with God since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone were there no other to be alleged would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors Let us now see what Examples those are § 3. Our first Example is that of the first High-priest that ever we know to have been deposed viz. of Abiathar He was deposed by the bare Autority of King Solomon for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother as small a fault as could be of that nature tho' afterwards he had submitted and acknowledged King Solomon's Autority as soon as ever he was made King Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed yet Zadok being by the same Autority placed in his room all the Nation of the Iews both Priests and People submit themselves to him and own him as High-priest Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar Ionathan and Ahimelech act as Priests under Zadok Iosephus in his Iewish Antiquities has observ'd that this was the first Instance of a High-priest deposed From the beginning says he for 13 Successions there was no High-priest put into the room of another unless deceased after that some began to be constituted whilst their Predecessors were living What is said by some of the Rabbies concerning the Deprivation of Phineas the Grandson of Aaron was altogether unknown to Iosephus neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise he being depriv'd if at all by God's immediate Act. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that Abiathar was not deposed by the Autority of the King but by that of the Sanhedrin or great Council And this he endeavours to evince from these two Considerations 1. Because it is said by the Rabbies that in Capital Causes it was lawfull onely for the Sanhedrin to judge the High-priest 2. Because Iosephus the Historian says of Ioab That before the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of Iudicature there to plead his Cause And if this Formality says our Author was used towards Joab before ever the Command was given to have him slain it 's probable â—he like was used towards Adonijah the King's Brother before he was slain and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood At present it is not my Business to assert the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop or to shew that the Kings of Iudea had Autority to deprive a High-priest I suppose at present That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawfull and am onely to demonstrate That de facto he was deposed by the bare Autority of the King Now a thousand such little Nothings as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures from what is related by Iosephus concerning Ioab I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture Now therefore as the Lord liveth says King Solomon which hath established me and set me on the Throne of David my Father and who hath made me a house as he promised Adonijah shall be put to death this day And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada and he fell upon him that he died And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King Get thee to Anathoth unto thine own Fields for thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise Iosephus And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah And calling to him the Priest Abiathar Thy bearing the Ark says he with my Father and those things which thou suffered'st in his service deliver thee from death but this punishment I inflict upon thee because thou tookedst part with Adonijah Stay thou not here nor come into my sight any more but go unto thy own Country and there live till the time of thy death For having thus sinn'd thou art not worthy to continue in Dignity as High-priest And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood Whatsoever was done to Ioab 't is as clear and apparent as the Sun That what was done to Adonijah and Abiathar was all done on a suddain without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin by the bare Autority of the King But neither is it true that Ioab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin For first Iosephus himself does not say so as our Author imagins For by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin that is wont to be called by Iosephus not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the King 's own Tribunal where he himself sat Iudge and so 't is understood by both the Latin Translators Epiphanius Schol. and Gelenius 2. Even that which Iosephus does say is not true as appears by the words of the Scripture which Iosephus follows and mistakes Then tidings came to Ioab for Ioab had turned after Adonijah tho' he turned not after Absalom and Ioab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar And it was told King Solomon that Ioab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and behold he is by the Altar Then Solomon sent Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada saying Go fall upon him And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord and said unto him Thus saith the King Come forth And he said Nay but I will die here And Benaiah brought the King word again saying Thus said Ioab and thus he answered me And the King said unto him Doe as he said and fall upon him It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah not to cite him to the Tribunal but immediately to fall upon him These Words Iosephus who oftentimes mistakes the true Sence of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory had forgot And because he remember'd that Ioab was commanded to come forth he therefore rashly conjectured that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth was onely this Because it was thought not proper to shed his bloud at the Altar Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our English Author is that of the Jesuits Salianus and Menochius who would needs perswade us that what was done was not done by King Solomon alone but that Zadok likewise the Priest pass'd his Sentence upon Abiathar and condemn'd him to be
