1 Sam. ix. 13, it is said that this prophet was to bless the offering of the people, which should seem to be a function appropriated to the priests; lastly, 1 Sam. xvi. 5, he goes to Bethlehem, where he offers a sacrifice at the inauguration or anointing of David. Saul himself offered a burnt-offering to the Lord, perhaps as being king of Israel, 1 Sam. xiii. 9, 10. Elijah also offered a burnt-offering upon Mount Carmel, 1 Kings xviii. 33. David himself sacrificed, (at least the text expresses it so,) at the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and at the floor of Araunah, 2 Sam. vi. 13. Solomon went up to the brazen altar that was at Gibeon, and there offered sacrifices, 2 Chron. i. 5. It is true the above passages are commonly explained by supposing that these princes offered their sacrifices by the hands of the priests; but the sacred text will by no means favour such explanations; and it is very natural to imagine, that in the quality of kings and heads of the people, they had the privilege of performing some sacerdotal functions, upon some extraordinary occasions; thus, we see David clothed with the priestly ephod, and consulting the Lord; and upon another occasion we find David and Solomon pronounce solemn benedictions on the people, 2 Sam. vi. 18; 1 Kings viii. 55. God having reserved to himself the first-born of all Israel, because he had preserved them from the hand of the destroying angel in Egypt, by way of exchange or compensation accepted of the tribe of Levi for the service of the tabernacle, Numbers iii. 41. Of the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the Lord chose the family of Kohath, and out of this the house of Aaron, to exercise the functions of the priesthood. All the rest of the family of Kohath, even the children of Moses and their descendants, remained of the order of mere Levites. See LEVITES.

The posterity of the sons of Aaron, namely, Eleazar and Ithamar, Lev. x. 1-5; 1 Chron. xxiv. 1, 2, had so increased in number in the time of David, that they were divided into twenty-four classes, which officiated a week at a time alternately. Sixteen classes were of the family of Eleazar, and eight of the family of Ithamar. Each class obeyed its own prefect or ruler. The class Jojarib was the first in order, and the class Abia was the eighth, 1 Mac. ii. 1; Luke i. 5; 1 Chron. xxiv. 319. This division of the priesthood was continued as a permanent arrangement after the time of David, 2 Chron. viii. 14; xxxi. 2; xxxv. 4, 5. Indeed, although only four classes returned from the captivity, the distinction between them, and also the ancient names, were still retained, Ezra ii. 36—39; Neh. vii. 39-42; xii. 1.

Aaron the High Priest was set apart to his office by the same ceremonies with which his sons the priests were, with this exception, that the former was clothed in his robes, and the sacred oil was poured upon his head, Exod. xxix. 5-9; Lev. viii. 2. The other

ceremonies were as follows. The priests, all of them with their bodies washed, and clad in their appropriate dress, assembled before the altar, where a bullock, two rams, unleavened bread, and wafers of two kinds in baskets, were in readiness. When they had placed their hands upon the head of the bullock, he was slain by Moses as a sin-offering. He touched the horns of the altar with the blood, poured the remainder of it round its base, and placed the parts which were to compose the sacrifice on its top. The remaining parts of the animal were all burnt without the camp, Exod. xxix. 10—14; Lev. viii. 2, 3, 14-17. They in like manner placed their hands on the head of one of the rams, which was also slain by Moses for a whole burnt-offering, the blood was sprinkled around the altar, and the parts of the ram were separated and burnt upon it, Exod. xxix. 15–18; Lev. viii. 18-21. The other ram, when the priests had laid their hands upon him, was likewise slain by Moses for the sacrifice of consecration. He touched with the blood the tip of the right ear of the priests, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot. The rest of the blood he sprinkled in part upon the bottom of the altar, and a part he mingled with the consecrated oil, and sprinkled on the priests and their garments. He anointed the High Priest by pouring a profusion of oil upon his head; whence he is called the anointed, Lev. v. 3, 5, 16; vi. 15; Psalm cxxxiii. 2. Certain parts of the sacrifice, namely, the fat, the kidneys, the haunches, the caul above the liver, and the right shoulder, also one cake of unleavened bread, a cake of oiled bread, and a wafer, were placed by Moses upon the hands of the priests, that they might offer them to God. This ceremony was called "filling the hands," expressions which accordingly in a number of passages mean the same as consecrating, Exod. xxx. 29; Leviticus xvi. 32; 1 Chronicles xxix. 5. All the parts which have been mentioned as being placed in the hands of the priests, were at last burnt upon the altar. This ceremony, which continued for eight days, for ever separated the priests from all the other Israelites, not excepting the levites; so that there was subsequently no need of any further consecration, neither for themselves nor their posterity, Exodus XXX 35—37; Lev. x. 7; Rom. i. 1; Eph. iii. 3; Acts xiii. 2, 3. That the ceremonies of inauguration or consecration, however, were practised at every new accession of a High Priest to his office, seems to be hinted in the following passages, Exod. xxix. 29; Lev. xvi 32; xxi. 10; Num. xx. 26—28; xxxv. 25.

