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 (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 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.1 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 Lamy, Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. P. 213. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 2. See also the Observations of Ernesti, Inst. Interp. Nov Test. part ii. c. 10. $89. pp. 371-373. It was for ang time supposed that the art of making such vests was irrecoverably los 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. 261. 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.) the high-priest became old, or had accidentally been exposed to any pollution, a (sagan) or substitute was appointed to perform his duties. Zephaniah, the second priest, (Jer. lii. 21.) 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. When 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 prede cessor. 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 Government of the Hebrews, p. 121. Godwin's Moses and Aaron, p. 18. Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraica, and Kuinöel, on Luke iii. 2. 6 Similar bells are still in use in the East. Sec Hasselquist's Travels, p. 58, and D'Arvieux's Travels in Arabia the Desert, p. 225. VOL. II. Р sound of the bells gave notice to the people in the outer court of extravagant; but such wild comments serve no other purpose the high-priest's entrance into the holy place to burn incense; than to throw an air of romance, of uncertainty, and of ridiin order that they might then apply themselves to their devo-cule over sacred things. It is sufficient for us to be assured, tions, as an expression of their concurrence with him in his that these minute prescriptions were adapted to wise and offering, and of their hope that their prayers, accompanied excellent purposes, in the comparatively infant state of the with the incense offered by him, would ascend as a fragrant church; and, particularly, that they served the general uses odour before God. of an emblematical and typical religion, which was intended to impress moral and spiritual truth by sensible and striking representations.* 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.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 LаJeнovан), 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 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 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 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.8 Besides the authorities already cited in the course of this article, the rum, part ii. cc. 1-6. pp. 141-238.; Ikenius's Antiquitates Hebraica, part 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 reader who is desirous of investigating the nature and functions of the of the earth; the glorious robe which encompassed it, heaven; Jewish priesthood is referred to Reland's Antiquitates veterum Hebræothe bells and promegranates, thunder and lightning. Or, the i. cc. 10, 11. pp. 105-128.; and to Schacht's Animadversiones ad Ikenii ephod of various colours is the universe; the breastplate, Antiquitates, pp. 471-544.; Dr. Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 5. the earth in its centre; the girdle, the sea; the onyx-stone pp. 95-174.; Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. i. pp. on each shoulder, the sun and moon; the twelve jewels in 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 breastplate, the twelve signs of the zodiac; the mitre, The typical nature of the Jewish priesthood, especially of the highheaven; and the golden plate, with the name of God en-priest, is discussed by the Rev. W. Jones, in his Lectures on the Figuragraven on it, the splendour of Jehovah in heaven. tive Language of Scripture, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Works, Some vol. iii. pp. 58-62. 223-227.) Christian divines have allegorized them in a manner equally 1 Tappan's Lectures on Jewish Antiq. pp. 157-160. The dress and ornaments of the high-priest above noticed, together with the mode of consecrating him, as directed by Moses, are described at length in Exod. xxviii. and xxix. 1–37. Tappan's Lectures, p. 164. 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. 33-386.) 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. or Abimelech, under David, from 2944 to 2989. der Jehoshaphat. 11. Jehoiarib, under Jehoram. 12. Zadok I. under Saul, 12. Ahimaaz. 12. Ahimaaz. 12. Jehoshaphat, David, and Solomon, from 2944 to about 3000. der Ahaziah. 13. Ahimaaz, under Re-13. Azariah. 13. Azariah. 13.Jehoiadah, hoboam, about A. M. 3030. 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 Septuagint is said to have been made, about the year 3727: he died in 3744. 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 re- 46. Judas Maccabæus, restored the 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 3999. 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 Hyrca. nus, 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. 70. Simon, surnamed Cantharus, and son of Simon Boethus, was inade high-priest in 41. 71. Matthias, son of Ananus, made high-priest in 42. Succession of High-priests after the Captivity. 14. Phadaiah, Joash. under 17. Amariah, perhaps 17. Ahitub II. 17. Phideus. 17. Jotham, under years, from 4016 to 4027, of the vul. Azariah, under Uzziah, 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.) Azariah, perhaps Ne- 27. Jozadak, during the 25. Hilkiah. 26. Seraiah. 27. Jozadak. 23. Jesus, or Joatham. 18. Uriah, under 20. Hosaiah, under 21. Shallum, under gar era 24. 64. Ishmael, son of Phabi, in 24. 65. Eleazar, son of Ananus, made in 24. 66. Simon, son of Camithus, made 67. Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, 24. Jehozadak, after the taking of Je 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, în 63. 77. Ananus, the son of Ananus, in 63. Of those who discharged the functions of high-priest dur23. Azariah, under Jehoiakim, and ing the decline of the Jewish polity, there are two particuZedekiah. larly 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.1 Annas enjoyed the singular felicity (which indeed had never happened to any other of the Jew25. 