high priest, especially if he were a weak man; and therefore it is likely they regarded merit rather than birth in the choice and appointment of this officer. The divine institution of him is conceived to be in the following passage of the book of Numbers," Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, shall be chief over the chief of the Levites, and have the oversight of them, that keep the charge of the sanctuary," Numb. iii, 32. Thus, it appears, there were some among the priests and Levites, who had pre-eminence and authority over their brethren; each, perhaps, being an overseer to a certain number, or presiding in a particular branch of the service of the sanctuary; but Eleazar was chief over these chiefs. Hence, says Ainsworth, arises the distinction of the high priest and the second priest. And when Aaron was dead, and Eleazar, the second priest, was high priest in his room, Numb. xx, 26, 28, then Phinehas, Eleazar's son, succeeded him in the office of second priest, or governor over the Levites; for Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, is said in the first book of Chronicles to have been ruler over them, that is, the Levites, in time past, 1 Chron. ix, 20. From hence it should seem, the hint was first taken of appointing, besides bishops, who have the oversight of the priests in particular dioceses, archbishops, who have the oversight of the bishops of several dioceses, or are "chief of the chiefs." But the New Testament is totally silent concerning such an institution for the government of the Christian church. The rabbies speak of three other sorts of sacerdotal officers, superior to common priests, but inferior to the high priest and גוברין immarcalin, and אמרכלין,katholikin קתוליקין ;sagan gizbarin. There were two katholikin, of whom Maimonides + gives this short account, that they were to the sagan as the sagan to the high priest, namely, substitutes and assistants, and next in place and honour. According to other Hebrew writers, their office related to the treasuries of the temple, and to the management of the revenues, arising from the oblations. The immarkalin were seven, who carried the keys of the seven gates of the court, and one could not open them without * In loc. ↑ De Apparatu Templi, cap. iv, sect, xvii. the rest*. According to which account, each gate must have seven different locks, the keys of which were severally kept by the seven immarkalin. Some of the rabbies tell us, there were seven rooms at the seven gates; in which the sacred vessels and vestments were kept, under the care of these officers+. The gizbarin were not to be less than three, who were a sort of treasurers, or collectors of the offerings brought to the temple‡, which they accounted for to the immarkalin, and they to the katholikin, and all under the inspection of the high priest and sagan. But having no mention of these officers in the sacred scriptures, we shall enter into no further particulars concerning them §. We proceed to speak of the inferior priests. These were grown so numerous in David's time, that it became very inconvenient for them to attend the service at the tabernacle all together. He therefore divided them into twenty-four companies, who were to serve in rotation, each company by itself, for a week, 1 Chron. xxiv, throughout. That he did this by divine appointment, appears from the following passage: "David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord; also for the courses, pro machlekoth, of the priests and the Levites," 1 Chron. xxviii, 11-13. These courses are here called mpпp machlekoth, from pn chalak, divisit: and in Nehemiah, wo mishmaroth, from pw shamar, custodivit, Nehem. xiii, 30. The Septuagint renders both these words by sonμepia, in which they are followed by St. Luke, who saith that Zechariah the priest, the father of John the Baptist, was ε εonuεpias Abia, of the course of Abia, Luke i, 5. The word, εonμepia, is derived from the form of the Athenian republic. The country of Attica was divided into ten quλas, or tribes; fifty persons were chosen out of each tribe, who composed the senate; and each fifty sat and governed for one day in their turns. Hence their Apx, or form of government, was called εønμpos; because their governors were daily * Maimon. de Apparatu Templi, ubi supra. + Joseph. ad Shekalim, cap. v, R. Solom. in 2 Kings xii. ↑ Maimon. de Apparatu Templi, cap. iv, sect. xviii, ubi supra. changed according to a regular rotation*. Now there being a considerable resemblance betwixt this division and succession of the Attick senators and that of the Jewish priests, the Septuagint applies the word enμpia to the courses of the priests; though somewhat improperly, because they shifted not daily but weekly, as is concluded from its being said in Chronicles, that the porters of the gate were relieved by their brethren every seven days, 1 Chron. ix, 25; and if the inferior officers relieved one another weekly, it is reasonable to the priests did so too. There is the more reason for this conclusion, because the courses of the priests and of the porters are mentioned together in the account of Solomon's confirming the regulation which his father David had made: "He appointed, according to the order of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charge, the porters also by their courses at every gate," 2 Chron. viii, 14. The time of shifting the courses seems to have been the Sabbath; for the priests are described by this periphrasis, "Those that enter in on the Sabbath," 2 Kings suppose xi, 5. So that each course attended the service of the sanctuary, for a week, twice a-year. The Jewish writers say, the first circulation of the courses began on the first Sabbath of the month