The Typology of Scripture

By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854

BOOK THIRD.

CHAPTER III.

SECTION THIRD.

P. 244-275

THE MINISTERS OF THE TABERNACLE--THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

The general divisions of the tabernacle, and even its particular parts and services, were so peculiarly connected with the persons who were appointed to tread its courts, that it is necessary, before proceeding farther, to understand distinctly the place which these held in the Mosaic dispensation, and especially, how they stood related to God, on the one hand, and to the people on the other. This section must therefore be devoted to the consideration of the Levitical priesthood.

I. It is somewhat singular, that the earliest notices we have of a priesthood in Scripture, refer to other branches of the human family than that of the line of Abraham. The first person with whom the name of priest is there associated, is Melchizedec, who is described as "king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God." To him Abraham, though the head of the whole chosen family, paid tithes of all, and thus virtually confessed himself to be no priest as compared with Melchizedec. Then, in the days of Joseph, we meet with Potipherah, priest of On, or Heliopolis in Egypt, and of the priests generally, as a distinct and highly privileged order in that country (Gen. xli. 45; xlvii. 22); and a few generations later still, mention is made of Jethro, the priest of Midian. Not till the children of Israel left the land of Egypt, and were placed under that peculiar polity which was set up among them by the hand of Moses, do we hear of any individual, or class of individuals, holding the office of the priesthood as a distinct and exclusive prerogative. How, then, did they make their approach to God and present their oblations? Did each worshipper transact for himself with God? Or, did the father of a family act as priest for the members of his household? Or, was the priestly function among the privileges of the first-born? This last position has been maintained by many of the leading Jewish authorities (Jonathan, Onkelos, Saadias, Jarchi, Abenezra, &c.), and also by some men of great learning in Christian times (Grotius, Selden, Bochart, &c.). They have chiefly grounded their opinion on the circumstance of Moses having employed certain young men to offer the sacrifices, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified (Ex. xxiv. 5), connecting this fact, on the one hand, with the profaneness of Esau in having despised his birth-right, which is thought to have been a slighting of the priesthood, and, on the other, with God's special consecration of the first-born, after their redemption in Egypt. This opinion, however, may now be regarded as almost universally abandoned. The consecration of the first-born on the eve of Israel's departure from Egypt, did not, as we shall see, include their appointment to the priestly office; nor was this reckoned among the rights of primogeniture. These rights Scripture itself has plainly restricted to pre-eminence in authority among the brethren, and the possession of a double portion in the inheritance (1 Chron. v. 1-4). And it would appear, from the scattered notices of patriarchal history, that there was no bar then in the way of any one drawing near and presenting oblations to God, who might feel himself called to do so. So long, however, as the patriarchal constitution prevailed, it was by common consent felt due to the head of the family, as the highest in honour, and the proper representative of the whole, that he should deal with God in their behalf by the presentation of sacrifice. By degrees, as families grew into communities, and the patriarchal became merged in more general and public authorities, the sacerdotal office also naturally came to be vested, at least on all great and special occasions, in the persons of those who occupied the rank of heads in their respective communities, or of others, who, being regarded as peculiarly qualified for exercising the priestly function, were expressly chosen and delegated to discharge it. So in particular with the chosen family. In earlier times each patriarch did the work of a sacrificer; but when they had become a numerous people, and were going as a people to offer sacrifice to God, while they were primarily represented by Moses, whom God had raised up for their head, and who, therefore, alone properly did the part of a priest at the ratification of the covenant, by sprinkling the blood, they appear, as was natural, to have appointed certain of their number, pre-eminent in rank, in comeliness of person, or qualities of mind, to assist in priestly offices. These, no doubt, were the persons from whom Moses selected a few to furnish him with the blood of sprinkling on the occasion referred to, and who had previously been spoken of as a body under the name of priests (Ex. xix. 22). [1]

Indeed, so far from wondering that there was no distinct class invested with the office of priesthood during the patriarchal period of sacred history, it should rather have been matter of surprise if any had appeared. For, in those times, every thing in religion among the true worshippers of God was characterized by the greatest simplicity and freedom. They possessed as yet no temple, nor even any select consecrated place, in which their offerings were to be presented and their vows paid, Wherever they happened to dwell, in the open field or under the shade of a spreading tree, they built an altar and called upon the name of God. And it would have been a sort of anomaly, an institution at variance with the character of the worship and the general state of things, if there had been so artificial an arrangement as a distinct order of persons appointed exclusively to minister in holy things.

But this being the case, does it not seem like a travelling in the wrong direction, to institute at last an order of priests for that purpose? Was not this to mar the simplicity of God's worship, and throw a new restraint around the freedom of access to him? In one sense unquestionably it was; and separating, as it did, between the offering and him in whose behalf it was presented, it introduced into the worship of God an element of imperfection which cleaves to all the sacrifices under the Law. In this respect it was a more perfect state of things which permitted the offerer himself to bring near his offering to God, and one that has, therefore, been restored under the Gospel dispensation. But in other respects the worship of God made a great advance under the ministration of Moses, and an advance of such a nature as imperatively to require the institution of a separate priesthood. So that what was in itself an imperfection, became relatively an advantage, and a necessary help to something better.--The patriarchal religion, while it was certainly characterized by simplicity, was at the same time vague and general in its nature. The ideas it imparted concerning divine things were few, and the impressions it produced upon the minds of the worshippers must, from the very character of the worship, have been somewhat faint and indefinite. By the time of Moses, however, the world had already gone so far in the pomps and ceremonies of a false worship, that on that ground alone it became necessary to institute a much more varied and complicated service; and the Lord, taking advantage of the evil to accomplish a higher good, ordered the religion he now set up in such a manner, as to bring out far more fully his own principles of government, and prepare the way more effectually for the work and kingdom of Christ. The groundwork of this new form of religion stood in the erection of the tabernacle, which God chose for his peculiar dwelling-place, and through which he meant to keep up a close and lively intercourse with his people. But this intercourse would inevitably have grown on their part into too great familiarity, and would thus have failed to produce proper and salutary impressions upon the minds of the worshippers, unless something of a counteracting tendency had been introduced, fitted to beget feelings of profound and reverential awe toward the God who condescended to come so near to them. This could no otherwise be effectually done, than by the institution of a separate priesthood, whose prerogative alone it should be to enter within the sacred precincts of God's house, and perform the ministrations of his worship. And so wisely was every thing arranged concerning the work and service of this priesthood, that an awful sense of the holiness and majesty of the Divine Being could hardly fail to be awakened in the most unthinking bosom, while still there was given to the spiritual worshipper a visible representation of his near relationship to God, and his calling to intimate communion with him.

For, the Levitical priesthood was not made to stand, as the priesthood of Egypt certainly stood, in a kind of antagonism to the people, or in such a state of absolute independence and exclusive isolation, as gave them the appearance of a class entirely by themselves. On the contrary, this priesthood in its office was the representative of the whole people in its divine calling as God's seed of blessing; it was a priesthood formed out of a kingdom of priests; and, consequently, the persons in whom it was vested, could only be regarded as having, in the higher and more peculiar sense, what essentially belonged to the entire community. In them were concentrated and manifestly displayed the spiritual privileges and dignity of all true Israelites. And as these were represented in the priesthood generally, so especially in the person of the High-priest, in whom again every thing belonging to the priesthood gathered itself up and reached its culmination. "This high-priest," to use the words of Vitringa, [2] "represented the whole people. All Israelites were reckoned as being in him. The prerogative held by him belonged to the whole of them, but on this account was transferred to him, because it was impossible that all Israelites should keep themselves holy, as became the priests of Jehovah. But that the Jewish high-priest did indeed personify the whole body of the Israelites, not only appears from this, that he bore the names of all the tribes on his breast and his shoulders--which unquestionably imported that he drew near to God in the name and stead of all--but also from the circumstance, that when he committed any heinous sin, his guilt was imputed to the people. Thus, in Lev. iv. 3, 'If the priest that is anointed sin to the trespass or guilt of the people,' (improperly rendered in the English version, 'according to the sin of the people'). The anointed priest was the high-priest. But when he sinned, the people sinned. Wherefore? Because he represented the whole people. And on this account it was, that the sacrifice for a sin committed by him, had to be offered as the public sacrifices were, which were presented for sin committed by the people at large: the blood must be brought into the Holy Place, and the body burned without the camp."