It was not customary for the priests to wear the sacerdotal dress except when performing their official duties, Exod. xxviii. 4, 43; Ezek xlii. 14; xliv. 19. The description of the dress of the priests which is given in Exod. xxviii. is by some thought defective, as many things are passed in silence, apparently for

the reason that they were at that time sufficiently well known, without being expressly stated. Some additional information is communicated to us by Josephus; but the dress of the priests, as he describes it, may have been in some respects of recent origin. It was as follows: 1. A sort of hose, made of cotton or linen, which was fastened round the loins, and extended down so as to cover the thighs, Lev. vi. 10; Ezek. xliv. 18. 2. A tunic of cotton which extended, in the days of Josephus, down to the ankles. It was furnished with sleeves, and was fabricated all of one piece, without being sewn, Exod. xxviii. 39, 41; xxix. 5; John xix. 23. 3. The girdle. According to Josephus it was a hand's breadth in width, woven in such a manner as to exhibit the appearance of scales, and ornamented with embroidered flowers in purple, dark blue, scarlet, and white. It was worn a little below the breast, encircled the body twice, and was tied in a knot before. The extremities of the girdle hung down nearly to the ankle. The priest, when engaged in his sacred functions, in order to prevent his being impeded by them, threw them over his left shoulder, Exod. xxxix. 27-29. 4. The mitre or turban was originally acuminated in its shape, was lofty, and was bound upon the head, Exod. xxviii. 8, 40; xxix. 9; Lev. viii. 13. In the time of Josephus the shape of the mitre had become somewhat altered; it was circular, was covered with a piece of fine linen, and sat so closely on the upper part of the head, (for it did not cover the whole of the head,) that it would not fall off when the body was bent down. The Hebrew priests, like those of Egypt and other nations, performed their sacred duties with naked feet; a symbol of reverence and veneration, Exod. iii. 5; Joshua v. 15.

The ordinary priests served immediately at the altar, offered sacrifices, killed and flayed them, and poured the blood at the foot of the altar, 2 Chron. xxix. 34; xxxv. 11. They kept a perpetual fire burning upon the altar of burnt-sacrifices, and in the lamps of the golden candlestick that was in the sanctuary; they prepared the loaves of shewbread, baked them, and changed them every sabbath-day. Every day, night and morning, a priest appointed by casting lots at the beginning of the week, brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer, and set it upon the golden table, otherwise called the altar of perfumes, Luke i. 9. The priests were not suffered to offer incense to the Lord with strange fire, Lev. x. 1, 2; that is, with any other fire than what should be taken from the altar of burnt-sacrifices. It is well known with what severity God chastised Nadab and Abihu for having failed in this. Those that would dedicate themselves to perpetual service in the temple were well received, and were maintained by the constant and daily offerings, Deut. xviii. 6-8. The Lord had given no lands of inheritance to the tribe of Levi

;

in the distribution of the land of promise. He designed that they should be supported by the tithes, the first-fruits, the offerings that were made in the temple, by their share of the sin-offerings, and thanksgivingofferings that were sacrificed in the temple, of which certain parts were appropriated to the priests. They had also a share in the wool when the sheep were shorn. All the first-born, both of man and beast, belonged to the Lord, that is, to his priests. The men were redeemed for the sum of five shekels, Num. xviii. 15, 16. The first-born of impure animals were redeemed or exchanged, but the clean animals were not redeemed. they were sacrificed to the Lord, their blood was sprinkled about the altar, and all the rest belonged to the priest, Num. xviii. 17— 19. The first-fruits of trees, Lev. xix. 23, 24, that is, those that came on the fourth year, belonged also to the priest. They gave also to the priests and Levites an allowance out of the dough that they kneaded. They had the tithe of all the fruits of the land, and of all animals which were fed under the shepherd's crook, Lev. xxvii. 31, 32. God also provided them with houses and accommodations, by appointing them forty-eight cities for their habitations, Num. xxxv. 1—3. In the precincts of these cities they possessed as far as a thousand cubits beyond the walls. of these forty-eight cities six were appointed to be cities of refuge, for the sake of those who should commit any casual or involuntary manslaughter; the priests had thirteen of these for their share, and all the others belonged to the Levites, Josh. xxi. 19. One of the chief employments of the priests, next to attending upon the sacrifices and the service of the tabernacle or temple, was the instruction of the people and the deciding controversies, distinguishing the several sorts of leprosy, the causes of divorce, the waters of jealousy, vows, all causes relating to the law, the uncleannesses that were contracted several ways; all these things were brought before the priests, Hosea iv. 6; Mal. ii. 7, &c.; Lev. xiii. 14; Num. v. 14, 15. They publicly blessed the people in the name of the Lord. In time of war their business was to carry the ark of the covenant, to consult the Lord, to sound the holy trumpets, and encourage and harangue the army.

