PRIEST PRIMOGENITURE becomes clear.' Then follows a list of all those chief of the priests who officiated in the lifetime of Jehoiakim, son of Joshua, either as assistants or successors of their fathers (ver. 12). Again, how ever, the negligence and wickedness of the restored priests are complained of by Malachi (i. 6-13). A heavy threatening is denounced against them (ii. 1-9). The fault of Eliashib, the high-priest, in the misappropriation of a sacred storehouse to the use of one of his relations (Nell. xiii. 4-to), and whose family was much corrupted (ver. 2S, 29), closes the information furnished by the canonical hooks of the O. T. The high-priesthood and government of Judina continued in the lineage of Eleazar, son of Aaron (subject, however, to the Persians), in the family of Josedech, by which it was transmitted down to Onias III. He was sup planted by Jason, his brother, as Jason was by his brother Menelaus ; at whose death Alcinms, of a different family, was put into the office by the king of Syria. In the year B.C. 152, Alexander, king of Syria, bestowed it upon the heroic general Jona than (t Maccab. x. IS-20), who belonged to the class Jehoiarib (ii. I), and in whose family it be came settled, and continued for several descents till the time of Herod, who took the liberty to change the incumbents of the office at his pleasure —a liberty which the Romans exercised without restraint, so that at last the office was often little more than annual. At the entrance of the Christian history, we are met with the priest Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, of the course of Abia, and married to a daughter of Aaron (Luke i. 5). The chief priests,' mentioned in Matt. ii. 4, and else where, so frequently, included, beside the high priest properly so called and then in office, all that had already held it, who, for the reason just men tioned, were numerous, and the chiefs of the twenty-four courses, who also enjoyed this title. The acting high-priest also usually had for his co adjutor some influential senior who had previously filled the station. Hence the association of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke iii. 2). Josephus speaks of many contemporary high-priests ( Vita, sec. 3S); and alludes to the influence they possessed (De Bell. 71, iv. 3, 6, 7, 9) ; and as even wearing the archieratical robe (so). By virtue of his office, the high-priest Caiaphas is said to have prophesied (John xi. 51). He appears as chairman of the Sanhedrim at our Lord's trial (Matt. xxvi. 57). The chief priests appear as assessors in the court (ver. 59). The common priests still retain the exercise of their ancient functions, in judging of the leprosy, etc. (Mark i. 44). Christians are figuratively called priests (Rev. i. 6 ; xx. 6). The student will observe the important distinction, that the term lEpeos is never applied to the pastor of the Christian church ; with which term the idea of a sacrifice was always connected in ancient times.
Thus Hesychius, lepebel, jepebs, 6 SLec Ouati4 AcorevbAepos. We submit the following in ferences from the foregoing particulars to the judg ment of the reader. The patriarchal form of the priesthood was of divine origin, and the purest. This was carried at the dispersion of the nations into every part of the globe, and became every where corrupted in some degree, and ultimately even among the ancient Canaanites. Hence the unquestionable resemblances to it traceable in the religions of all nations. The legation of Moses was directed to the revival of all the important truths comprised in the early revelations, and which were shrouded under the system of Egypt. Hence it was proper that he should become learned in all the wisdom' of that country. In the accom plishment of this mission, Moses retained also such innocent adaptations to the old system as were re quired by the fixed associations of the people whom he was destined to deliver. Among these adapta tions we incline to consider the peculiar office of the high-priest, of which we find no rudiments in the patriarchal church. Nor does the use and it. lustration made of that office in the Epistle to the Hebrews disturb our view, because the same writer finds more points of resemblance between the per formances of Christ and the priesthood of the patriarchal Melchizedek than between the office of Aaron and that of Christ (chap. vii. ; see Jer. vii. 21-23). The resemblances between the religious customs of the ancient Egyptians and those of the Jews are numerous, decided, peculiar, and most important. Besides those laid before the reader in this article, we refer him to the articles ARK, CHERUBIM, etc., but especially to Kitto's Pictorial 11zIrtory of Palestine, London 1S44, which con tains all the most valuable illustrations of this nature derived from the best and most modern works on Egypt. To this work the reader is in debted for the valuable cuts which have been now submitted to his consideration. For the similarity in the religion of ancient Greece, see Potter's vol. i., p. 202, Lond. 1775 ; of ancient Rome, Adam's Antiquities, p. 293, sec. ministri sacrorhnt, Edin. 1791. (Ugolini, Thesanr. xii. and xiii. ; Reland, Antiq. Sac., ii. 4; Bahr, Alos. Cultus, bk. ii. ; Fairbairn, Typology ; Winer, E. LV. B., s. v. Priester ; Riesling, De Legibus Oros. circa Sacerd. Vida Corpres laborantes ; T. C. Rail, De Morbis Sacerdot. V. T. ex ministerii ear. conditione oriundis, IIafn. 1745 ; Jablonskii Pantheon, proleg., sec. 29, 41, 43 ; Munch, De Matrimonio Sacerd. V. T. cunt filiab. Sneer., Norimb. 1747 ; J. P. Smith, Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ, London 1842 ; Wilson on the same subject).—J. F. D.