There was even more than what is here mentioned to impress the idea, that the priesthood possessed only transferred rights. For, as the sins of the high-priest were regarded as the people's, so theirs also were regarded as his, and on the great day of atonement, when the most peculiar part of his work came to be discharged, he had, in their name and stead, to enter into the Most Holy Place with the blood of sprinkling, and thereafter confess all their sins and iniquities over the head of the live goat. On other occasions also, we find this impersonation of Israel by the high-priest coming distinctly out, as in Judges xx. 27, 28, where, not the people (as the construction in our version might seem to imply) but Phinehas in the name of the people asks, "Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin, my brother?" and receives the answer: "Go up, for to-morrow I will deliver them into thine hand." Besides, in one most important respect, the priestly function was still allowed to remain in the hands of the people, even after the consecration of Aaron and his family. The paschal lamb, which might justly be regarded as in a peculiar sense the sacrifice of the covenant, was by the covenant-people themselves presented to the Lord and its flesh eaten; which was manifestly designed to keep up a perpetual testimony to the truth of their being a kingdom of priests. So Philo plainly understood it, when he describes it as the custom at the passover, "not that the laity should bring the sacrificial animals to the altar, and the priests offer them, but the whole people," says he, "according to the prescription of the law, exercise priestly functions, since each one for his own part presents the appointed sacrifices." [3] And as thus the priestly functions of the people were plainly not intended to be destroyed by the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, but were only, at the most, transferred to that body, and represented in them, we can easily understand how pious Israelites, like the Psalmist, could read their own privileges in those of the priests, and speak of "coming into the house of God," and even of "dwelling in it all the days of their life." [4] Betokening, however, as the institution of such a priesthood did, a relative degree of imperfection on the part of the people, we can also easily understand how the spirit of prophecy, when pointing to a higher and more perfect dispensation, should have intimated the purpose of Grod to make the priestly order again to cease, by the unreserved communication to the people of its distinctive privileges: "Te shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the ministers of our God. [5] This purpose began to be realized from the time that, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, believers were constituted a "royal priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God," and is destined to be realized in the fullest sense in the future kingdom of glory, when the redeemed shall be able with one voice to say, "Thou hast made us kings and priests unto our God."

The relation, then, in which the Levitical priesthood stood to the people, still consisted with the preservation, to a considerable extent, of their spiritual privileges. Even through such an institution they could see the dignity of their standing before God, and their right to hold near communion with him. But if, in this part of the arrangement, care was taken to keep up a sense of the grace and condescension of God toward the whole covenant-people, care was also taken, on the other hand, by means of the priesthood's peculiar relation to God, to keep up a sense of his adorable majesty and untainted righteousness. For, however the people were warranted to regard themselves as admitted by representation into the dwelling-place of God, they were yet obliged personally to stand at an awful distance. One tribe alone was selected and set apart to the office of handling the things that concerned it. But not even the whole of this tribe was permitted to enter the sacred precincts of God's house and minister in its appropriate services. That honour was reserved for one family of the tribe--the family of Aaron--and even the members of that family could not be allowed to discharge the duties of their priestly office without the most solemn rites of consecration; nor, when consecrated, could they all alike traverse with freedom the courts of the tabernacle; one individual of them alone could pass the veil into its innermost region, the presence-chamber of God, and he only in such a manner as must have impressed his soul with the awful sanctity of the place, and made him enter with trembling step. Guarded by so many restrictions, and rising through so many gradations, how high must have seemed the dignity, how sublime and sacred the privilege of standing in the presence of the Holy One of Israel, and ministering before him!

II. But we must now inquire into the leading characteristics of this priestly office: what peculiarly distinguished those who exercised it from the nation at large? Nothing for certain can here be learned from the name (*** cohen), the derivation of which is differently given by the learned, and the original import of which cannot now be correctly ascertained. But looking at their position and office in a general light, we cannot fail to regard them as occupying somewhat of the place of God's friends and familiars. [6] Their part was not to do much in the way of active and laborious service, but rather to receive and present to God, as his nearest friends and associates, what properly belonged to him. And on this account also was a great proportion of the sacrifices divided between God and them; and the shew-bread, as well as other meat-offerings, were consumed by them, there being such a close relationship and intimacy between them and God, that it might be regarded as immaterial whether anything were appropriated by them or consumed on the altar of God. But there were evidently three elements entering into this general view of their position and office, which together made up the characteristics of the priestly calling, and which are distinctly brought out as such in the description given by Moses on the occasion of Koran's rebellion: "And he spake unto Korah, and unto all his company saying, To-morrow the Lord will shew who is his, and who is holy, and whom he makes to draw near to him; and him, whom he chooses, will he make to draw near to himself." (Numb. xvi. 5). There can be no doubt, from the connection in which this stands, that it was intended to be a description of the properties, or personal characteristics of a divine calling to the priesthood; for it was intended to meet the assumption of Korah and his company, that as the whole congregation was holy, they had an equal right with Aaron to enter into the tabernacle of God and minister in holy things. The person to whom such a right belonged, must be in a peculiar sense God's property, or election, a possessor of holiness, and privileged to draw near to God; which the family of Aaron alone were, and so, to the exclusion of all others, were invested with the priestly function. [7]

(1.) They were in a peculiar sense God's property, or the objects of his election--for these two expressions properly involve but one idea. The choice of God as well in respect to the priesthood, as to the people at large, exercised itself in selecting a particular portion from the general property of God, to be his peculiar possession. As thus chosen and set apart for God, Israel was his heritage in the earth; and as similarly chosen and set apart for the special work of the priesthood, the family of Aaron was his heritage in Israel. The privilege was to be theirs of drawing peculiarly near to God, and their first qualification for using it, was that they were the objects of his choice. Their designation and appointment must be from above--not assumed as of their own authority, or derived from the choice of their fellow-men-- "for no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Heb. v. 4.) Referring to this, and recognizing in it the essential distinction of every true Israelite, the Psalmist says, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts" (Ps. Ixv. 4.) The grounds of the divine choice in the case of Aaron are nowhere given; nor even when Korah contested with him the right to the office, did the Lord condescend to assign any reason for having selected that family in preference to the other families of Israel. He wished his own election to be regarded as the ultimate ground of the distinction, and by making the office hereditary in the family of Aaron, he kept the appointment for all coming time, as it were, in his own hands. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of such ostensible grounds of preference existing in Aaron and his family, as might have been sufficient to commend the divine choice to the people: such as his distinguished rank as the first-born of the house to which Moses belonged, the services he had already rendered in the cause of Israel, or his personal fitness for the office. But there is no authority for holding with. Philo, Maimonides, and other Jewish writers, that the priesthood was conferred on this family as a reward for their zeal and devotedness to the service of God. So far from this, at the very time when the appointment of Aaron was intimated to Moses, he was going along with the people in the worship of the golden calf. [8]

