Both the Purification of Mary and the Presenta- tion of our Lord in the Temple are commemorated on the 2nd of February (Candlemas . Baronius says that the Church at Kome was led to the institution of this Feast in order to supersede the Lupercalia, the observances connected wherewith were of an extremely immoral as well as idolatrous character. See, further, artt. Axx.\ and SniEOX.
J -AMES COOPEB.
PRESS.— See Crowd and Multitude.
PRICE OF BLOOD (ti^tj aluaros, Mt 27«).— An expres.sion used by the priests of the Temple in reference to the money Judas Iscariot had rec-eived for the betrayal of his Master. The thirty pieces of silver were the price of a traitor's .service, and so ultimately the price of a man's head ; and though the priests were wiUing to take advantage of the dastardly deed by putting the betrayed Man to death, they still regarded with feelings of disgust and abhorrence the money paid for His betrayaL It had Ijeen soiled by the hands of a traitor, and a.s.sociated with blood - guiltiness of a kind that they had no desire to share. They would neither accept it for themselves, when Judas offered to restore it, nor, when flung down in the sanctuary, did they regard it as tit for the holy uses of t6e Temple. An appropriate use was found for it in the purchase of ground outside the walls for the burial of strangers to Jerusalem. (For the story of Jtidas" end, and the divergent account in Ac V'- '^ see Akeld.\m.\. Judas Isc.\eiot).
The reasoning of the Temple priests here has been usually c-ondemned as a piece of pioiLs hypoc- risy, implying a display of honourable diffidence that stands in suspicious contrast -with their prei-ious dealings with the traitor. If the money was soiled, who was responsible, if not those who had taken it (perhaps directly from the Temple- treasury ) and sent it on its dastardly mission?
414
PEIDE
PKIDE
Why sliould they, who had jiaid tlie price of blood, scruple about taking it back ? ' It it was sinful to put back the price of blood in the sacred treasury, how was it any more permissible to take it out ? ' (Calvin, NT Com.). This is rather a one-sided judgment. It is true, their manifestation of scrupulous feeling was somewhat belated : it would have become them better to have no dealings whatever with Judas. But we may still give them the credit for the wish to be as little as possible involved in the crime of treachery. In point of fact, people will make use of a traitor who have no love for traitors. In this case the compact made with Judas was very much more dishonour- able on his side than on theirs ; for they were sworn enemies of Christ, he a professed friend. The priests might believe the money was well s^jent on their part, though ill gotten on his. The curse of treachery was now associated with it, and would help to intensify their loathing when they spoke of it as the price of blood. It was unhallowed gain ; and they could use it only for some purpose less sacred than those connected with the Temple, and in which they themselves had no prolit. We may compare with this scruple of the priests the .similar feeling manifested by David in a contrasted case (2 S 23'^"''). When the three mighty men at the risk of their lives brought the king a draught of water from the well of Bethlehem, he scrupled to drink it, because it was so closely associated with the blood of the men who haid risked their lives to procure it. It had been procured at the price of blood, and he could not use it in the common way. It was hallowed by the sacrifice associated with it, just as the blood-money in Judas' hands was tainted and defiled by a betrayal equivalent to murder.
Literature. — See under Judas Iscariot, but esp. Ker, Serm,
i- 293. J. Dick Fleming.
PRIDE. — The condemnation of pride has always been very pronounced in Christian thought. It is one of the faults most distinctly incompatible with the ethics of the NT. Certain other systems of religion have not .so strenuously combated this feeling. In fact, some may not unreasonably be regarded as having contributed to its indulgence. An elementary attribute in the ChrLstian conception of character is humility.
1. It is remarkable that the word for ' pride ' {v-Kep-qfpavla) occurs only once in the recorded con- versations of our Lord, and the adj. ' proud ' (inrepy}(t>a.vos) only once in the Gospels (Lk P'). In Mk 7" pride is classed as one of the things which defile a man. It is in the positive pre- cepts and general example and teaching of the Master that we find the principles which have made pride so repugnant to the Christian con- sciousness. Chief of all these forces is the example of our Lord's own life. The Incarnation was itself the most transcendent exhibition of humility. In it men saw their Lord counting it not a prize to be on an equality with God, emptying Himself, and taking the form of a servant. In the essential abasement of this earthly life He humlded Himself to the particular extremes of endurance of per- sonal ill-treatment and obedience even unto death. Henceforth lowliness of station and self -forgetting passivity were consecrated by the Divine example. In the same degree the possessors of power and place were taught the limitations and responsi- bilities of their position, and shown the insensate evil of scornfully regarding men of inferior circum- stances.