formerly been high-priest, or as then being actually his sagan.5

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, separated from one another by as many artificial pomegranates. As the pomegranates added to the beauty of the robe, so the

Schulzii Archæologia, Hebraica, pp. 231-236. Lowman's Civil Govern. ment 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.

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 wise 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. 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 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.

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,(1 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 high-to priest 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.1

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 LαJEHоvaн), 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.2 (Acts xxiii. 5.) The frequent and violent changes in the pontifical office, which happened in those times, confirms the probability of this conjecture. The supreme pontiff was not allowed to rend his garments, as the other Jews did, on any occasions of domestic calamity (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

[blocks in formation]

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 Maccabæan family. According to the law, it was or ought to have been held for life; but this was very ill obeyed under the Roman government, especially during the time of our 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 circumstance 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.

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. 1-6. 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.;
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 Figura tive 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. 53.

[blocks in formation]

35. Simon I, called the Just, made
high-priest in 3702 or 3703, and died
in 3711.

36. Eleazar, made in 3712. Under
this pontiff, the translation of the
Succession, taken Septuagint is said to have been
from the Jewish Chromade, about the year 3727: he died
Seder in 3744.
nicle, entitled


1. Aaron.

1. Aaron.

2. Eleazar.

2. Eleazar.

3. Phinehas, A. M. 2571, 3. Phinehas. 3. Phinehas. 3. Phinehas. died 2590.

[blocks in formation]

4. Abishua.

4. Abiezer.

4. Eli.

[blocks in formation]

5. Ahitub.
6. Abiathar
7. Zadok.

8. Meraioth. 8. Ahitub.

7. Eli, of the race of Itha

mar, created in 2848, died in 2888.

8. Ahitub I.

[blocks in formation]

8. Ahimaaz, under

9. Azariah, under

10. Jehoachash, un
der Jehoshaphat.

11. Jehoiarib, under

[blocks in formation]

37. Manasseh, made in 3745, died in 3771.

38. Onias II. made in 3771, died in 3785.

39. Simon II. made in 3785, and

died in 3805.

40. Onias III. made in 3805, deposed 3829, died in 3834.

41. Jesus, or Jason, made in 3830, deposed in 3831.

42. Onias IV. otherwise called Menelaus, made in 3832, died in 3842. 43. Lysimachus, vicegerent of Menelaus, killed in 3834.

44. Alcimus, or Jacimus, or Joachim, made in 3842, died in 3844.

45. Onias V. He did not exercise his pontificate at Jerusalem, but retired into Egypt, where he built the temple Onion in 3854.

46. Judas Maccabæus, restored the altar and the sacrifices in 3840, died in 3843.

47. Jonathan, the Asmonean, brother to Judas Maccabæus, created

high-priest in 3843, and died in 3860.

48. Simon Maccabæus made in 3860, died in 3869.

49. John Hyrcanus, made in 3869, died in 3898.

50. Aristobulus, king and pontiff of the Jews, died 3899.

51. Alexander Jannæus, also king and pontiff during 27 years, from 3899 to 3926.

52. Hyrcanus was high-priest for the space of 32 years in the whole, from 3926 to 3958.

53. Aristobulus, brother to Hyrcanus, usurped the high-priesthood, and held it three years and three months, from 3935 to 3940.

54. Antigonus, his son, also usurp ed the priesthood in prejudice to the rights of Hyrcanus, and possessed it for three years and seven months, from 3964 to 3967, when he was taken by Sosius.

55. Ananeel of Babylon, made highpriest by Herod in 3968 till 3970.

56. Aristobulus, the last of the Asmonæans: he did not enjoy the pontificate a whole year. He died in 3970. Ananeel was made highpriest a second time in 3971. 57. Jesus, the son of Phabis, deposed in 3981.

Succession of High-priests

58. Simon, son of Botheus, made un-high-priest in 3981, deposed in 3999.



59. Matthias, son of Theophilus,
made high-priest in 3999. Ellem was
substituted in his place for a day,
because of an accident that happen-
ed to Matthias, which hindered him
from performing his office that day.
60. Joazar, son of Simon, son of
Boethus, made high-priest in 4000,
the year of the birth of Jesus Christ,
four years before the commence

15. Zedekiah, under ment of the vulgar era.

61. Eleazar, brother to Joazar,
made high-priest in 4004, of Christ
4, of the vulgar era 1.

62. Jesus, son of Siah, made high-
16. Joel, under Uz priest in the year of the vulgar era
6. Joazar was made a second time
in 7, and deposed in 13.

63. Ananus, son of Seth, for 11
gar era 24.

17. Amariah, perhaps 17. Ahitub II. 17. Phideus. 17. Jotham, under years, from 4016 to 4027, of the vulAzariah, under Uzziah,

[blocks in formation]

under Manasseh, and

at the time of the siege
of Bethulia, in 3348.
He continued to live
under Josiah to 3380,
and longer. He is also
called Hilkiah. (Ba-
ruch i. 7.)

25. Azariah, perhaps Ne-
riah, the father of Sera-
iah and of Baruch.
26. Seraiah, the last high-
priest before the cap-
tivity; put to death in

27: Jozadak, during the
captivity of Babylon,
from 3414 to 3469.