(2.) The second element in the distinctive properties of the priesthood, was the possession of holiness. Expressly on the ground of holiness being the general characteristic of the people, did the company of Korah assert their claim to the prerogatives of the priesthood; and on this point especially was the trial by means of the twelve rods laid up before the Lord, designed to bear a decisive testimony. The rod of the house of Aaron alone being made to bud, and blossom, and yield almonds, was a visible, miraculous sign from heaven, of a holiness belonging to the family of Aaron, which did not belong to the congregation at large. For what is holiness but spiritual life and fruitfulness? And of this there could not be a more natural emblem than a rod flourishing and yielding fruit after its kind. Such singular and pre-eminent holiness became those, who were to be known as the immediate attendants and familiars of Jehovah, who revealed himself as "the Holy One of Israel." Hence, not only is it said in the general, that "holiness becometh God's house," that is, those who dwell and minister in its courts, but Aaron is called by way of distinction "the saint of the Lord," and the law enjoins with special emphasis respecting the priests as a body, that they should be "holy unto their God," "for," it is added, "I the Lord, that sanctify you, am holy."--(Ps. xciii. 5, cvi. 16; Lev. xxi. 6). Hence also, as holiness in the priesthood derived the necessity of its existence from the holiness of the Being whose attendants they were, it must have been holiness of the same character and description as his; the law of the ten commandments, which was the grand expression of the one, must undoubtedly have been intended to form the fixed standard of the other. It was an excellence, which, however it might be symbolized by outward things, could not possibly be formed of these, but must have been a real and personal distinction. This is distinctly brought out in the description given of the character of those, who were originally appointed to fill the sacred functions of the priesthood in Mal. ii. 1-7, and it is also clearly implied in the threatenings uttered against the house of Eli, and their ultimate degradation and ruin, on account of the moral impurities into which they fell. Their wicked course of life disqualified them from holding the sacred office, which must therefore have indispensably required purity in heart and conduct.

(3.) The last distinction belonging to the priesthood, was their right to draw near to God; a right which grew out of their election of God and their eminent holiness, as the end and consummation to which these pointed. The question in the rebellion of Korah was, who were in such a sense chosen by God, and holy, as to be privileged to draw near to him; and the decision of God was given on the two former, with a special respect to this latter prerogative: "And him, whom he chooses, will He make to draw near to himself." Hence, "those who draw near to Jehovah," is not uncommonly given as a description of the priests (Ex. xix. 22; Lev. xxi. 17; Ez. xlii. 13, xliv. 13), and the distinctive priestly act in all sacrificial services is called "the bringing near," (***) as also the thing sacrificed, is called in its most general designation corban (***)--the thing brought near, offering. On this account what is mentioned in one place as "an offering of burnt-offerings," is described in another as a "bringing near" of them (2 Sam. vi. 17; 1 Chron. xvi. 1). But this right of the priesthood, of themselves standing peculiarly near to God, and alone being permitted to bring near to him the gifts and offerings of the congregation, of necessity involved the idea of their occupying an intermediate position between God and the people, and gave to their entire work the character of a mediation. "They were ordained for men in things pertaining to God," charged to a certain extent with the interests of both parties, and having especially to transact with God in the behalf of those, whom sin had removed to a distance from him. In consequence of their relation of nearness to God and personal interest in his favour, the power was conferred on them of presenting the oblations of others, so as to procure their favourable acceptance and the bestowal in return of the divine blessing. Through them the families of Israel were blessed, as through Israel--the kingdom of priests--all the families of the earth were to be blessed. In the High-priest alone, however, was this function fully realized, as was plainly indicated by the outward distinctions held by him above the other priests, as well as above the people at large. "For to the outward of the High-priest it belonged: First, that while the people, remaining at a greater or less distance from the sanctuary, approached to it only at befitting times, the High-priest, on the contrary, was always in the midst--so that though his functions were few, and confined to certain times, yet his whole existence appeared consecrated; and, secondly, that though the people presented their offerings to God by the collective priesthood, still the sacrifice of the great day of atonement was necessary as an universal completion of the rest; and this the High-priest alone could present. The idea, therefore, of his office seems to be, that while to the Jewish people their national life appeared as an alternation of drawing near to God, and withdrawing again from him, the High-priest was the individual whose life, compared with these vacillating movements, was in perpetual equipoise; and as the people were always in a state of impurity, he was the only person who could present himself as pure before God." [9]

III. It was not, however, the sole end of the appointment of the priesthood, to represent the people in the sanctuary, and mediate between them and God and holy things. It belonged also to their office to secure the diffusion among the people of sound knowledge and instruction; so that there might be a right understanding among the people of the nature of God's service, and a fitness for entering in spirit into its duties, while the priests were personally employed in discharging them. A certain amount of such knowledge was necessary, in order that the people might be disposed to bring their gifts and offerings at suitable times, and a still greater, that, in the presentation of these by the hand of the priests, they might be blessed as acceptable worshippers. With the oversight of this, therefore, so nearly connected with their sacred employments about the tabernacle, the priesthood were charged: "And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses" (Lev. x. 11). So again in Deut. xxxiii. 10, "They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law." The words of Malachi also are express on this point: "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (ii. 7). It was therefore justly charged against them there, as an entire subversion of the great end of their appointment, that instead of teaching others the law, "they caused many to stumble at it f and the prophet Hosea even ascribes the general ruin to their neglect of this part of their functions: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me" (iv. 6).

The office of the priesthood thus necessarily involved somewhat of a prophetical or teaching character, and in after times, when those destined lights of Israel became themselves sources of darkness and corruption, prophets were raised up, and generally from among the priesthood, for the express purpose of correcting the evil, and supplying the information which the others had failed to impart. It is plain, however, that even if the priests had been faithful to this part of their calling, they were quite inadequate, from their limited number, to be personally in any proper sense the teachers of all Israel. It is true, they enjoyed peculiar advantages for this in the frequent recurrence of the stated feasts, which caused the people to assemble in one place thrice every year, and kept them on each returning solemnity for a week at the very centre of priestly influence. But much beside what could then be accomplished would require to be done, to diffuse a sufficient acquaintance with the law of God, and give instruction from time to time concerning numberless cases of doubt or difficulty, which in daily life would be certain to arise. On this account more particularly, were the Levites associated with the priesthood, and planted at proper distances in certain cities throughout the tribes of Israel. They were "given to Aaron and his sons," to minister unto him in subordinate and preparatory offices, while he was doing the service of the tabernacle, and generally "to execute the service of the Lord" (Numb. iii. 5-10, viii. II). [10] In fulfilling this appointment, it fell to them to keep the tabernacle and its instruments in a proper state for the divine service, to bear its different parts, when removing from place to place, to occupy in later times the post of door-keepers in the temple, to take part in the musical arrangements connected with the public service, to assist at the larger feasts in the killing and flaying of victims, &c. (1 Chron. xxiii. 28-32; 2 Chron. xxxv. 6. 11.) But separated as the Levites were from secular employments, without lands to cultivate, and "wholly given to the service of the Lord," it was obviously but a small number of them who could be regularly occupied with such ministrations about the sanctuary; and as both their abundant leisure and their dispersion through the land, gave them many opportunities of acting as the spiritual instructors of the people, it must have been chiefly through their instrumentality, that the priests were to keep the people acquainted with the statutes and judgments of the Lord. This is clearly implied, indeed, in those passages which speak most distinctly of the obligation laid upon the priesthood to diffuse the knowledge of the law, and which refer equally to the priests and the Levites. Thus their common calling to "teach Jacob God's judgments and Israel his law," is announced in the blessing of Moses upon the whole tribe (Deut. xxxiii. 8-11); and in Malachi the failure of the priesthood to instruct the people in divine knowledge, and their guilt in causing many to err from the law, is called a "corruption of the covenant of Levi."