to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so This Explication may well pass for probable but the true one I take to be that of Serarius Menochius and Grotius who tell us That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited because tho' turn'd out of the Office yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Title of High-priest and was still highly honour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity Thus 't is certain from Iosephus That in After-times when so many High-priests were deposed all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople A fifth Evasion is that of Io. de Pineda and the Card. Bellarmin whom the Jesuits generally follow as Gretser Serarius A Lapide Becanus c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon but say they he did not do it as King but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh In answer to this I observe first That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy It appears from the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar 2dly If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli yet it would not thence follow That he did it as a Prophet He had heard of that Prophecy and so he might adventure of himself to fulfill it It appears from Abulensis that tho' in his time and before there were some of that Opinion That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might fulfill the aforesaid Prophecy yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority 3dly It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd by deposing Abiathar to fulfill that Prophecy of God For those words That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled do onely shew that That was the design of Providence a common mode of Expression In the Hebrew it is ad implendum sermonem where ad says Grotius is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon So long before Grotius the great and judicious Abulensis a Bishop of their own Church It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew that Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets He shall be called a Nazarene That the Jews crucified Christ parting his Garments casting Lots that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet They parted my Garments among them c. So S. Iohn The Souldiers said therefore among themselves Let us not rent but cast lots for it whose it shall be that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ yet the Iews believed not on him that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our Report c. That when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law they said unto him It is lawfull for us to put any man to death That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die Who so very injudicious as to inferr from these places that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves Yet as well may we inferr that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar I shall onely add That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet that it does not appear that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy They onely say That in depriving Abiathar he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instrument or an Asier made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy The Jesuit Becanus not very well satisfied as it seems with this Answer of Bellarmin has besides another of his own He tells us That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely and was not inspired by God then he acted unlawfully for as he was King says he he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge Here now is a Man that speaks out This is home to our Purpose Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please If they grant that King Solomon did well then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived If with the Jesuit Becanus they say he did ill then 't is plain from the Scripture it self that the whole Nation of the Iews and God himself accepted of a High-priest who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Autority as a true High-priest § 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority till the time of Onias III. Sirnamed the Pious Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cyrene viz. the 11. of Maccabees that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus call'd otherwise Iason had offer'd for the Honour who was thereupon placed in his room Iosephus in the 12th Book of his Antiquities says Antiochus conferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason after the death of Onias And again in his 15th Book he says that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests he means after Solomon's time that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity But in this Iosephus was mistaken as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene but likewise by that very particular account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion and even after the Deprivation of Iason in the time of the High-priest Menelaus And Iosephus himself in another place viz. in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has affirm'd the same thing that Onias was deposed by the King and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood The contrary Custom
of continuing the High-priest during life is call'd by Iosephus a Law yet of any Contention occasion'd by the good and unjustly deposed Onias not a word in any Author On the contrary it appears that he meekly submitted to Necessity and we read no more of him till the time of the High-priest Menelaus that he reprehended that ungodly High-priest for having embezell'd the holy Vessels of the Temple and was therefore murder'd § 5. Iason after the expiration of three years was deposed by the same Autority and by the same means by which he had been advanced and his younger Brother Onias called likewise Menelaus succeeded him He was deposed says Iosephus through some displeasure which the King had conceived against him by the means of a Bribe says Iason of Cyrene which his Brother Menelaus had offer'd for the Honour Here now is an Example for our Adversaries but a very unhappy one There was no Sedition occasion'd by the Pious Onias but Iason who after he was made High-priest proved a very prophane and ungodly Wretch was no sooner deposed but he raised a Sedition against his Successor He raised a Sedition for the Dignity of the High-priesthood says Eusebius and Iosephus tells us that the greater part of the People join'd with him to that degree that Menelaus with the Chief of his Adherents was forc'd to flee away to Antiochus tho' he soon return'd and enjoy'd the High-priesthood You will not imagine it was any thing of Conscience or any sense of Religion that caused that Sedition or that made the major part of the People declare in the beginning for Iason No certainly That could not be since Iason himself had been advanc'd to that Dignity when his Brother and Predecessor had been unjustly depos'd and that too by his procurement especially since that Brother who had been unjustly depos'd was still living Tho' Menelaus was at that time a very flagitious Villain and ought upon that account to have been oppos'd yet 't was nothing but Revenge and Resentment that excited Iason and 't was chiefly the lewd and prophane Pastimes which the People enjoy'd under Iason