Imágenes de páginas

were filled : for which reason this ram was called the ram of fillings.*

VII. By these rites and ceremonies, repeated for seven successive days, the whole family of Aaron was originally invested with the priesthood.But as long as any of the holy oil remained, all Aaron's successors in the priesthood, when about to enter on their office, were anointed, and arrayed with the pontifical vestments, for the same number of days. I Hence the high priest is sometimes designated in the scripture as “ the priest

that is anointed.”But after the consumption of the sacred oil made by Moses, which the Jews affirm was never made again, || it was a sufficient investment in the high priesthood to be arrayed in the pontifical robes for seven successive days. Hence every high priest invested in this manner is described by the Jews, as initiated with the vestments :f whether this tradition is correct or erroneous it behoves them to consider. I would not rashly affirm any thing respecting the fact. The law plainly required that every high priest, before entering on the office, should be anointed with the holy oil :** nor do the scriptures contain any prohibition of making a further quantity of that oil. The passage adduced by the Jews on this subject forbids, not the recomposition, but the profane use of it.ft

The case of the high priest differed from that of the common priests ; who were never consecrated afresh after the original consecration of their fathers, the immediate sons of Aaron The reason of this difference was, that the pontificate descended accord. ing to personal claims, but the priesthood by he

* Disbon box Exod. xxix 31. Levit. viii. 22. + Levit. viii. 33, 34. $ Exod. xxix, 29, 30. Levit. iv. 3. 5. 16.

|| Abarb. in 1 Reg. i. Maimon. in Chel. Mik. c. 4

** Exod. xxix, 29,30. ++ Exod. XXX 31-33: + II Kings xxiii. 31. 36. # II Kings. xxiii 30,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

reditary right. It is worthy of observation that the same custom prevailed also in the unction of kings. For among the Hebrews, no kings were anointed, except those who were the first of their respective families that filled the throne, such as Saul and David (to say nothing here of Jehu) or those whose right to the throne of their fathers was disputed, such as Solomon, Joash, and Jehoahaz. On this subject Maimonides remarks: “They do not anoint a king

who is the son of a king; because the kingdom is the perpetual inheritance of the king; as is evident from these words; " he and his children in the midst of · Israel."* But, if there happen to be any dispute

respecting the kingdom, then they anoint the king, * with a view to terminate all controversy, and to 'afford a stronger assurance to all persons that this 'individual ought to be regarded as the king. Thus

Solomon was anointed in consequence of the com'motion raised by Adonijah, Joash on account of the tyranny of Athaliah, and Jehoahaz in order to disinherit Jehoiakim. For, aş Abarbinel observes, Jehoahaz was the younger of these brothers, t but, being in greater favour with the people, was created king by them, and not by the Sanhedrim. And this seems to be implied in the sacred history, which, without any mention of the princes or rulers, states that “the people of the land took Jehoahaz, and anointed “ him, and made him king.”I It was the custom of the Jews, therefore, to anoint to any office requiring that ceremony, persons who had no previous claim, or an uncertain one, to such an office: but persons whose right was universally admitted, were considered as sufficiently consecrated by the right itself.

* Deut, xvij. 20.

CHAPTER VI. The Integrity of Life, Perfection of Body, and Purity

of Family, required in the Aaronic Priests. HAVING now, we trust, sufficiently described the rites and ceremonies by which the Aaronic priests were consecrated to the priesthood, we proceed to shew the integrity of life, perfection of body, and purity of family required in the priests. For as the rites enjoined on the Jews were of the most select description, so there was a very particular selection of the ministers by whom those rites were to be performed. It was deemed unlawful for any one to exercise the sacred functions who answered to any of the following characters: 'An idolater, a stranger, one distinguished

by any corporeal deformity, uncircumcised, unclean, purified by ablution and officiating on the day of ' his purification, without expiation, mourning, a * drunkard, destitute of garments, overloaded with garments, having torn garments, with long hair, with unwashed hands or feet, sitting, having any thing placed between his feet and the ground, having any thing placed between his hand and the sacred vessels, using his left hand instead of his right. All such persons are forbidden to officiate: ' if they officiate, they pollute the solemnities ; except

those who have had long hair, worn tattered gar'ments, or offered a victim to any strange God

through inadvertence; whose ministry, if they had already officiated, was considered as legitimate.' This is the statement of Maimonides,* the particulars of which we are now to examine.

# In Biath Hamikdash, c. 9.

II.--1. He says, that every one was degraded from the priesthood, who had worshipped any strange god. The Jews conclude this from the vision of Ezekiel, which represents the priests who had been guilty of idolatry as evidently deprived of the priesthood, and their subsequent conversion to God as available no further than to procure them permission to execute some inferior offices.* The same punishment was inflicted, even for a smaller crime, by Josiah; who entirely removed from the altar those priests who had offered sacrifices to the true God in the high places.f On which Grotius remarks ; Other crimes, followed by penitence, did not re

move the guilty from the sacerdotal function : idola'try, and worship in an unlawful place, were punish.ed by deposition.

2. Nor could the sacerdotal office be lawfully sustained, except by the descendants of Aaron. All others, in reference to this office, the Jews call strangers; and death was the punishment denounced against any stranger who should intrude into it. I Hence there were registers kept of the whole sacerdotal race. Hence, as Maimonides tells us, every one's family was examined before he could be admitted into the priesthood. “The great Sanhedrim sit ' in the room Gazeth, and their daily business is to * judge of the families and blemishes of the priests.

Every priest, whose family is found not to belong ' to the priesthood, clothing himself with a mourning garment, and covering his head with a mourning veil, immediately walks out of the sanctuary. But he whose family is deemed legitimate and his body per'fect, immediately putting on the white vestments,

[ocr errors]

+ II Kings xxiii. 9. Numb. iii. 10.

* Ezek, xliv, 10-13.

goes away and ministers with his brethren, the priests of the same family. He that is pronounced * descended from a legitimate family, but yet is de' formed by any corporeal blemish, sits in the wood room and separates all the wormed wood from the rest, that it may not be brought to the altar. He partakes of the sacred food, however, with his father's family. For of such it is said ;* “ He shall

eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy • and of the holy.”+

To preserve the priesthood also from any disgrace, great caution was always to be used in the marriage of the priests. The high priest was not allowed even to marry a widow; and the common priests were forbidden to marry any woman that was un. chaste, or divorced, or profane :I to which the Jewish doctors add, a widow rejected by the brother of a deceased husband; deerning such a woman equally disgraced with those who had been divorced. It is also to be inferred from the statement of Ezekiel in his divine vision,Ş that no widow was to be married even to a common priest, unless she had been the wife of a priest before. If any priest, unlawfully married, refused to put away his wife, he was pu

ful to marry,

* Levit. xxi. 22. + Maimon. in Biath Hamikdash, c. vi. Vid. etiam Misnam in Middoth, c. 5. 1 Levit. xxi. 7. 14. § Ezek. xliv. 22.

U Most of the Jews consider MIT which we render a harlot, as signifying every woman who had been defiled by any man, and whom it was not law.

and likewise every female of foreign race : they understand ob so which is generally rendered profane, as denoting a female begotten either by the high priest on a widow, or by a common priest on a harlot, or a woman divorced from a former husband. Maimon. in Isur. Bia. c. 18, 19. R. Solomon ad Lev. 21. But others, with rather more simplicity, understand 13? to mean a known harlot; and abboo a woman of suspected chastity ; such as female slaves, captives, and inn-keepers. Joseph. Antiq. L, üi. c. 10.

« AnteriorContinuar »