Indeed, common discretion and self-interest, as well as the principles of piety, must liave enforced upon them this obligation, and dictated the employment of active measures for the diffusion of divine knowledge by the instrumentality of the Levites. If these possessed the spirit of their office as men dedicated to the Lord's service, in subordination to the priesthood, they must have felt it their duty to prepare the minds of the people for the solemnities of the tabernacle-worship, much more than to prepare the instruments of the tabernacle itself for the same. A moment's reflection must have taught them, that their services, as ministering helps, to promote the ends of the priesthood, were greatly more necessary for the one purpose than the other. But if higher considerations should fail to influence them in the matter, they were still urged to exert themselves in this direction from a regard to their own comfortable maintenance, which was made principally to depend upon the tithes and offerings of the people. The chief source of revenue was the tithe, which belonged to the tribe of Levi, from their being more peculiarly the Lord's--the whole property being represented by the number ten, and one of these being constantly taken as a tribute-money or pledge, that the whole was held in fief or dependence upon him. Then, out of this tithe accruing to the entire tribe, another tithe was taken and devoted to the family of Aaron, as the peculiarly sacred portion of the tribe. But for the actual payment of these tithes and the other offerings of the people in which they had a share, the priests and Levites were dependent on the enlightened and faithful consciences of the people. The rendering of what was due, was simply a matter of religious obligation, and where this failed, the claim could not be enforced by any constraint of law. It consequently became indispensable to the very existence of the sacred tribe, that they should be at pains to preserve and elevate the religious sense of the community, as with this their own respect and comfort were inseparably connected. And when they proved unfaithful to their charge, as the representatives of God's interest, and the expounders of his law among the people (as they appear to have done in the age of Malachi) their sin was visited upon them, in just retribution, by a withdrawal on the part of the people of the appointed offerings. So that although nothing was said as to the particular means proper to be employed for the purpose (the church being left then, as in New Testament times, to discharge the obligation laid upon it by suitable arrangements), there can be no doubt that the obligation was imposed upon the priesthood to be partly themselves, and still more through their ministers the Levites, the teachers of the people in divine knowledge. The proper discharge of the priestly, pre-supposed and required a certain discharge of the prophetical function; and prophets, as extraordinary messengers, were only sent to chastise their unfaithfulness and rouse them from their lethargy, and were at last instituted as a distinct and separate order, only to supply what was found to be a lack of service on the part of those regular instructors. Indeed, as the members of the prophetical order seem generally to have been taken from the tribe of Levi, the institution of that order may be regarded as a perfecting of the Levitical office in one of its departments of duty. [11]

IV. Now, the outward and bodily prescriptions which were given respecting the priesthood, were merely intended to serve, by their observance, as symbolical expressions of the ideas we have seen to be involved in the nature of their calling and office. It is not necessary for us to enter into any minute detail concerning them; and we shall content ourselves with briefly noticing some of the leading points.

(1.) There were, first, personal marks and distinctions of a bodily kind, the possession of which was necessary to qualify any one for the priesthood, and the absence of which was to prove an utter disqualification. These, therefore, being manifestly given or withheld by God, bore upon the question of a person's election; and when not possessed, bespoke the individual not to be chosen by God in the peculiar sense required for the priestly office. Such were all kinds of bodily defects; it was declared a profanation of the altar or the sanctuary for any one to draw near in whom they appeared (Lev. xxi. 16-24.) Not that the Lord cared for the bodily appearance in itself, but through the body sought to convey suitable impressions regarding the soul. For completeness of bodily parts is to the body what, in the true religion, holiness is to the soul. To the requirement or the production of this holiness, as the perfection of man's spiritual nature, the whole of the Mosaic institutions were bent. And as signs and witnesses to Israel concerning it, those who occupied the high position of being at once God's and the people's representatives, must bear upon their persons that external symbol of the spiritual perfection required of them. The choice of God had to be verified by their possessing the outward symbol of true holiness. [12] --The age prescribed for the Levites (which was also probably intended to be the same for the priests) entering upon their office, and again ceasing from active service, carried substantially the same meaning. It comprehended the period of the natural life's greatest vigour and completeness, and, as such, indicated that the spiritual life should be in a corresponding state. The age of entry is stated in Numb. iv. at thirty, while in ch. viii. twenty-five is given; but the former has respect simply to the work of the Levites about (not at or in) the tabernacle, in transporting it from place to place; the latter speaks of the period of their entering on their duties generally; and it would seem that the practice latterly made it even so early as twenty (1 Chron. xxiii. 27; 2 Chron. xxxi. 17.) [13]

(2.) Then, certain restrictions of an external kind were laid upon the priests, as to avoiding occasions of bodily defilement; such as, contact with the dead, excepting in cases of nearest relationship, cutting and disfiguring the hair of the beard, as in times of mourning, marrying a person of bad fame, or one that had been divorced; and the high-priest, as being in his own person the most sacred, was still farther restricted, so that he was not to defile himself even for his father or mother, and should marry only a virgin. These observances were enjoined as palpable symbols of the holiness, in walk and conduct, which became those who stood so near to the Holy One of Israel. Occupying the blessed region of life and purity, they must exhibit, in their external relations and deportment, the care and jealousy with which it behoves every one to watch against all occasions of sin, who would live in fellowship with the righteous Jehovah.

(3.) The garments appointed to be worn by the priesthood in their sacred ministrations were also, in some respects, strikingly expressive of the holiness required in their personal state, while in certain parts of the high-priest's dress other ideas were besides symbolized. The stuff of all of them was linen, and, with the exception of the more ornamental parts of the high-priests dress, must be understood to have been white. They are not expressly so called in the Pentateuch, but are incidentally described as white in 2 Chron. v. 12; and such also was known to be the usual colour of the linen of Egypt, as worn by the priests. The coolness and comparative freedom from perspiration attending the use of linen garments had led men to associate with them, especially in the burning clime of Egypt, the idea of cleanliness. Their symbolical use, therefore, in an ethical religion like the Mosaic, must have been expressive of inward purity; and hence, in the symbolical language of Revelation, we read so often of the white and clean garments of the heavenly inhabitants, which are expressly declared to mean "the righteousness of saints" (Rev. xix. 8; iv. 4; vi. 11, &c.) Hence, also, on the day of atonement, the plain white linen garments which the high-priest was to wear, are called "garments of holiness"--evidently implying that holiness was the idea more peculiarly Imaged by clothing of that description. It was this idea, too, that was emblazoned in the plate of gold which was attached to the front of the high-priest's bonnet or mitre, by the engraving on it of the words, "Holiness to the Lord." This became the more necessary in his case, on account of the rich embroidery and manifold ornaments which belonged to other parts of his dress, and which were fitted to lessen the impression of holiness, that the fine white linen of some of them might otherwise have been sufficient to convey. The representative character of the high-priest was symbolized by the breast-plate of the Ephod, which in twelve precious stones bore the names of the tribes of the children of Israel, indicating, that in their name and behalf he appeared in the presence of God The Urim and Thummim (lights and perfections) connected with the breast-plate, if not identical with it, and through which, in cases of emergency, he obtained unerring responses from heaven, bespoke the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the mind and will of God, with which be should fee endowed to fit him for giving a clear direction to the people in the things of God, and the perfect rectitude of the decisions he would consequently pronounce respecting them.--The girdle with which his flowing garments were bound together, denoted the high and honourable service in which he was engaged; and the bells and pomegranates, which were wrought upon the lower edge of the tunic below the Ephod, bespoke the distinct utterances he was to give of the divine word, and the fruitfulness in righteousness of which this should be productive. Finally, the fine quality of the stuff of which all the garments of the priests were made, and the gold, and diversified colours, and rich embroidery appearing in the ordinary garments of the high-priest, were manifestly designed to express the elevated rank and dignity of those who are recognized by God as sons in his house, permitted to draw near with confidence to his presence, and to go in and out before him. [14]

