God must be supposed to differ so much from any thing of the kind which
we perceive in ourselves, and from any ideas which we can possibly form
of that property of the divine nature, that no argument respecting it
can be grounded upon our imperfect notions; and that all controversy on
subjects connected with it, is idle and fruitless. But though
foreknowledge in God should be admitted to be something of a very
different nature” to the same quality in man, yet as it is represented
as _something_ equivalent to foreknowledge, whatever that something may
be, since in consequence of it, prophecies have actually been uttered
and fulfilled, and of such a kind, too, as relate to actions for which
men have in fact been held accountable; all the original difficulty of
reconciling contingent events to this something, of which human
foreknowledge is a kind of shadow,” as a map of China is to China
itself,” remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, but not
removed. It may, therefore, be certainly concluded, if at least the Holy
Scriptures are to be our guide, that the omniscience of God comprehends
his certain prescience of all events however contingent; and if any
thing more were necessary to strengthen the argument above given, it
might be drawn from the irrational, and, above all, the unscriptural
consequences, which would follow from the denial of this doctrine. These
are forcibly stated by President Edwards:--“It would follow from this
notion, (namely, that the Almighty doth not foreknow what will be the
result of future contingencies,) that as God is liable to be continually
repenting what he has done; so he must be exposed to be constantly
changing his mind and intentions as to his future conduct; altering his
measures, relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and
projections. For his purposes, even as to the main parts of his scheme,
namely, such as belong to the state of his moral kingdom, must be always
liable to be broken, through want of foresight; and he must be
continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order,
through the contingence of the actions of moral agents: he must be a
Being who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be
the subject of infinitely the most numerous acts of repentance, and
changes of intention, of any being whatsoever; for this plain reason,
that his vastly extensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater
number of those things which are to him contingent and uncertain. In
such a situation he must have little else to do, but to mend broken
links as well as he can, and be rectifying his disjointed frame and
disordered movements, in the best manner the case will allow. The
supreme Lord of all things must needs be under great and miserable
disadvantages, in governing the world which he has made, and has the
care of, through his being utterly unable to find out things of chief
importance, which hereafter shall befall his system; which, if he did
but know, he might make seasonable provision for. In many cases, there
may be very great necessity that he should make provision, in the manner
of his ordering and disposing things, for some great events which are to
happen, of vast and extensive influence, and endless consequence to the
universe; which he may see afterward, when it is too late, and may wish
in vain that he had known beforehand, that he might have ordered his
affairs accordingly. And it is in the power of man, on these principles,
by his devices, purposes, and actions, thus to disappoint God, break his
measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to
vexation, and bring him into confusion.”
Socinus and his early followers would not allow that God possesses any
knowledge of future contingencies. The schoolmen, in reference to this
species of knowledge in God, invented that called _scientia media_, and
which they define as that by which God knows _sub conditione_, what men
or angels will do according to the liberty which they have, when they
are placed in these or those circumstances, or in this or in that order
of things.” When Gomarus, the opponent of Arminius, found that his
opinion concerning the object of reprobation was clogged with this
absurdity--that it made God to be the author of Adam’s sin, he very
astutely took refuge in this conditionate foreknowledge, and, in his
corrected theses on predestination, published after the death of
Arminius, he describes it as that by which God, through the infinite
light of his own knowledge, foreknows some future things, not
absolutely, but as placed under a certain condition.” Walæus, the
celebrated antagonist of Episcopius, had recourse to the same expedient.
This distinction has been adopted by very few of those who espouse the
doctrines of general redemption; and who believe that every event, how
contingent soever to the creature, is, with respect to God, certainly
foreknown. An old English divine thinks, that, “in the sacred Scriptures
certain not obscure vestiges are apparent of this kind of knowledge, of
things that will happen thus or otherwise, on the supposition of the
occurrence of this or that circumstance. Omitting the well known example
of David in Keilah, 1 Sam. xxii, 12, and of Chorazin and Bethsaida,
Matt. xi, 21; Luke x, 13, consult, among other sayings of the same
description, the answer of our Saviour to the chief priests and scribes,
who had asked, ‘Art thou the Christ? Tell us.’ And he said unto them,
‘If I tell you, ye will not believe.’ In the subsequent verse he adds,
‘If I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go,’ Luke xxii,
67, 68. You have here three events specified, which yet will not occur
even on the supposition of Christ our Lord himself.” This kind of
knowledge might very well be included in that of _scientia visionis_,
because the latter ought to include, not what God will do and what his
creatures will do under his appointment, but what they will do by his
permission as free agents, and what he will do, as a consequence of
this, in his character of Governor and Lord. But since the
predestinarians had confounded _scientia visionis_ with a predestinating
decree, the _scientia media_ well expressed what they had left quite
unaccounted for, and which they had assumed did not really exist,--the
actions of creatures endowed with free will, and the acts of Deity which
from eternity were consequent upon them. If such actions do not take
place, then men are not free; and if the rectoral acts of God are not
consequent upon the actions of the creature in the order of the divine
intention, and the conduct of the creature is consequent upon the
foreordained rectoral acts of God, then we reach a necessitating eternal
decree, which in fact, the predestinarian contends for; but it
unfortunately brings after it consequences which no subtleties have ever
been able to shake off,--that the only _actor_ in the universe is God
himself; and that the only distinction among events is, that one class
is brought to pass by God directly, and the other indirectly, not by the
agency, but by the mere instrumentality, of his creatures.
PRIEST, a general name for the minister of religion. The priest under
the law was, among the Hebrews, a person consecrated and ordained of God
to offer up sacrifices for his own sins and those of the people, Lev.
iv, 5, 6. The priesthood was not annexed to a certain family till after
the promulgation of the law of Moses. Before that time the first-born of
every family, the fathers, the princes, the kings were priests. Cain and
Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Abimelech and Laban, Isaac and Jacob, offered
themselves their own sacrifices. In the solemnity of the covenant that
the Lord made with his people at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses
performed the office of mediator, Exod. xxiv, 5, 6; and young men were
chosen from among the children of Israel to perform the office of
priests. But after the Lord had chosen the tribe of Levi to serve him in
his tabernacle, and the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron,
then the right of offering sacrifices to God was reserved to the priests
alone of this family. The Lord ordained, Num. xvi, 40, that no stranger,
which was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense
unto the Lord, that he might not be as Korah and his company. The
punishment of Uzziah is well known, 2 Chron. xxvi, 19, who, having
presumed to offer incense to the Lord, was suddenly smitten with a
leprosy, put out of his palace, and excluded from the administration of
affairs to the day of his death. However, it seems that, on certain
occasions, the judges and the kings of the Hebrews offered sacrifices
unto the Lord, especially before a constant place of worship was fixed
at Jerusalem; for in 1 Sam. vii, 8, we are told that Samuel, who was no
priest, offered a lamb for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord; and in 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,
3–19. 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 burned 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 burned 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. xxxii, 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 burned 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 farther consecration, neither
for themselves nor their posterity, Exodus xxix, 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 Exodus 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; Josh. 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 shew bread, 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 thanksgiving-offerings 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 afterward;
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 birthright, 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 salvation in Jesus Christ.