28. Joshua, or Jesus, the son of Jozadak: he returned from Babylon in 3468.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors]

70. Simon, surnamed Cantharus, and son of Simon Boethus, was made high-priest in 41.

71. Matthias, son of Ananus, made high-priest in 42.

72. Elioneus, inade in 44, and continued till 45. Simon, son of Cantha rus, was a second time made highpriest, A. D. 45, and deposed the same year.

73. Joseph, son of Caneus, was made high-priest in a. D. 45, till 57.

74. Ananias, the son of Nebodeus, was made high-priest in the year of the vulgar era 47, and enjoyed the priesthood till 63,

75. Ismael was ordained highpriest, A. D. 63.

76. Joseph, surnamed Cabei, in 63, 77. Ananus, the son of Ananus, in 63.

[blocks in formation]

Of those who discharged the functions of high-priest during the decline of the Jewish polity, there are two particularly mentioned in the New Testament, namely, ANNAS (John xviii. 13. Acts iv. 6.), and CAIAPHAS. (Matt. xxvi. 3. 57. John xviii. 13. 24. 28.) The former is by Josephus called Ananus, of which name Annas is an abridgment: the latter he calls Joseph, intimating also that he was known by the name of Caiaphas. Annas enjoyed the singular felicity (which indeed had never happened to any other of the Jew25. Hilkiah. 25. Jesus, son of Jo-ish high-priests), not only of having himself held the supreme zadak, after the pontifical office for many years, but also of seeing it filled by several successors out of his own family, five of them being his sons, and others his sons-in-law. Hence, although he was deprived of the high-priesthood by the Romans, he afterward continued to take the chief sway, in the adminis tration of the Jewish affairs; and is represented in the sacred history, together with Caiaphas, as being chief priest ana exercising supreme authority.

[blocks in formation]

IV. Next to the Levites, priests, and high-priests, the OFFICERS OF THE SYNAGOGUE may be mentioned here, as being in some degree sacred persons; since to them was confided the superintendence of those places which were set apart for prayer and instruction. Their functions and powers have been fully stated in p. 104. supra.

Luke iii. 2. Acts iv. 6. In like manner Josephus (de Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 12. §6.) places Jonathan, who had been high-priest (Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 4. §3.), and who still continued to possess great authority, before Ananias, who at that time discharged the functions of sovereign pontiff. (Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 5. §2.) See also Lardner's Credibility, book i. c. 7. § 1. and book Jii. c. 4. (Works, vol. i. pp. 143. 383-389.)

V. The NAZARITES (as the Hebrew word Nazir implies) | 19.) that, because the Rechabites had obeyed the precepts of were persons separated from the use of certain things, and Jonadab their father, therefore Jonadab should not want a man sequestered or consecrated to Jehovah. They are commonly to stand before him for ever. The Rechabites flourished as a regarded as sacred persons; a notice of their institute will community about one hundred and eighty years, and were supbe found infra, in chapter v. sect. i. § iii. 2. posed to have been dispersed after the captivity; but modern travellers have discovered their descendants in a tribe of Bedouin Arabs, who dwell alone in the vicinity of Mecca, and are called Beni Khaibr, or the sons of Khaibr (that is, of Heber). They continue to obey the injunctions of their ancestor Rechab. "To this moment they drink no wine, and have neither vineyard, nor field, nor seed; but dwell like Arabs in tents, and are wandering nomades. They believe and observe the law of Moses by tradition, for they are not in possession of the written law."3

VI. The RECHABITES are by many writers considered as a class of holy persons, who, like the Nazarites, separated themselves from the rest of the Jews, in order that they might lead a more pious life. But this is evidently a mistake; for they were not Israelites or Jews, but Kenítes or Midianites, who used to live in tents, and traversed the country in quest of pasture for their cattle, as the Nabathaan Arabs anciently did, and as the modern Arabians, and Crim-Tatars (or Tartars) still do. Their manner of living was not the result of a religious institute, but a mere civil ordinance, grounded upon a national custom. They derived their name from Jonadab the son of Rechab, a man of eminent zeal for the pure worship of God against idolatry, who assisted king Jehu in destroying the house of Ahab and the worshippers of Baal. (2 Kings x. 15, 16. 23.) It was he who gave the rule of life to his children and their posterity, which is recorded by the prophet Jeremiah (xxxvi. 5-7.); and which consisted of these three articles: 1. That they should drink no vine; 2. That they should neither possess nor occupy any houses, fields, or vineyards; and, 3. That they should dwell in tents. In these regulations he appears to have had no retigious, but merely a prudential view, as is intimated in the reason assigned for them, viz. that they might live many days in the land where they were strangers. And such, in fact, would be the natural consequence of their temperate and quiet mode of living. On the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, with intent to besiege Jerusalem, these Rechabites, apprehending themselves in more danger in the open country, came to Jerusalem for safety; by these people God intended to convince the Jews of their disobedience to him; and, therefore, he ordered his prophet Jeremiah to bring them to an apartment of the temple, and there offer them wine to drink, which when they refused, on account of its being contrary to their institute, which they never had violated, the prophet, after due commendation of their obedience, addressed the Jews, and reproached them, who were God's peculiar people, for being less observant of his laws than these poor Rechabites had been of the injunctions of their ancestor. (Jer. xxxv.) Wherefore Jehovah declares (ver. 18,