(4.) Lastly, the rites of consecration proclaimed the necessity of holiness--a holiness not their own, but imputed to them by the grace of God, and following upon this, and flowing from the same source, a plentiful endowment of gifts for their sacred office, with the manifest seal of heaven's fellowship and approval. They were first brought to the door of the tabernacle and washed--as in themselves impure, and requiring the application of water--the simplest and commonest element of cleansing. Then, the body being thus purified, the pontifical garments were put on, and on the high-priest first, afterwards on the other priests, was poured the holy anointing oil, which ran down upon the garments. This was the peculiar act of consecration, and symbolized the bestowal upon those who received it, of the Spirit's grace, so as to make them fit and active instruments in discharging the duties of God's service. As such anointing had already stamped the tabernacle as God's hallowed abode, so now did it hallow them to be his proper agents and servitors within its courts (p. 233). But, different from the senseless materials of the tabernacle, these anointed priests have consciences defiled with the pollution, and laden with the guilt of sin. And how, then, can they stand in the presence of Him who is a consuming fire to sinners, and minister before him? The more they partook of the unction of the Holy One, the more must they have felt the necessity of another kind of cleansing than they had yet received, and raised in their souls a cry for the blood of atonement and reconciliation. This, therefore, was what was next provided, and through an entire series of sacrifices and offerings they were conducted, as from the depths of guilt and condemnation, to what indicated their possession of a state of blessed peace and most friendly intercourse with God. Even Jewish writers did not fail to mark the gradation in the order of the sacrifices. "For first of all," says one of them, "there was presented for the expiation of sin the bullock of sin-offering, of which nothing save a little fat was offered (on the altar) to God (the flesh being burned without the camp); because the offerers were not yet worthy to have any gift or offering accepted by God. But after they had been so far purged, they slew the burnt-offering to God, which was wholly laid upon the altar. And after this came a sacrifice like a peace-offering (which was wont to be divided between God, the priests, and the offerers), shewing that they were now so far received into favour with God, that they might eat at his table." [15] 

This last offering is called the "ram of consecration," or of "filling," because the portions of it to be consumed upon the altar, with its accompanying meat-offering, were put into Aaron's hands, that he might present and wave them before the Lord. Being counted worthy to have his hands filled with these, the representatives of what he was to be constantly presenting and eating before the Lord, he was thereby, in a manner, installed in his office. But first he had to be sprinkled with the blood of the victim--the blood in which the life is--and which, after being sprinkled on the altar, and so uniting him to God, was applied to his body, signifying the conveyance of a new life to him, a life out of death from God, and in union with God. Nor was Aaron's body in the general only sprinkled with this holy life-giving blood, but also particular members apart:--his right ear, to sanctify it to a ready and attentive listening to the law of God, according to which all his service must be regulated; his right hand, and his right foot, that the one might be hallowed for the presentation of sacred gifts to God, and the other for treading his courts and running the way of his commandments. And now, to complete the ceremony, he receives on his person and his garments a second anointing--not simply with the oil, but with, the oil and this blood of consecration mingled together--symbolizing the new life of God, in which he is henceforth to move and have his being, in conjunction with the Spirit, on whose softening, penetrating, invigorating influence all the powers and movements of that divine life depend. So that the Levitical priesthood appeared emphatically as one coming "by water and by blood." It spoke aloud, in all its rites of consecration, of sin on man's part, and holiness on God's. The memorials of human guilt, and the emblems of divine sanctity, must at once meet on the persons of those who exercised it. Theirs must be clean hands and a pure heart, regenerated natures, a heaven-derived and heaven-sustained life, such as betokened a real connection with God, and a personal interest in the benefits of his redemption.

The full meaning however, of the offerings connected with the consecration of the priests will only appear when we have considered the various kinds of sacrifices employed on the occasion. We could not give at present more than the general import. The whole was repeated seven times, on as many successive days--because seven was the symbol of the oath or covenant, and indicated here that the consecration to the priestly office was a strictly covenant transaction. That it was done, not merely seven times, but on seven successive days, might also be intended to indicate its completeness--a week of days being the shortest complete revolution of time. That the parts of the peace and the bread-offering, which were put into Aaron's hand, and which were to be his for ever, were burnt on the altar, and not eaten by Moses (who here acted by virtue of his special commission as priest), may have simply arisen from Moses not being able to eat the whole; he had to eat the wave-bread, which might be enough; as also what remained over of the parts given to Aaron to be eaten, were to be burnt (Ex. xxix. 34.) We see nothing, therefore, in that arrangement to be regarded as a difficulty, though Kurtz has noted it as one (Mosaische Opfer, p. 249.) The action of the second anointing, we have explained substantially with Baumgarten, and not differing very materially from Bahr (Symb. ii. 424, &c.) We cannot with Mr Bonar (Connn. on Lev. p. 160) regard the first anointing as the consecration of the man, and the second as that of the priest--for at the first as well as the second, Aaron had on the priest's garments, and nothing could more distinctly intimate, that what was afterwards done had respect to him as priest. The fire which came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, the first which Aaron presented for the people (Lev. ix. 24) was the public seal of God to Aaron as high-priest. It openly denoted that he was accepted in his office, and that the offerings presented by him and his sons would be owned and blessed. The rites of consecration differ materially from those used in Egypt. In particular the shaving of the whole body, which was practised in Egypt every three days (Herod, ii. 37,) and kept the head as well as the body generally bald, was quite omitted here. It was done at first, but only then, with the Levites (Numb, viii.) as an act of cleansing, along with sprinkling with water and washing of the clothes. It hence appears to have been regarded as a symbol of an inferior kind, as the consecration of the Levites was much less solemn than that of the priests.

V. In applying now what was ordained respecting the Levitical priesthood to the higher things of Christ's kingdom, we find, indeed, everywhere a shadow of these, but "not the very image" of them. The resemblances were such as imperfect, earthly materials, and an instrumentality of sinful beings could present to the heavenly and divine--inevitably presenting, therefore, some important and palpable differences. Thus, from the high-priest being taken from among men, he necessarily partook of their sinfulness, and required to be himself cleansed by rites and offerings, to be invested with what might be denominated an artificial, imputed holiness, in order that he might mediate between the holy God and his sinful fellow-men. And then, that he might go through such a process of purification as might raise him to a proper religious elevation above his brethren, there were meanwhile needed the ministrations of one standing between him and God. The mediator of the covenant, who consecrated, had of necessity to be different from, and higher than the person who was consecrated for high-priest. These were obvious, though unavoidable imperfections, even as regarded the preparatory dispensation itself; and it must have suggested itself as manifestly a more perfect arrangement, could it have been obtained, if the high-priest had been possessor of the nature, without being partaker of the guilt of his brethren, and by his inherent qualities had united in his own person what fitted him to be at once mediator and high-priest over the house of God.