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 and exercising supreme authority. captivity. 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 ii. 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.2 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.” 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 Kenites or Midianites, who used to live in tents, and traversed the country in quest of pasture for their cattle, as the Nabathæan 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 rine; 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 eminently 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, synony mous 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.* CHAPTER III. SACRED THING S. ON THE SACRIFICES AND OTHER OFFERINGS OF THE JEWS.5 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 1 See Mrs. Holderness's Notes relating to the Manners and Customs of the Crim-Tatars. London, 1821. 12mo. Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. p. 223. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. i. pp. 27, 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. of the East, pp. 95, 96. Iv. sect. i. infra. 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 "Such a notice in this sketch of their ecclesiastical state. 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, $5 360-372. Tappan's Jewish Antiq. pp. 106-118. Brunings, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 172-192. Carpzovii Antiq. Hebr. Gentis pp. Wolff's Missionary Journal and Memoir, p. 257.; Carne's Recollections For a more particular account of the sacred prophets, see part i. chap. 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. 90-368. 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 Commen. taries, vol. iii. pp. 94-97. 109-115. 216-254. Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 270-272. Jahn, Archæol. Biblica. $$ 373-390. Dr. Owen on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol i. Exercit. xxiv. pp. 306-318. Dr. Light-699-725. Lot's Works, vol. i. pp. 926-941. folio edition, $$ 373-385. Ackermann, • Calmet's Dictionary, voce Sacrifice. li. 7. 19.) Let my prayer come before thee as incense, and the Efting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice. (Psal. cxli. 2.) Therefore will I offer the sacrifice of joy. (Psal. cxvi. 17.) The sin of Judah, says Jeremiah, is graven upon the horns of your altars. (Jer. xvii. 1.) Take away all our iniquity and receive us graciously; so will we render thee the calves of our lips. (Hos. xiv. 2.)" Nor are similar examples wanting in the New Testament, whose inspired authors, being educated in the Jewish religion, retain the same phraseology, which has enriched their writings with numerous beautiful and expressive allusions to the national sacrifices and ceremonies." Michaelis classes the offerings prescribed to the Israelites under three general heads-namely, bloody offerings, or sacrifices strictly so called; unbloody offerings, or those taken only from the vegetable kingdom; and drink-offerings, or libations, which were a kind of accompaniment to the two preceding. We shall follow this classification, as enabling us to present to our readers the most compendious account of the Jewish sacrifices. I. BLOODY OFFERINGS were sacrifices properly and strictly so called; by which we may understand the infliction of death on a living creature, generally by the effusion of its blood in a way of religious worship, and the presenting of this act to God as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and as a supposed mean of compensation for the insult and injury offered by sin to his majesty and government. Sacrifices have in all ages, and by almost every nation, been regarded as necessary to appease the divine anger, and to render the Deity propitious but whether this universal notion derived its origin from divine revelation, or was suggested by conscious guilt and a dread of the divine displeasure, is a question that cannot be easily decided. It is, however, not improbable that it originated in the former, and prevailed under the influence of the latter. The Scripture account of sacrifices leads us to conclude, that they were instituted by divine appointment, immediately after the entrance of sin by the fall of Adam and Eve, to be a type or significant emblem of the great atonement or all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly we find Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and others, offering sacrifices in the faith of the Messiah that was to be revealed; and the divine acceptance of their sacrifices is particularly recorded. This hypothesis, and this only, satisfactorily accounts for the early prevalence of religious sacrifices, not only among the worshippers of the true God, but also among Pagan idolaters. lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Pet. i. 19.) Further, it was a custom among nations contiguous to Judæa, and particularly among the Egyptians, to set a seal upon a victim that was deemed proper for sacrifice. With this custom the Jews could not be unacquainted; and it is possible that similar precautions were in use among themselves, especially as they were so strictly enjoined to have the sacrifices without spot and without blemish. To such a usage Jesus Christ is supposed to have alluded, when speaking of the sacrifice of himself, he says-Him hath God the Father SEALED. (John vi. 27. 51.) "Infinite justice found Jesus Christ to be without spot or blemish, and therefore sealed, pointed out and accepted him as a proper sacrifice and atonement for the sin of the whole world. Collate Heb. vii. 26-28. Eph. v. 27. 