clear line of demarcation is drawn between matters which belonged to the sacerdotal tribunal and those which might be fitly dealt with by a royal official.

We now come to consider how far an infallible character belonged to the definitive solutions of questions of faith given from time to time by the High Priest down to the epoch when the Synagogue ceased to be the true Church of God on earth. It cannot be doubted that God granted to the High Priest some peculiar kind of prophetical knowledge, nor need we stay to inquire whether he ever prophesied by virtue of some internal inspiration, or whether he was indebted for all his supernatural knowledge to the varying appearance of the Urim and Thummim, or stones of the breast-plate, to which God had been pleased to communicate a peculiar virtue.22 Whatever was the precise mode in which the gift was communicated, we are assured of its existence; some gift of prophecy was certainly granted by God to the Jewish High Priest in virtue of his sacerdotal character. We find proof of this in St. Cyril,23 St. Chrysostom, 24 St. Augustine,25 and many others of the Fathers of the Church, and the High Priest is expressly termed a Prophet both by Josephus and by Philo in the places lately cited. The matter is put beyond all doubt by the words in the Gospel of St. John with reference

22 What the Urim and Thummin really were, and in what manner responses were obtained, the Scripture does not say; and interpreters render those terms variously. Mr. Etheridge gives a short essay upon those various translations in his Glossary of Hieratic and Legal terms in the Pentateuch," printed in the second volume of the Targums, p. 43, seq.

66

23 S. Cyrillus, 1. vii. et viii., In Joan. Evang. Fragmenta, ad Joan. xi. 51 (Op., t. vii., p. 69. Edit. Migne).

24 S. Chrysostomus, Hom. lxv., in Joan., n. 1 (Op., t. viii., p. 362. Edit. Migne).

85 S. Augustinus, Tract. xlix., in Joan. Evang., cap. xi., n. 27 (Op., t. iii., p. 1757. Edit. Migne).

"20

The

to Caiaphas, "the High Priest of that year." Evangelist records the saying that "it was expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not," and then goes on: "This he spoke not of himself, but being the High Priest of that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation."27 The Fathers, including those above referred to, 28 agree in this view of the meaning of St. John's words, and they remark upon the low state to which the Priestly office had sunk now that its holder was a mere puppet in the hands of the lieutenant of a foreign power. "Nevertheless," as St. Chrysostom remarks, "the Holy Ghost was still with the Priesthood," 29 and he goes on: "Grace used the mouth only of Caiaphas, and did not touch his impure heart."30 It is observed by St. Augustine and St. Cyril that the gift belonged to the divine Sacrament and unction of the office of High Priest,31 being conferred by God as a help in the work of governing the Jewish Church.

It must not be supposed, from what has been said, that the Fathers attributed to the High Priest, in virtue of his office, any portion of prophetical inspiration properly so called. The responses which were granted by God

26"Potest movere quomodo dicatur Pontifex anni illius, cum Deus unum constituerit summum Sacerdotem, cui mortuo unus succederet. Sed intelligendum est per ambitiones et contentiones inter Judæos postea constitutum ut plures essent et per annos singulos vicibus ministrarent" (S. Augustinus, l. c.).

27 Joan. xi. 50, 51.

28 Ll. cc.

29 Πλὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ οὕτω παρῆν ἔτι τὸ Πνεῦμα (S. Chrysost., 1. c., p. 361).

30 καὶ τῷ στόματι μόνον ἐκέχρητο ἡ χάρις, τῆς δέ μιαρᾶς καρδίας oix taro (S. Chrysost., l. c.).

31 6 Quod tamen Evangelista divino tribuit Sacramento quia Pontifex fuit, idest, Summus Sacerdos" (S. Aug., 1. c.); xpíoμar (S. Cyril., 1. c.).