Now, this is precisely what first meets us in the gospel-constitution of the kingdom; and the defects and imperfections, which gave a sort of anomalous and arbitrary character to the arrangements under the Old Testament, have no place whatever here. He who is the Mediator, is also the High-priest of his people; and while partaker of flesh and blood like the brethren, yet being "without sin," "holy, harmless, and undefiled," he needed no offerings and ablutions to consecrate him to the office of priesthood. At once very God and true man, the Eternal Son in personal union with real though spotless humanity, he was thoroughly qualified to act the part of the day's-man between the Father and his sinful children, being able to "lay his hand upon them both." Who could appear as he the friend and familiar of God?--he, who was in the bosom of the Father, and who could say in the fullest sense, "I and the Father are one?"--who even as the Son of Man, appearing in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet himself had no fellowship with the accursed thing, but ever shunned and abhorred it? With the divine and human thus meeting, all purely in his person, he has every thing that could be desired to render him the proper Head and High-priest of his people. The arrangement for reconciling heaven and earth, and re-establishing the intercourse between lost man and his Creator, is absolutely perfect, and leaves nothing to be desired. On the one side, as the Beloved Son of God, in whom the Father is well-pleased, he has at all times free access to the presence of the Father, and in whatever he asks must also have power as a prince to prevail. On the other, as the representative of his people, and one in nature with themselves, they can at all times make known with confidence to him the sins and sorrows of their condition, and, recognizing what is his as also theirs, can rise with holy boldness to realize their near relationship to God, and their full participation in the favour and blessing of heaven.

It is impossible, surely, to contemplate the God-man as the head of restored humanity, and the pattern after which all believers shall be formed, without feeling constrained to say, not only how admirable is the arrangement, but also how amazing the condescension! How wonderful, that the Most High should thus accommodate himself to man's nature and necessities! And how wonderful, on the other hand, that he should elevate this nature into such near and personal union with himself, and for the sake of establishing a fit medium of interpretation and intercourse between the creature and the Creator, should make it his own eternal habitation and instrument of working! It is this pre-eminently which crowns our nature with dignity and honour, and tells to what a peerless height our humanity is destined We know not what we shall be, but we know that we shall be like him in whom our nature is linked in closest union with the Godhead j and to have our lot and destiny bound up with his, is to be assured of all that it is possible for us to enjoy of blessing and glory.

In accomplishing this great work of mediation, however, the High-priest of our profession, like the earthly type, "must have somewhat to offer." And here, again, where the very heart and centre of his work is concerned, such differences appear as betoken the one only to have been the imperfect shadow, not the exact image of the other. For under the Old Testament priesthood, the offerer was different, not only from the thing offered, but also, for the most part, from the person on whose behalf the offering was presented. And so impossible was it, amid the imperfections of the shadow, to combine these properly together, that on the great day of atonement it was found necessary to cause the high-priest to offer first for himself apart and then for the people apart. But now that the perfect things of God's kingdom have come, this imperfection also has disappeared. The one grand offering, through which Christ has finished transgression, made an end of sin, and brought in the everlasting righteousness, was at once furnished by himself, and offered by himself. He gave himself to death as thus laden with their guilt, an offering of a sweet smelling savour to God, and rose again for their justification, as one fully able of himself to provide and to do everything to close up the breach which sin had made between man and God.

Yet, while there were such imperfections as we have noted, rendering the Levitical priesthood but a defective representation of the Christian, there were, at the same time, many striking resemblances, and the fundamental principles connected with the priesthood of Christ, were as fully embodied there, as it was possible for them to be in a single institution. For,

(1.) The Levitical priesthood was for Israel the one medium of acceptable approach to God. Aaron and his sons were called, and alone called, to the office of presenting all the offerings of the people at the house of God, and securing for them the blessing. And the attempt made on one occasion to supersede the appointment, and dispense with their ministrations, only led to the discomfiture and perdition of those who impiously attempted it. What else can be the result of any similar attempt under the Gospel? A far higher necessity, indeed, reigns here, and any dishonour done to Jesus in his priestly function must be revenged with a much sorer condemnation. The one mediator between God and man, no one can come to the Father but by him; and they only who are redeemed by his blood, and presented by him to the Father as his own ransomed and elect church, can be accepted to blessing and glory. Therefore, it is the Father's will that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; and salvation by any other name than that of Jesus is absolutely unattainable.

(2.) The personal holiness of Christ in his priesthood was also strikingly typified in the consecrations and garments of the Levitical priesthood, and especially in the purifications by water and blood. In his case, however, the holiness was not acquired, but original, inherent and complete, manifesting itself in the fulfilment of all righteousness, and magnifying the law of God to the fearful extent of bearing the penalty it had denounced against numberless transgressions. His obedience was such as left no demand of righteousness unsatisfied, and his blood was that of the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish--blood of infinite value. If God accepted the services, and heard the intercessions of the priesthood of old, all lame and imperfect as their righteousness was, how much more may his people now count on the blessing, if they approach in humble reliance on the worth and sufficiency of Christ?

(3.) Then, we see the representative character of his priesthood, and all its functions imaged in that of the High-priest, possessing as he did the names of the twelve tribes upon his breast when he entered the tabernacle, and having their cause and interest ever before him. Christ, in like manner, does nothing for himself, but only as the shepherd and Saviour of his people. "For their sakes he sanctified himself," by laying down his life to purchase their redemption. And none of them escapes his regard. "He knows his sheep." All the real Israel whom the Father has given to him, are borne upon his bosom within the vail, and shall assuredly reap the fruits of his successful mediation.

(4.) Further, his thorough insight into the mind of God, and capacity to give forth clear revelations and unerring judgments of his will, was prefigured in the Urim and Thummin of the Jewish high-priest, through which the priesthood gave oracular decisions in regard to the things of God, and in the authority generally committed to the priesthood of declaring the divine will. "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he, to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Himself the Divine Word, through whom Godhead, as it were, speaks and makes itself known to the creatures, it is his part in all his operations, but especially in the discharge of his priestly functions, to declare the Father. In him, as fulfilling the work connected with these, is seen, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord; and while he conducts his people to an interest in what he has done for their redemption, it is as the truth that he manifests himself to them, He has even promised to lead them into all the truth, and to fill them with the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

(5.) Once more, in the anointing of the High-priest, we plainly read the connection between the work of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit. As the oil there sanctified all, so the Spirit here seals and works in all. By the power of the Spirit was the flesh of Christ conceived; with the fulness of the Spirit was he endowed at his baptism all his works were wrought in the Spirit, and by the Spirit did he offer himself without spot to God. The Father had given the Spirit not by measure to him; and as the oil that was poured on the head of Aaron flowed down upon his garments, so is this Spirit ever ready to descend from Christ upon all who are members of his body.

The priesthood of Aaron was certainly highly honoured in being made to represent beforehand, in so many points, the eternal priesthood of Christ. But in one respect a manifest blank presents itself, which required to be met by a special corrective. As seen in the Old Testament institution, the priestly bore a distinct and easily recognised connection with the prophetical or teaching office; but none, or at least a very distant and obscure one, with the kingly. This of necessity arose from God himself being king in Israel when the priesthood was instituted; so that no nearer approximation to the ruling authority could be allowed to the members of the priesthood, than that of being expounders and revealers of the law of the divine king. Something more than this, however, was required to bring out the true character of the Eternal priesthood, especially after the time that an earthly head of the kingly function was appointed, and the priesthood became still less immediately connected with an authority to rule in the house of God. Hence, no doubt, it was that the Spirit of prophecy, in directing the expectations of the church to the coming Messiah, began then so peculiarly to supply what was lacking in the intimations of the existing type, and to make promise of him as "a priest after the order of Melchizedec" (Ps. ex.) There were in reality far more points of similitude to Christ's office in the priesthood of Aaron than in that of Melchizedec; but in one very important and prominent respect the one supplied what the other absolutely wanted--Melchizedec being at once a king and a priest, a priest upon the throne. And it was more especially to teach that Messiah should be the same, and in this should differ from the Aaronic priesthood, that such a prediction was then given. It was virtually an assurance to the church, that the sacerdotal and regal functions, then obviously dissevered, should be imited in the person of Him who was to come; and that as the power and splendour of royalty was, in his hands, to be tempered by the tenderness and compassion of the priest, the coming of his kingdom should on that account be looked for with eager expectation. The prediction was again renewed, though without any specific reference to Melchizedec, by Zechariah after the restoration (ch. vi. 13.) But while this was the main reason and design of the reference,--when the Jews of our Lord's time not only overlooked the leading point of the prediction, but entirely misconceived also the relation that the Levitical priesthood bore to Christ's work and kingdom, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews took occasion to bring out various other and subordinate points of instruction from the prophecy in the 110th Psalm, which it was also fitted to convey. These were mainly directed to the purpose of establishing the conclusion, that the priesthood of our Lord must, by that reference to Melchizedec, have been designed to supersede the priesthood of Aaron, and to be constituted after a higher model; that both in his person and his office, he was to stand pre-eminent above the most honoured of the sons of Abraham, as Melchizedec appears in the history rising above Abraham himself.

