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 Testament, 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 car. ried 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.2

3

The sacerdotal dignity being confined to certain familics, 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, sanctity of life, and freedom from blemish, were alike indispensable. (Levit. xxi. 7. 17. 23.) 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 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

1 See Matt. xxvii. 1.; Acts iv. 23, v. 24., ix. 14. 21., xxii. 30., xxiii. 14., xxv. 15., xxvi. 10.; and also Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 8. § 8.; De Bell. Jud. lib. iv. c. 3. § 7. c. 4. § 3. et de vita sua, §§ 2. 5.

2 Macknight, and Wetstein, on Luke i. 9.

Ezra ii. 62.; Neh. vii. 64. Josephus contra Apion, lib. i. § 7. et in vita sua, § 1. Maimonides has enumerated not fewer than 140 bodily defects which disqualified persons for the priesthood. See Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 12. § 2., and compare Carpzov's Apparatus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, pp. 89. et seq.

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 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.

4. The Tiara was originally a pointed kind of bonnet or turban, made of several rolls of linen cloth twisted round the head, but in the time of Josephus it approached somewhat to a globular form.3

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 (Numb. xxxv.); the limits of which were confined to a thousand cubits beyond the walls of the city, which served for outhouses, 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. (Levit. xxv. 34.) So that there were in the whole three thousand

1 Lamy, Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. p. 213.

2 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 2. Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, part iii. 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.

3

Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. iii. c. 7. § 3. Tappan's Lect. on Jewish Antiquities, pp. 155-157.

cubits round the city; and in this sense we are to understand Numb. 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 thanksgiving-offerings 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 sinofferings, 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 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 (Numb. 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 (Numb. xviii. 13.; Lev. xix. 23, 24.), as well as a share in the tithes of the spoils taken in war. (Numb. 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 in 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 in

fluence 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

III. Over all the priests was placed the HIGH PRIEST, who enjoyed peculiar dignities and influence. He alone could enter the Holy of Holies in the temple: the supreme administration of sacred things was confined to him; he was the final arbiter of all controversies; in later times he presided 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 afterwards 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.2

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 high priest, 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 bells3, separated from one another by as many artificial pomegranates. As the pomegranates added to the beauty of the robe, so the sound of the bells gave notice to the people in the outer court of the high priest's entrance into the

'Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 231-236. Lowman's Civil Government of the Hebrews, p. 124.

2 Godwin's Moses and Aaron, p. 18. Lightfoot's Hora Hebraicæ, 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.

holy place to burn incense; in order that they might then apply themselves to their devotions, as an expression of their concurrence with him in his offering, and of their hope that their prayers, accompanied with the incense offered by him, would ascend as a fragrant odour before God.

2. The Ephod was a vest, which was fastened on the shoulders, the hinder part reaching down to the heels, while the fore part descended only a little below the waist. It was of fine twisted linen, splendidly wrought with gold and purple: to each of the shoulder-straps of this ephod was affixed a precious stone, on which were engraven the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.

3. The Breast-plate 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 high 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.'

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 the two Hebrew words in p (KODESH LaJeHоvaн), 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 (Levit. xxi.

Tappan's Lectures on Jewish Antiq. pp. 157-160.

2 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.