2 Pet. iii. 14., and especially Heb. ix. 13, 14. For, if the blood of BULLS and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprink ling the unclean, sanctifieth, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself WITHOUT SPOT to God, purge your consciences from dead works ?”6 3. The victim thus chosen, being found immaculate, was led up to the altar by the person offering the sacrifice; who laid his hand upon its head, on which he leaned with all his strength; and, while the sacrifice was offering, said some particular prayers; and if several persons united in offering the same victim, they put their hands upon it in succession. (Lev. iv. 13-15.) By this imposition of hands the person presenting the victim acknowledged the sacrifice to be his own: that he loaded it with his iniquities; that he offered it as an atonement for his sins; that he was worthy of death because he had sinned, having forfeited his life by violating the law of God; and that he entreated God to accept the life of the innocent animal in the place of his own. In this respect the victims of the Old Testament were types of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God that TAKETH AWAY the sin of the world (John i. 29.), and on whom Jehovah in the fulness of time laid the iniquity of us all. (Isa. liii. 6. with 1 Pet. ii. 24.) Further, in certain cases it was required that the victim should be one, on which never came yoke (Num. xix. 2. Deut. xxi. 3. 1 Sam. vi. 7.); because any animal which had been used for a common purpose was deemed improper to be offered in sacrifice to God.10 4. The animal thus conducted to the altar was next immolated, by cutting the throat and windpipe entirely through at one stroke; the blood being caught in a vessel, and sprinkled round about upon the altar. By this sprinkling the atonement was made, for the blood was the life of the beast, and it was always supposed that life went to redeem life. (Lev. i. 5-7.) The blood remaining after these aspersions was poured out at the foot of the altar, either all at once, or at different times, according to the nature of the sacrifice offered. 1. In all bloody sacrifices it was essential that the animals slaughtered should be clean; but it does not appear that all clean animals were to be offered indiscriminately. Fishes were not brought to the altar; and hence the Israelites are nowhere prohibited from eating their blood, but only that of birds and quadrupeds. (Lev. vii. 26.) It would seem that all clean birds might be offered (Lev. xiv. 4—7.), though the white bulls for their sacrifices, will materially explain the custom above The following account of the manner in which the Egyptians provided dove was the most common offering of this class. Of quad- alluded to:-"They sacrifice white bulls to Apis, and for that reason make rupeds, oxen, sheep, and goats were the only kinds which the following trial. If they find one black hair upon him, they consider were destined for the altar. No wild beasts were admissi-him as unclean. In order that they may know this with certainty, the priest appointed for this purpose views every part of the animal both ble: and hence comes the expression in the law of Moses standing and lying on the ground: after this, he draws out his tongue, to (Deut. xii. 15, 22. xv. 22.), It shall be eaten like the roe or the see if he be clean by certain signs; and in the last place he inspects the hart, by which he means to intimate that, in killing a beast, hairs of his tail, that he may be sure they are, as by nature they should be. If, after this search, the animal is found unblenished, he signifies it by all religious intention and all idea of sacrifice was to be tying a label to his horns; then, having applied wax, he seals it with his avoided.1 ring, and they lead him away, for it is death to sacrifice one of these ani mals, unless he has been marked with such a seal." Herodotus, lib. ii. c. 38. vol. i. p. 113. edit. Oxon. 2. In the selection of the victims, the utmost care was taken to choose such only as were free from every blemish. Unless it were pure and immaculate, it was to be rejected, as a sacrifice unacceptable to Jehovah. (Lev. xxii. 22.) In a beautiful allusion to this circumstance, St. Paul beseeches Christians, by the mercies of God, to present their bodies a Living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, which is their reasonable service. (Rom. xii. 1.) Hence also Jesus Christ is styled a 1 Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. ii. pp. 216, 217. To this notion of sacrifice our Saviour alluded in John xvi. 2. where he tells his disciples that such would be the enmity with which they should be pursued, that he who should kill them would be deemed to have slain a crifice highly acceptable to the Almighty-"He that killeth you shall think he doeth God service." In reference also to this notion of sacrifice, the apostle by a very beautiful and expressive figure represents Christ as ving us, and giving himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour. (Eph. v. 2.) Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. ii. p. 218. The divine origin of sacrifices is fully proved by Archbishop Magee, in his Discourses on the Atonement, vol. i. pp. 44-60. and vol. ii. pp. 2246 184-189, and by Mr. Jeram in his Treatise on the Doctrine of the Acaement, pp. 90-292. Mr. Davison has argued on the contrary side in his Inquiry into the Origin of Sacrifice. (London, 1825. 8vo.) Mr. Faber has ably vindicated the divine origin of Sacrifices in a treatise published at London in 1827. 8vo. • Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 95 Dr. A. Clarke, on John vi. 27. This ceremony, it is proper to remark, was omitted in respect to the turtle doves, and young pigeons, which were allowed to be offered in certain cases. The nature and mystical import of laying hands on the head of the victim are largely considered by Archbishop Magee in his Discourses on pp. 336-377. the Atonement, vol. i. On the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifices, see Archbishop Magee's Discourses on the Atonement, vol. i. pp. 352–366. 10 The heathens, who appear to have borrowed much from the Hebrews, were very scrupulous in this particular. Neither the Greeks, nor the Ro mans (who had the same religion, and, consequently, the same sacrifices with the Greeks), nor indeed the Egyptians, would offer an animal in sacri. fice that had been employed in agriculture. Just such a sacrifice as that prescribed here does Diomede vow to offer to Pallas. Iliad, x. 291–294. in the very same words Nestor promises a similar sacrifice to Pallas. Odyss. iii. 382. Thus also VIRGIL. Georg. iv. 550. |