It only remains, to notice, that in virtue of the law in Christ's kingdom, by which all his people are vitally united to him, and have, in a measure, every gift and property which belongs to himself, sincere believers are priests after his order and pattern. Chosen in him before the foundation of the world, consecrated by the sprinkling of his blood on their consciences, and the unction of his Spirit, and brought near to God, they are "an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." It is their privilege, to go nigh through him even into the holiest of all, and minister and serve before him as sons and daughters in his kingdom. And as in their Great Head, so in them the priestly calling bears relation to the prophetical office on the one hand, and to the kingly on the other. As those who are privileged to stand so high and come so near to God, they obtain the "unction which teaches them all things"--"leads them into all the truth/' makes them "children of light," and constitutes them "lights of the world." And along with this spirit of wisdom and revelation, there also rests on them the spirit of power, which renders them a "royal priesthood." Even now, in a measure, they reign as kings over the evil in their natures, and in the world around them; and when Christ's 'work in them is brought to its proper consummation, they shall, as kings and priests, share with him in the glories of his everlasting kingdom.

Hence, in the Christian priesthood, as well as in the Jewish, every thing in the first instance depends upon the condition of the person. It is not the offering that makes the priest, but the priest that makes the offering. He only, who has attained to a state of peace and fellowship with God, who has been regenerated by divine grace, and brought to a personal interest in the blessings of Christ's salvation, is in as fit condition for presenting to God the spiritual sacrifices of the New Testament. For what are these sacrifices? They are the fruits of grace, yielded by a soul that has become truly alive to God; and simply consist in a person's willing and active consecration of himself, through the varied exercises of love, to God and his fellow-men. It is only, therefore, in so far as he is already a subject of grace, standing on the ground of Christ's perfected redemption, and replenished with the life-giving influences of the Holy Spirit, that his good deeds possess the character of sacrifices, acceptable to God. They are, otherwise, but dead works, of no account in the sight of heaven, because presented by unclean hands, the offerings of persons unsanctified; and even though formally right, they still rank among the things of which God declares, that he has not required them at men's hands. (Isa. i, 12; Hag. ii. 10-13.)

But those, on the other hand, who are in the spiritual condition now described, have freedom of access for themselves and their offerings to God; and let no man spoil them of their privilege. Chosen, as they are, in Christ, and constituted in him a royal priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, to interpose any others as priests between them and Christ, were to traverse the order of God, and subvert the arrangements of his house. It were to block up anew the path into the Holiest, which Christ has laid fully open. It were to degrade those whom he has called to glory and virtue, to dishonour and deny Christ himself, the living root out of which, his people grow, in whose life they live, and in whose acceptance they are accepted. A priesthood, in the strict and proper sense, apart from what belongs to believers as such, can have no place in the church of the New Testament; and the institution of a distinct priestly order, such as exists in the Greek and Roman communities, is an unlawful usurpation, proceeding from the spirit of error and of antichrist. In such a kingdom as Christ's, where every real member is a priest, there can be room only for ministerial functions necessary for the maintenance of order and the general good. But as regards fellowship with heaven, there can be no essential difference, since all have access to God by faith, through the grace wherein they stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

Notes

1. Vitringa, Obs. Sac. I. De Praerogativis Primogenitorum in Eccl. Vet, This subject, and the closely related one of the consecration of the Levites in the room of the first-born, is so ably and satisfactorily discussed there, that little has been left for subsequent inquirers. Of the general practice in appointing persons to exercise priestly functions, where no separate order existed for the purpose, and which prevailed in common with God's more ancient worshippers and many heathen nations, he says, "Nothing is more certain, than that the ancients required sacrifices to be performed, either by princes and heads of families, or by persons singularly gifted in body and mind, as being deemed more deserving than others of the divine fellowship." This holds especially of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Of the former, Miiller says, that "the worship of a deity peculiar to any tribe was, from the beginning, common to all the members of the tribe; that those who governed the people in the other concerns of life, naturally presided over their religious observances, the heads of families in private, and the rulers in the community; and that it might be said with just as much truth, that the kings were priests, as that the priests were kings." And so much was it the practice in the properly historical periods of Greece, to have priestly offices performed by means of public magistrates or persons delegated by the community, that he does not think "there ever was in Greece a priesthood, strictly speaking, in contradistinction to the laity."--(Introd. to Mythology, p. 187, 188, Trans.) Livy testifies that among the early Romans, the care of the sacred things devolved upon their kings, and that after the expulsion of these, an officer was appointed for the purpose, with the name of Rex Sacrorum (L. II. 2). It was still customary, however, as is well-known, for private families to perform their own peculiar sacrifices and libations to the gods. On special occasions, besides, persons were temporarily appointed for the performance of sacred offices, as on the occasion of the taking of Yeise, thus related by Livy, v. c. 22; "Delecti ex omni exercitu juvenes, pure lotis corporibus, Candida veste, quibus deportanda Romam Regina Juno assignata erat, venerabundi teinplmn iniere, primo religiose admoventes maims; quod id signum more Etrusco, nisi certee gentis sacerdos, attrectare non esset solitus." In Virgil, we find: Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos "(J£n. iii. 80), on which Ser- vius remarks: "Sane majarmn hsec erat consuetude, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel pontifex, unde hodieque Imperatores pontifices dicimus." So also Aristotle, speaking of the heroic times, says: ****  (Pol. iii. 14).

There was nothing peculiar, therefore, in the fact of Melchizedec having been at once a king and a priest. The only remarkable thing was, that among such a people he should have been a priest of "the Most High God," and so certainly called of God to the office, that even Abraham recognised his title to the honour. It is impossible with any certainty to trace the transition from this to that other state of things, which prevailed in some ancient countries, and in which the priests existed as an entirely separate class, a distinct caste. Yet, in regard especially to Egypt, the country where such a state of things probably originated, the transition may have implied no very great change, and may have been quite easily effected. For it is now understood that the earlier kings there were priest-Jdngs, either belonging to the priest-caste, or held in great dependence by that body; that the land was originally peopled by a kind of priest-colonies, who either appointed one of their number to rule in the name of a certain god, or at least formed, in connection with the ruler, the reigning portion of the community. The members of this caste consequently were the first proprietors of lands in each district. Even by the account of Herodotus, they appear still in his day to have been the principal landed proprietors; each temple in a particular district had extensive estates, as well as a staff of priests connected with it, which formed the original territory of the settlement, and were subsequently farmed out for the good of the whole; so that "the families of priests were the first, the highest, and the richest in the country; they had exclusively the transacting of all state affairs, and carried on many of the most profitable branches of business (judges, physicians, architects, &c.), and were to a certain extent a highly privileged nobility" (Heeren. Af. i. p. 368; ii. p. 122-129; Wilkinson, i. 245, &c.)

