The emoluments of the priests were as fol lows Those which they might eat only at the sanctuary ; viz., the flesh of the sin-offering (Lev. vi. 25, 26), and of the trespass-offering (vii. x, 6) ; the peace-offerings of the congregation at Pentecost (xxiii. 19, 20) ; the remainder of the omer or sheaf of the first-fruits of barley-har vest (ver. to), and the loaves offered at wheat harvest (ver. 17) ; the shew-bread (xxiv. 9) ; the remainder of the leper's log of oil (xiv. so, etc.) ; the remnants of the meat-offerings (vi. 16). 2. Those which might be eaten only in the camp in the first instance, and afterwards in Jerusalem— viz., the breast and right shoulder of the peace offerings (vii. 31, 34) ; the heave-offering of the sacrifice of thanksgiving (ver. 2-x4) ; the heave offering of the Nazarite's ram (Num. vi. 17, 20) ; the firstling of every clean beast (xviii. 15) ; what soever was first ripe in the land (ver. 13). 3. Those due to them only from inhabitants of the land—viz., the first-fruits of oil, wine, wheat (ver. 12) ; a cake of the first dough made of any kind of grain (xv. 2o) ; the first fleece (Dent. xviii. 4). 4. Those due to them everywhere within and without the land—viz., the shoulder, two cheeks and maw, of an ox or sheep, offered in sacrifice (ver. 3) ; the redemption of man and of unclean beasts (Num. xviii. 15) ; of the firstling of an ass (Exod. xxxiv. 2o) ; the restitution in cases of injury or fraud when it could not be made to the injured party or his kinsman (Num. v. 8) ; all devoted things. 5. The skins of the burnt-offerings (Lev. vii. 8), which Philo calls a very rich perquisite (De Sacerd. Honor., p. 833, ed. 1640). Many of these dues were paid in money. The priests might also incidentally possess lands (i Kings ii. 26 ; Jer. xxxii. 7, 8) ; and they most likely shared in occa sional donations and dedications (Num. xxxi. 25 50-54 ; 2 Sam. viii. t I, 12 ; 1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28). Their revenues were probably more ex tensive than they appear, owing to the ambiguity with which the term Levite is often used. If the regular and ascertained incomes of the priests seem large, amounting, as it has been computed, to one fifth of the income of a Jew (comp. Gen. xlvii. 24), it must be considered that their known duties were multifarious and often difficult. Michaelis calls them the literati of all the faculties.' The next event in the history of the subject is the public con secration of Aaron and his sons (B. c. 149o), ac cording to the preceding regulations (Lev. viii.) At their first sacerdotal performances (ix.) the Divine approbation was intimated by a super natural fire which consumed their burnt-offering (ver. 24). The general satisfaction of the people with these events was, however, soon dashed by the miraculous destruction of the two elder sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire (x. x), probably under the influence of too much wine, since the prohibition of it to the priests when about to enter the tabernacle seems to have originated in this event (ver. 9). Moses forbade Aaron and his sons to uncover their heads, or to rend their clothes on this occasion ; but the whole house of Israel were permitted to bewail the visi tation (ver. 6). The inward grief; however, of Eleazar and Ithamar caused an irregularity in their sacerdotal duties, which was forgiven on account of the occasion (ver. 16-2o). Aaron now appears associated with Moses and the leading men of the several tribes in taking the national census (Num. i. 3, etc.), and on other grand state occasions (xxvi. 2, 3 ; xxxi. 13-26 ; xxxii. 2 ; xxxiv. 17). The high-priest appears ever after as a person of the highest consequence. The dignity of the priesthood soon excited the emulation of the ambi tious ; hence the penalty of death was denounced against the assumption of it by any one not be longing to the Aaronic family (ver. so), and which was soon after miraculously inflicted upon Korah, Dathan, and Abiram for this crime (xvi. 40). Its restriction to that family was furthd demon strated by the blossoming of Aaron's rod (xvii. 5, 8; comp. xxviii. 5-7). The death of Aaron (B.C. 1452) introduces the installation of his suc cessor, which appears to have simply consisted in arraying him in his father's pontifical garments (xx. 28). Thus also Jonathan the Asmoniean con tented himself with putting on the high-priest's habit, in order to take possession of the dignity (x Maccab. x. 21 ; comp. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 3). The high esteem in which the priesthood was held may be gathered from the fact that it. was promised in perpetuity to Phinehas and his family as a reward for his zeal (xxv. 13). At the entrance into Canaan the priests appear bearing the ark of the Lord, at the command of Joshua (iii. 6), though this was ordinarily the duty of the Levites. It was carried by the priests on other grand occasions (2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7)• At the distribution of the land the priests received thirteen cities out of the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin (xxi. 4). The first idolatrous priest in Israel was a man consecrated by his own father to officiate in his own house (B.c. 1413) ; he also afterwards consecrated a Levite to the office (Judg. xvii. 5-13). This act seems like a return to the ancient rites of Syria (ver. 5 ; comp. x. 6 ; Gen. xxxi. 19, 3o ; Hosea iii. 4). This Levite became afterwards the idolatrous priest of the whole tribe of Dan (Judg. xviii. 19), and his successors long held the like office in that tribe (ver. 30). The abuse of the sacerdotal office in Shiloh is evinced by the history of Eli the high-priest, and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas (B.c. 1156). Accord ing to Josephus, Eli was not of the posterity of Eleazar, the first-born son of Aaron, but of the family of Ithamar ; and Solomon took the office of high-priest away from Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar, and conferred it upon Zadok, who descended from Eleazar (1 Kings ii. 26, 27 ; Antiq.