The term priest is most properly given to Christ, of whom the High Priests under the law were types and figures, he being the High Priest especially ordained of God, who, by the sacrifice of himself, and by his intercession, opens the way to reconciliation with God, Heb. viii. 17; ix. 11–25. The word is also applied to every true believer who is enabled to offer up himself "a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Christ," 1 Pet. ii. 5; Rev. i. 6. But it is likewise improperly applied to Christian ministers, who have no sacrifices to offer; unless, indeed, when it is considered as contracted from presbyter, which signifies an elder, and

is the name given in the New Testament to those who were appointed to the office of teaching and ruling in the church of God. See AARON.

PRISCILLA, a Christian woman, well known in the Acts, and in St. Paul's epistles; sometimes placed before her husband Aquila. From Ephesus this pious pair went to Rome, where they were when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, A.D 58. He salutes them the first of all, with great commendations, Rom. xvi. 3. They returned into Asia some time afterwards; and St. Paul, writing to Timothy, desires him to salute them on his behalf, 2 Tim. iv. 19, A.D. 65.

PROFANE, an epithet applied to those who abuse and contemn holy things. The scripture calls Esau profane, because he sold his birth-right, which was considered a holy thing, not only because the priesthood was annexed to it, but also because it was a privilege relating to Christ, and a type of the title of believers to the heavenly inheritance, Heb. xii. 16. The priests of the race of Aaron were enjoined to distinguish between sacred and profane, between pure and polluted, Lev. x. 10; xix. 7, 8. Hence they were prohibited the use of wine during their attendance on the temple service, that their spirits might not be discomposed by excitement. To profane the temple, to profane the sabbath, to profane the altar, are common expressions to denote the violation of the rest of the sabbath, the entering of foreigners into the temple, or the want of reverence in those that entered it, and the impious sacrifices that were offered on the altar of the Lord.

PROMISE, an assurance given by God, in his word, of bestowing blessings upon his people, 2 Pet. i. 4. The word in the New Testament is usually taken for the promises that God heretofore made to Abraham, and the other patriarchs, of sending the Messiah, and conferring his Holy Spirit and eternal life on those that should believe on him. It is in this sense that the apostle Paul commonly uses the word promise, Rom. iv. 13, 14; Gal. iii. 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29. The promises of the new covenant are called better than those of the old, Heb. viii. 6, because they are more spiritual, clear, comprehensive, and universal than those of the Mosaic covenant. The time of the promise, Acts vii. 17, is the time of fulfilling the promise. The "children of the promise" are, 1. The Israelites descended from Isaac, in opposition to the Ishmaelites descended from Ishmael and Hagar. 2. The Jews converted to Christianity, in opposition to the obstinate Jews, who would not believe in Christ. 3. All true believers who are born again by the supernatural power of God, and who by faith lay hold on the promise of sal

vation in Jesus Christ.

PROPHECY, the prediction of future events; it is especially understood of those predictions which are contained in the holy

scriptures; all of which claim divine inspiration, and by their wonderful fulfilment are proved to have proceeded from God, who only with certainty can know the future. Prophecy is one great branch of the external evidence of the truth of the scriptures; and the nature and force of this kind of evidence may here be properly pointed out. No argument à priori against the possibility of prophecy can be attempted by any one who believes in the existence and infi nitely perfect nature of God. The infidel author of "The Moral Philosopher," indeed, rather insinuates than attempts fully to establish a dilemma with which to perplex those who regard prophecy as one of the proofs of a divine revelation. He thinks that either prophecy must respect events necessary, as depending upon necessary causes, which might be certainly foreknown and predicted; or that, if human actions are free, and effects contingent, the possibility of prophecy must be given up, as it implies foreknowledge, which, if granted, would render them necessary. The first part of this objection might be allowed, were there no predictions to be adduced in favour of a professed revelation, except such as related to events which human experience has taught to be dependent upon some cause, the exist ence and necessary operation of which are within the compass of human knowledge. But to foretel such events would not be to prophesy, any more than to say that it will be light to-morrow at noon, or that on a certain day and hour next year there will occur an eclipse of the sun or moon, when that event has been previously ascertained by astronomical calculation. If, however, it were allowed that all events depended upon a chain of necessary causes, yet, in a variety of instances, the argument from prophecy would not be at all affected; for the foretelling of necessary results in certain circumstances is beyond human intelligence, be cause they can only be known to Him by whose power those necessary causes on which they depend have been arranged, and who has prescribed the times of their operation. To borrow a case, for the sake of illustration, from the scriptures, though the claims of their predictions are not now in question: let us allow that such a prophecy as that of Isaiah respecting the taking of Babylon by Cyrus was uttered, as it purports to be, more than a century before Cyrus was born, and that all the actions of Cyrus and his army, and those of the Babylonian monarch and his people, were necessitated; is it to be maintained that the chain of necessitating cause running through more than a century be traced by a human mind, so as to describe the precise manner in which that fatality would unfold itself, even to the turning of the river, the drunken carousal of the inha bitants, and the neglect of shutting the gates of the city? This being by uniform and universal experience known to be above