by means of the Urim and Thummim were certainly of a nature different from that special divine influence which constitutes the gift of prophecy; and we learn from Josephus that at one period, on account of God's anger at the sins of His people, the brightening of the stones which composed the breast-plate ceased for two hundred years together.32 It is clear, then, that

the oracle of the breast-plate was intended only as an instrument used by God in carrying out the theocratic government of His people, and that it did not form any essential part of the religious polity of the Jews considered as a Church; and as at one time the responses ceased to be given, the right of them cannot have belonged to the High Priest in virtue of his office. Nor do the expressions used by the Fathers, either in commenting on the passage in St. John or elsewhere, imply that a prophecy in the strict meaning of the term was uttered "by Caiaphas. Prophecy may be considered in its principle or in its object. The object of prophecy must be something future; its principle must be an illumination granted by God to the human understanding, whereby something becomes known, the knowledge of which could not naturally be attained. Applying this to the case of Caiaphas, we see that the object of his utterance was future, namely, the great work of the redemption of mankind which Christ was about to perform. So far, then, it might be said that Caiaphas prophesied, but the principle of prophecy was wanting, for St. Cyril and the other Fathers expressly state that the prophetical spirit was wanting to him; yet they say that he spoke by virtue of his pontifical unction, and that on account of this unction the Holy Ghost was with him, and put a thought into his mind and words into his mouth, of the prophetical import of

32 Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicæ, 1. iii., cap. viii., n. 9, p. 120 (Op., t. i. Edit. Oxonii).

C

which he was entirely ignorant.33 We conclude, therefore, that, according to the teaching of the Fathers, the High Priest received a certain special assistance of the Holy Spirit as a prerogative of his office, which assistance was therefore with him when he gave his dogmatic decisions concerning the true meaning of Revelation. This is the doctrine of the infallibility of the High Priest among the Jews.

The doctrine may be proved directly from the writings of the Old Law. In the passage which we cited above from Deuteronomy, it is ordained that recourse should be had to the High Priest as often as any doctrinal controversy arose. All were bound to submit to his decision, and the Divine Lawgiver decreed the penalty of death against all who should refuse to submit themselves to this supreme authority. This rigorous legislation is inconsistent with the belief that the High Priest was liable to err in his decisions. It is conceivable that the decisions of a supreme tribunal should be made binding on all, although by possibility erroneous, when the question concerned nothing but rights of property or even questions of exterior religious discipline, and it might be well that the penalty of death should be denounced against the contumacious, but the case is very different where doctrinal decisions are concerned. To insist on exterior submission to the dogmatic decrees of a judge who is not recognised as infallible, is to force men to express externally their belief in that which at the same time they are at liberty to disbelieve in their hearts. If the High Priest were fallible, every Jew was liable to be forced, under threat of death, to declare his assent to false religious doctrine, and to conform his religious practice to this falsehood. Such cannot have been the order established by God. He must have required from His people interior belief of 33 S. Cyrillus, 1. c.; S. Chrysost., 1. c.; S. Aug., 1. c.; &c.

whatever doctrine came to them with the authority of their supreme teacher; and, as God cannot have commanded the interior belief of falsehood, we have in this command a pledge that God was with His minister, guarding him from error in his doctrinal decisions. That must be pure unsullied truth which man is bound to believe by the strict and absolute command of Him Who is the increate Truth. Therefore we conclude that, so long as the sentence pronounced by the High Priest concerned civil and disciplinary matters, it rested only on his experience and prudence; but when it regarded definitions in religious doctrines it was delivered under the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

We are glad to observe that a recent English Protestant writer holds the same doctrine. Mr. Etheridge, in the Glossary appended to his translation of the Targums, remarks that "among the typical persons of the Old Testament, the High Priest stands pre-eminent the infallible counsellor, with whom is the oracle of God." 34

as . .

Let us now consider the state of things under the New Law. "As soon," says St. Chrysostom, "as the High Priests of the Old Testament lifted up their hands against Christ, the Holy Ghost abandoned them and passed over to the Apostles." The promises made by God to the Synagogue and to its head were merely conditional, and were destined to have an end upon the final rejection of the unfaithful people, and the dissolution of the compact made with them. But these same promises may be considered to have been perpetual, in so much as they have a fulfilment in the Christian Church, which was figured and typified by the Church of the Jews,36 and in the Christian Church

34 J. W. Etheridge, The Targums, pt. ii., Glossary, n. v., p. 45. 35 S. Chrysost., 1. c.

36 S. Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 1, xvii., cap. vi., cap. i., seq. (Op., t. vii., p. 523, seq. Edit. Migne).