VII. The PROPHETS were etninently distinguished among the persons accounted holy by the Jews: they were raised up by God in an extraordinary manner for the performance of the most sacred functions. Originally they were called Seers: they discovered things yet future, declared the will of God, and announced their divine messages, both to kings and people, with a confidence and freedom that could only be produced by the conviction that they were indeed authorized messengers of Jehovah. The gift of prophecy was not always annexed to the priesthood: there were prophets of all the tribes, and sometimes even among the Gentiles. The office of a prophet was not confined to the prediction of future events; it was their province to instruct the people, and they interpreted the law of God: hence the words prophet and prophecy are, in many passages of the Scriptures, synonymous with interpreter or teacher, and interpretation or teaching. It is unanimously agreed both by Jews and Christians that Malachi was the last of the prophets under the Old Testament dispensation and it is a remarkable fact, that so long as there were prophets among the Jews, they were not divided by sects or heresies, although they often fell into idolatry. This circumstance may thus be accounted for:-As the prophets received their communications of the divine will immediately from God himself, there was no alternative for the Jews: either the people must obey the prophets, and receive their interpretations of the law, or no longer acknowledge that God who inspired them. When, however, the law of God came to be explained by weak and fallible men, who seldom agreed in their opinions, sects and parties were the unavoidable result of such conflicting sentiments."




General Classification of Sacrifices and Offerings ;-I. BLOODY OFFERINGS, and the divine Origin of Sacrifices ;-1. Different Kinds of Victims ;-2. Selection of Victims ;-3. Manner of presenting them ;-4. Immolation of the Sacrifice;-5. The Place and Time appointed for sacrificing;-6. Different Kinds of Fire-sacrifices;-i. Burnt-offerings;-ii. Peace-offerings;-iii. Sin-offerings;—iv. Trespass-offerings ;—II. National, regular, weekly, monthly, and annual Sacrifices.-III. UNBLOODY OFFERINGS. IV. DRINK-OFFERINGS.-V. Other Oblations made by the Jews:-1. ORDINARY OBLATIONS;-(1.) The Shew-bread.-(2.) Incense.-2. VOLUNTARY OBLATIONS.-Corban.-3. PRESCRIBED OBLATIONS;-(1.) First-fruits; -(2.) Tithes.-VI. Fitness and Utility of the Jewish Sacrifices.

A SACRIFICE is an offering made to God upon his altar by the hand of a lawful minister. Sacrifice differs from oblation in this respect, viz. in a sacrifice there must be a real change See Mrs. Holderness's Notes relating to the Manners and Customs of

the Crim-Tatars. London, 1821. 12mo.

2 Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. p. 223. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. i. pp. 227, 228 Mede's Works, p. 127. Calmet, Commentaire Littérale, tome vi. p. xvii. The reader will find an instructive discourse on the history of the Rechabites, in Dr. Townson's Works, vol. ii. pp. 215-225.

Wolff's Missionary Journal and Memoir, p. 257.; Carne's Recollections For a more particular account of the sacred prophets, see part i. chap.

of the East, pp. 95, 96.

Iv. sect. i. infra.

General authorities from which this chapter is compiled:-Schulzii Archæol. Heb. pp. 250-280. Lamy, Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. pp. 187203. Relandi Antiq. Sacr. Hebræorum, part iii. cap. 1-5, pp. 290-368. Ikenii Antiq. Heb. part i. cap. 13, 14. pp. 152-191. Beausobre and L'Enfant's Introd. to the New Test. (Bishop Watson's Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 196 199.) Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. chap. v. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 94-97. 109-115. 246-254. Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 270-272. Jahn, Archæol. Biblica, $$ 373-390. Dr. Owen on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. i. Exercit. xxiv. pp. 306-318. Dr. Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. pp. 926-941. folio edition, $$ 373-385. Ackermann,

or destruction of the thing offered: whereas, an oblation is only a simple offering or gift.

The sacrifices and oblations of the Jews demand particular notice in this sketch of their ecclesiastical state."Such a ritual as they were enjoined to observe, the multiplicity of victims they were appointed statedly to offer, together with the splendour of that external worship in which they were daily engaged,—all tended to replenish and adorn their language with numerous allusions, and striking metaphors derived from the pomp of their religion. Hence it is that the writings of the Jews, more than of any other people, abound with phrases and terms borrowed from the temple worship and service. The psalms and prophetical writings may in particular be adduced in illustration of this remark. Purge me with hyssop, says David, and I shall be clean. Thou shalt be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness. (Psal. Archæol. Biblica, $$ 360-372. Tappan's Jewish Antiq. pp. 106-118. Brunings, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 172-192. Carpzovii Antiq. Hebr. Gentis pp. 699-725. Calmet's Dictionary, voce Sacrifice.

« ElőzőTovább »