Nisan, answering to our March and April; and the second on the first Sabbath of the month Tizri, answering to our September and October; and so they make two circulations to complete the year. But whereas there were but twenty-four courses, which therefore in this double circulation would fill up only forty-eight weeks, or eleven months, they say the weeks of the three great feasts were not taken into this account; for then all the courses attended, being all obliged by the law to appear before the Lord, Exod. xxiii, 17. If so, the double circulation of the twentyfour courses would very near complete the Jewish year. Each course had its respective head, or chief. These are called, "chief men of the houses of their fathers;" of whom there were sixteen, and consequently sixteen courses, of the posterity of Eleazar, and eight of the posterity of Ithamar, 1 Chron. xxiv, 4. These chiefs of their respective divisions * Vid. Joseph. Scaliger. de Emendatione Tempor. lib. i, p. 25, and 62, 63. were called Dunn sare haccohanim, princes, or chiefs of the priests, Ezra viii, 24; chap. x, 5. These were probably the apps or chief priests so often mentioned in the New Testament, Matt. xvi, 21; xxvii, 12, 41; John vii, 32; xviii, 3; Acts ix, 14, &c. These chief priests are, in several places, mentioned together with the elders, scribes, and pharisees of chief note, as being fellow members of the Sanhedrim, the supreme court of judicature. The order in which the several courses were to serve was determined by lot, 1 Chron. xxiv, 5; and each course was, in all succeeding ages, called by the name of its chief at the time of its first division. Thus Zacharias is said to be of the course of Abia, the eighth course; of which Abijah, or Abia, was the chief in David's time, ver. 10. And Josephus says* he himself was of the first course, or the course of Jehoiarib, upon whom the first lot fell, ver. 7. As the great number of the sacerdotal order occasioned their being first divided into twenty-four companies, so in after times the number of each company grew too large for them all to minister together; for there were no less, according to Josephus, than five thousand priests in one course, in his timet. The Jewish writers, therefore, tell us, that the ministry of each course was divided according to the number of the houses of their fathers that were contained in it. For instance, if a course consisted of five such houses, three served three days, and the other two, two days a-piece. If it contained six, five served five days, and the other, two days. If it contained seven, the priests of each house served a day§. And they further inform us, that the particular branches of the service were assigned by lot to each priest, whose turn it was to attend on the ministry; as who should kill the sacrifices, who sprinkle the blood, who burn the incense, &c. || Thus St. Luke tells us, that " according to the custom of the priest's office, it was the lot of Zacharias to burn incense, * Joseph. Vita, ab initio. + Joseph. contra Appion. cap. ii, vol. ii, p. 477, edit. Havercamp. † Maimon. de Apparatu Templi, cap. iv, sect. xi, p. 113, Crenii Fascicul. Sext. § Talmud. Hieros. in Taanith, cap. iv, et Thosaph ad loc. See the passage quoted by Lightfoot, Temple Service, chap. vi, sub fine. || Mishn. Tamidh, cap. iii, sect. i, tom. v, p. 291, edit. Surenhus. when he went into the temple of the Lord," Luke i, 9. The rabbies say, but four of the courses returned from the captivity, those mentioned in Ezra, namely, "the children of Jedaiah of the house of Joshua, the children of Immer, the children of Pashur, and the children of Harim, Ezra ii, 36— 39. And they tell us, in what manner the priests were divided by lot into twenty-four courses, which were still called by the ancient names*. But it may be objected to this account, that Pashur was not the ancient head, or name of any of the twenty-four courses; and that in the catalogue of the priests who returned from the captivity, which we have in the twelfth chapter of Nehemiah, there are the names of several others of the chiefs or heads of the courses, besides the three mentioned by Ezra; as Shecaniah, who was the head of the tenth course; Abijah, the head of the eighth; Bilgah, the head of the fifteenth; and Jojarib, who was the head of the first course. It is probable, that the chief of each course was always called by the name of him who was its chief at its first division in the days of David. Not only were the priests divided into twenty-four courses, but the Levites, and indeed the whole people of Israel, as will be seen when we come to speak of the viri stationarii, whom our author mentions towards the close of this chapter. The Levites, being, in the larger sense of the word, the posterity of the patriarch Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah, were one of the twelve tribes of Israel; but in a more restrained and peculiar sense, they were a lower order of ecclesiastical persons, inferior to the priests, and their assistants in the sacred service. In this subordinate capacity were all the males of the tribe of Levi, beside the family of Aaron, who were the priests; and it is very observable, that the posterity of Moses were no more than common Levites, while the descendants of his brother Aaron were advanced, by the appointment of his law, to the dignity of the priesthood, 1 Chron. xxiii, 13, 14. A plain evidence that Moses was influenced by no worldly or ambitious views; or rather, that he was not the contriver and author of the law which he gave to Israel, but received it from God: for had he framed it, it is natural to suppose, he would have made some better provision * Talmud. Hieros. et Thosaph. ad Taanith, ubi supra. |