could

all human apprehension, would therefore prove that the prediction was made in consequence of a communication from a superior and divine Intelligence. Were events, therefore, subjected to invincible fate and necessity, there might nevertheless be prophecy.

The other branch of the dilemma is founded on the notion that if we allow the moral freedom of human actions, prophecy is impossible, because certain foreknowledge is contrary to that freedom, and fixes and renders the event necessary. To this the reply is, that the objection is founded on a false assumption, the divine foreknowledge having no more influence in effectuating or making certain any event than human foreknowledge in the degree in which it may exist, there being no moral causality at all in knowledge. This lies in the will, which is the determining acting principle in every agent; or, as Dr. Samuel Clarke has expressed it, in answer to another kind of objector, "God's infallible judgment concerning contingent truths does no more alter the nature of the things, and cause them to be necessary, than our judging right at any time concerning a contingent truth makes it cease to be contingent; or than our science of a present truth is any cause of its being either true or present. Here, therefore, lies the fallacy of our author's argument. Because, from God's foreknowing the existence of things depending upon a chain of necessary causes, it follows that the existence of the things must needs be necessary; therefore, from God's judging infallibly concerning things which depend not on necessary but free causes, he concludes that these things also depend not upon free but necessary causes. Contrary, I say, to the supposition in the argument; for it must not be first supposed that things are in their own nature necessary; but from the power of judging infallibly concerning free events, it must be proved that things, otherwise supposed free, will thereby unavoidably become necessary.' The whole question lies in this, Is the simple knowledge of an action a necessitating cause of the action? And the answer must be in the negative, as every man's consciousness will assure him. If the causality of influence, either immediate, or by the arrangement of compelling events, be mixed up with this, the ground is shifted; and it is no longer a quesion which respects simple prescience. (See Prescience.) This metaphysical objection havng no foundation in truth, the force of the evidence arising from predictions of events, listant, and beyond the power of human sagaity to anticipate, and uttered as authenticaions of a divine commission, is apparent. Such predictions, whether in the form of leclaration, description, or representation of hings future," as Mr. Boyle justly observes, are supernatural things, and may properly ›e ranked among miracles." For when, for nstance, the events are distant many years

or ages from the uttering of the prediction itself, depending on causes not so much as existing when the prophecy was spoken and recorded, and likewise upon various circumstances and a long arbitrary series of things, and the fluctuating uncertainties of human volitions, and especially when they depena. not at all upon any external circumstances nor upon any created being, but arise merely from the counsels and appointment of God himself,—such events can be foreknown only by that Being, one of whose attributes is omniscience, and can be foretold by him only to whom the "Father of lights" shall reveal them; so that whoever is manifestly endued with that predictive power must, in that instance, speak and act by divine inspiration, and what he pronounces of that kind must be received as the word of God; nothing more being necessary to assure us of this than credible testimony that such predictions were uttered before the event, or conclusive evidence that the records which contain them are of the antiquity to which they pretend.

The distinction between the prophecies of scripture and the oracles of heathenism is marked and essential. In the heathen oracles we cannot discern any clear and unequivocal tokens of genuine prophecy. They were destitute of dignity and importance, had no connexion with each other, tended to no object of general concern, and never looked into times remote from their own. We read only of some few predictions and prognostications, scattered among the writings of poets and philosophers, most of which, besides being very weakly authenticated, appear to have been answers to questions of merely local, personal, and temporary concern, relating to the issue of affairs then actually in hand, and to events speedily to be determined. Far from attempting to form any chain of prophecies, respecting things far distant as to time or place, or matters contrary to human probability, and requiring supernatural agency to effect them, the heathen priests and soothsayers did not even pretend to a systematic and connected plan. They hardly dared, indeed, to assume the prophetic character in its full force, but stood trembling, as it were, on the brink of futurity, conscious of their inability to venture beyond the depths of human conjecture. Hence their predictions became so fleeting, so futile, so uninteresting, that, though they were collected together as worthy of preservation, they soon fell into disrepute and almost total oblivion. (See Oracles.) The scripture prophecies, on the other hand, constitute a series of divine predictions, relating principally to one grand object, of universal importance, the work of man's redemption, and carried on in regular progression through the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, with a harmony and uniformity of design, clearly indicating one and the same divine Author. They