v. II. 5 ; viii. I. 3). The sons of Eli introduced a new exaction from the peace-offering, of so much as a flesh-hook with three teeth brought up ; for which and other rapacities (I Sam. ii. 12-17) their death was threatened (ver. 34), and inflicted (iv. 11). The capture of the ark of God by the Philistines (B.c. 1116) affords us an insight into the state of sacerdotal things among that people (r Sam. v.), viz., a temple (ver. 2), priests (ver. 5), who are consulted respecting the disposal of :he ark (vi. 2, 3). Ahiah, the great-grandson of Eli, succeeded to the high-priesthood (B.c. to93) (I Sam, xiv. 3) ; he asks counsel of God for Saul, but it is not answered (ver. 37) ; is succeeded in office by his brother Ahimelech (xxi. 1-9). Saul appears to have appointed Zadok, of the family of Eleazar, to the high-priesthood, and who, with his brethren the priests, officiated before the taber nacle at Gibeon dhron. xvi. 39). David, at his elevation to the throne, sent for all the priests and Lcvites to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem (B.c. 1051) (r Chron. xiii. 2, 3 ; comp. the Psalm he wrote on the occasion, cxxxii. 9-16). At this period, therefore, there were two high-priests at Jerusalem (1 Chron. xv. I I ; xviii. 16). A peculiar use of the Hebrew word signifying priest occurs in 2 Sam. viii. r8, and David's sons were n`:717, chief rulers ; Sept. aacipxal, chamberlains ;' Vulg. sacerdotes. The writer of the first book of Chronicles, however, did not choose to give the name to any but a priest, and renders it the sons of David were chief (or heads) on the side of the king' (xviii. 17). The word seems, however, certainly applied to some persons who were not priests (1 Kings iv. 5, principal officer ;' Sept. Ircapos ; Alex. iepds &epos; Vulg. sacer dos ; comp. 2 Sam. xx. 26 ; • r Chron. xxvii. 5 ; Ps. xcix. 6). These sons of David' were, there fore, probably ecclesiastical councillors, or chief church lawyers. During the reign of David, both Zadok and Abiathar steadily adhered to his in terests, accompanied him out of Jerusalem when he fled before Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24), and, after having at his desire returned to Jerusalem (ver. 29), still maintained private correspondence with him (yen 35), and ultimately negotiated his restoration (xix. 11). David introduced the division of the priests into twenty-four classes or courses by lot (1 Chron. xxiv.), B.C. 1015. He appointed sixteen courses of the descendants of Eleazar, under as many heads of their families, and eight of those of Ithamar (ver. 4). This distribution took place in the presence of the king, the princes, Zadok, and the principal priests and Levites. The first of these courses was that which had Jehoiarib at the head of it (ver. 7). It was reck oned the most honourable. Josephus values him self on his descent from it (Vila, sec. I). Matta thias, the father of the Maccabees, descended from it (I Maccab. ii. 1). Abijah was the head of the eighth course (ver. to), to which Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, belonged (Luke i. 5). All these courses were placed under the jurisdic tion of the high-priest, called Aaron, on this occa sion (ver. 19). Each course served a week, alter nately, under a subordinate prefect (2 Kings xi. 5, 7) ; and in the time of Zacharias, at least, the duties of each individual seem to have been determined by lot (Luke i. 9) ; hut all attended at the great festivals (2 Chron. v. 1). This arrangement continued till the time of Josephus (Antiq. vii. 14. 7). At the close of David's life, Abiathar sided with Adonijah in his effort to gain the throne ; but Zadok adhered to Solomon (1 Kings i. 7, 8), and anointed him king (ver. 39). Accordingly, when Solomon became established in the government, he deposed Abiathar (ii. 26), and put Zadok in his place, who appears to have been anointed to the office (i Chron. xxix. 22) owing to the interruption already alluded to, which had taken place in the proper succession of the high-priesthood. Frequent references to the priests occur in the Psalms written upon the dedication of the temple (p.c. 1004) (see Ps. cxxxv. 1, 19, etc.) The priests were now installed in their offices (2 Chron. viii. 14, 15). At the revolt of the ten tribes from Flehoboam (B. c. 975), all the priests repaired to him to Jerusalem (2 Chron. xi. 13) and there continued their sevices in the legal man ner (xiii. II). On the other hand, Jeroboam, now become king of Israel, deposed them from their office in his dominions, and consecrated priests of his own idolatrous worship (xi. 15), per sons of the lowest class, not of the sons of Levi (r Kings xii. 31) ; whosoever would he conse crated him ' (xiii. 33), provided that the candidate could only bring a young bullock and seven rams for the purpose (2 Chron. xiii. 9). It was during this depression of the true religion and worship that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, made the cele. brated attempt to restore and confirm it in his own dominions, recorded in 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9. For this purpose he sent priests and Levites, who took with them the book of the law,' under the con voy of certain princes, to teach its contents through out all the cities of Judah. This, which seems the nearest approach of any on record to teach the people by the priests or Levites, to no more than the declaring the obligations of the law by the appointed expositors of its requirements (comp. Deut. xvi. IS ; xvii. 9-13 ; xxiv. 8 ; xxxiii. to ; Ezck. xliv. 23, 24 ; Hag. ii. 11-13 ; Hosea iv. 6 ; Micah iii. 11 ; Mal. ii. 6-9 ; and even Neh. viii. 7-9). It may be collected from this incident, that the Scriptures were not then in common cir culation (for the deputation took the book of the