2. Obs. Sac. i, p. 292.

3. Vita Mosis, iii. p. 686.

4. Ps. v. 7; xxvii. 4, &c.

5. Isa. Ixi. 6; Ixvi. 21; Jer. xxxiii. 22; on which last see Hengstenberg's Christol. as also on Zech. iii. 1, for some good remarks on the subject now under discussion.

6. Vitringa (Obs. Sac. i. p. 272) gives this even as the radical signification of the name cohen, "familiarioris accessionis amicum," appealing for proof to Isa. Ixi. 10. In this he followed Cocceius, who makes the fundamental idea of the verb to be that of drawing near to a superior. Many after Kinchi, understand it of the performing of honourable and dignified service; while many again in recent times, resort to the Arabic, and find the sense of discovering secret things, prophesying, which they consider as the original one (Pye Smith on Priesthood of Christ, p. 82). There can be 110 doubt, however, that whether from usage, or from original meaning, the word came to convey the idea of something like a familiar or chosen friend and counsellor. Hence, David's sons being priests (2 Sam. viii. 18), is explained in 1 Chron. xviii. 17, by their being at the hand of the king.

7. It could only be as having these things in a peculiar sense that the Aaronic priesthood were here meant to be described by them. For they were also the characteristics of the congregation generally as a kingdom of priests, and are mentioned as such in the 19th of Exodus. The people are there described as having been "brought unto God," as being chosen for "a peculiar treasure to him," and as "an holy nation." So that every thing was affirmed to be theirs, which was peculiarly to distinguish the family of Aaron. And there can be no doubt, that it was on the ground of this passage, which had made a deep impression upon all the people, that the rebellion of Korah was raised.

8. Spencer, De Leg. L. i. c. 8, concurs with the Jewish writers in the reason they assign, and quotes Philo with approbation: naturally enough, as his grand reason for the institution of the priesthood was simply the prevention of idolatry!

9. Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre, as quoted by Tholuck, in Diss. ii. in Cora, on Ep. to Hebr., Bib. Cabinet, xxxix. p. 265.

10. They were given to Aaron, the Lord's familiar, as a sacrifice offered up and consecrated to the Lord in the room of the first-born. The first-born, at the deliverance from Egypt, had represented all the people, in them all the people were redeemed; so now the people, when substituting the Levites in their place, had to lay their hands on their heads, and Aaron waved them before the Lord as an offering; and as originally God accepted the blood of the lamb for the blood of the first-born, so now he accepted a burnt-offering and a sin-offering for the Levites, on which they had to place their hands (Numb, iii. and, viii).

11. Vitr. Synag. Vet. L. i. P. 2, c. 8, where also see various Jewish authorities in proof of the calling of the Levites to be teachers and expounders of the law, and especially one from Baal Hatturim, which expressly assigns this as the reason of the dispersion of the Levites among the Israelites (dispergentur per omnes Israelitas ad]docendam legem.) See also Movers' Kronik, p. 300, and Graves on Pent. ii. Lee. 4. Michaelis (Com. on Laws of Moses, i. art. 35, 52), has asserted, that a great many civil and literary offices belonged to the priests and Levites --that they were not only ministers of religion, but physicians, judges, scribes, mathematicians, &c. holding the same place in Israelitish, that the Egyptian priesthood did in Egyptian society--and that on this account alone were such large revenues assigned them. This view has been too often followed by divines, especially by the rationalist portion of them, and is still too much countenanced in the Bib. Cyclop. Art. Priest, and even by Mr Taylor in his Spiritual Despotism, p. 99. It is entirely, however, without foundation, and has been thoroughly disproved by Bahr (Symbolik, ii. p. 34, 53), and by Hengstenberg, who has shewn that the Levites, as well as the priests, were set apart only for religious purposes, and that in particular the civil constitution as to judges, as settled by Moses, was merely the revival and improvement of that patriarchal government, wrhich had never been altogether destroyed in Egypt (Authentic, ii. p. 260, 341, 654, &c.) There can be no doubt that the Egyptian and Indian priests held many of the offices referred to; that their political, went hand in hand with their religious influence; and that, especially in Egypt, the most fertile lands belonged to them, with many other lucrative privileges. It was very different with the Levitical priesthood--no lands worth naming--a dependence upon the offerings of the people for their livelihood--so that they are commended to the care of the people as objects of kindness with the widow and orphan (Deut. xii. 12, xvi. 11, 14) and were often, from the'low state of-religion, in comparative want.

12. The Greeks and Romans, it is well known, were very particular in regard to the corporeal soundness and even beauty of their priests. Among the former, every one underwent a careful examination as to his bodily frame before he entered on the priestly office, and among the Romans there are instances of persons resigning the office on receiving some corporeal blemish--such as M. Sergius, who lost his hand in the defence of his country. But holiness was not the perfection aimed at in those religions; and such regard was paid to bodily completeness merely because it was thought a token of divine favour, and of good success. Hence Seneca, Controv. iv. 2: Sacerdos non integri cor- poris quasi inali ominis res vitanda est. See Bahr, ii. p. 59.

13. Hengstenberg, Authentie, ii. p, 393; Relandi, Antiq. ii. 6, 3; Lightfoot, Op. ii. p. 691.

14. We have not specified in detail the different parts of the priest's garments; they consisted, in the case of the priesthood generally, of breeches or drawers of linen, a coat or tunic reaching from the neck to the ankles and wrists, an embroidered girdle, and a mitre or turban (the usual parts, in fact, of an oriental dress). But in the case of the high-priest, there were beside these a mantle or robe of blue, worn over the inner coat or tunic, and immediately under the ephod, then the ephod itself, a sort of short coat, very richly embroidered and ornamented, with its corresponding girdle and breast-plate, with the Urim and Thummim, which was regarded as the peculiar and distinctive garment of the high-priest, who is thence often described as he "who wore the Ephod." (Common linen ephods, however, were worn by the priests generally, and sometimes even by laymen.) That there was much in these garments peculiar to the Israelites, and differing from what existed in Egypt, we think Bahr has sufficiently established. For example, the tunics of the Egyptian priests appear to have reached only from the haunch to the feet, leaving the upper part naked, the mitres were of a different shape, and fell back upon the neck, the girdle seems not to have been used, but they wore shoes, and on great occasions leopard skins, which the Israelitish priests did not (Sym- bolik, ii. p. 92). It is clear, therefore, there could be no slavish imitation, as Spencer and others have laboured to prove. Yet this by no means proves that there might not have been in some leading particulars the same symbols employed to represent substantially the same ideas. That this was the case in regard to the white linen garments seems indisputable; Spencer's proofs there, as Hengstenberg remarks against Bahr (Egypt and books of Moses, p, 146), are quite conclusive. Such dresses were peculiar only to the priests of Egypt and Palestine, as symbolic of cleanliness or purity--hence the former were called by Juvenal "grex liniger," by Ovid "" liuigera turba," by Martial "linigeri calvi," by Seneca "linteali senes."--Spencer, de Leg. L. iii. c. 5, s. 2. There does seem also to have been a reference in the Urim and Thummim to the practice in Egypt of suspending the image of the goddess Thmei, who was honoured under the twofold character of truth and justice, from the neck of the chief judge (see Hengstenberg as above, p. 150, with the quotations there, especially from Wilkinson). Still there was a very characteristic difference in that the high-priest did not act properly as a judge, but as a spiritual servant of God, and was only represented as having a sure revelation, if he faithfully waited upon God, and sought in earnest to guide the people into the right knowledge of God, and a true judgment of matters as between them and God. For direct consultation with God, the Urim and Thummim seems only to have been used in cases of emergency, when ordinary resources failed. And what it was precisely, or how responses were obtained by it, cannot now be ascertained.

15. R. Levi Ben Gerson, as quoted by Outram, De Sac. p. 56.