that made 'em adhere in the beginning to him Read the 4th Chapter of the 2d of Maccabees where after a History of his excessive wickedness as it is there term'd and an account of the Heathenish Customs to which he had debauch'd the People he is styl'd the ungracious Jason that ungodly Wretch and not a High-priest There was yet another thing which seems to have heighten'd the People's aversion to Menelaus when first he was advanc'd to that Dignity and that was his cruel and bloudy Disposition He came says the Author of the Maccabees with the King's Mandate bringing nothing worthy of the High-priesthood but having the fury of a cruel Tyrant and the rage of a Savage beast We will leave the foeda certamina of these two Brothers so Sulpitius Severus calls 'em and proceed to § 5. Hyrcanus the second of that Name who was depriv'd of his High-priesthood and Kingdom by his younger Brother Aristobulus after he had enjoy'd the High-priesthood for the space of nine years They had fought a battle and Hyrcanus being overcome was forc'd to resign both his Honours by a solemn League and Agreement His Resignation was by Compulsion and Aristobulus was lookt upon by all as an Vsurper Iosephus affirms that Hyrcanus had still a Right to the Dignity and so it was afterwards adjudg'd by I. Caesar and so Hyrcanus after that pleaded before Pompey However Aristobulus is own'd and is peaceably settled in his Government Hyrcanus submits to Necessity and lives very quietly under him He is urg'd by his Friend Antipater to endeavour for a Restauration he denies to do it Antipater tells him He is in danger of his Life that the King designs to destroy him yet nothing will perswade him At last being wearied by the Importunities of Antipater and affrighted by the continual Representations made him of the danger he was in he flies away to Aretas a King of the Arabs obtains of him an Army defeats his Brother in a Battle and besieges him in the Temple The Siege is rais'd by the Autority of the Romans Their Cause is brought before Pompey the Great who leaves it not fully decided Pompey having afterwards receiv'd an Affront from Aristobulus raises a War against him takes the City Ierusalem by Storm and bestows the Pontificate on Hyrcanus This he did says Iosephus as well because of other good Offices which Hyrcanus had done him as because he had hinder'd the Jews of the Country round about from defending Aristobulus against him At that time that Hyrcanus as is above said besiege Aristobulus in that part of the City Ierusalem where the Temple was built Iosephus says that the People of Ierusalem went all over to the Conqueror Hyrcanus but withall he observes that the Priests would not leave their present High-priest Aristobulus but still adhered faithfully to him It is further observable what Iosephus relates as happening during that Siege For by that it may appear of what opinion both He and others were concerning those Sacrifices which were offer'd up to God by the Usurper Aristobulus and how acceptable to God those Acts of Religion were which he as High-priest performed tho' he came into the Office by force and usurpation and was not accounted the rightfull High-priest Whilst Aristobulus says Josephus was besieged in the Temple the Feast of Vnleavened Bread which we call the Passover being at hand the Chief among the Jews left their Country and fled into Egypt Now one Onias a just Man and beloved of God who had formerly in the time of a Drought obtained Rain by his pious Prayers and hid himself as perceiving a Civil War coming on Him the Jews brought into their Camp and required him That as he had heretofore prevented a Famine so he would now draw down a Curse upon Aristobulus and all those that adhered to him When he had long refused to do it and at last was threatned by the Multitude he stood in the midst of 'em and prayed thus O God the King of all the World since these who stand here with me are thy People and they that are besieged are thy Priests I beseech thee not to hearken to the Prayers of either Party against the other After he had made this Prayer there encompassed him round about certain Villainous Jews and they overwhelmed him with Stones Which cruelty God immediately revenged after this manner Whilst Aristobulus was thus besieged the Passover comes on in which Feast our Custom is to honour God with many Sacrifices Now the Besieged being destitute of Sacrifices entreated their Countrymen without that for Money as much as they would desire they would supply 'em with Victims They demand a thousand Drachms for each Victim which Aristobulus and the Priests agree to and let down the Money from the Wall But they when
After that at the time of our Saviour's Passion Caiaphas was the Prince and Annas onely the Father And therefore when our Saviour was first led to Annas he sent him away to Caiaphas as his Superiour And on this account likewise it is said in the Gospel of S. Iohn that Caiaphas was the High-priest that same year After that again Annas was the Prince and Caiaphas onely the Father And hence it is said in the Acts And Annas the High-priest and Caiaphas and Iohn and Alexander tho' Caiaphas was at that time in the proper and original sence the onely High-priest To this I answer First That if we granted Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true tho' we could not conclude by the words above mentioned that our Saviour owned Caiaphas as a true High-priest properly so called yet still our Observation would hold good That our Saviour himself communicated with the High-priest of that Age and does not any where hint That they that in his time Officiated in the Temple as High-priests were not truly High-priests And it would however appear that S. Paul acknowleged the reality of the then High-priests so call'd in the proper and original Sence since he owned himself in an Errour as soon as he was told that the Person whom he had reviled was GOD's High-priest For by the Title of GOD's High-priest the Ecclesiastical Office was pointed out to him Secondly I deny Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true And against it I offer these following Considerations First Neither Iosephus nor any other Jewish Writer does any where tell us that the High-priests properly so called were deprived by the Romans of their Power and Autority in Iudicial Matters and confined to the Offices of the Temple Mr. Selden does not pretend to the Autority of any Writer And Iosephus had there been any such thing would scarce have fall'd to have mention'd it especially since he mentions that in such and such Parts of Iudea there were Courts of Iudicature erected by the Romans Secondly Iosephus is so far from warranting any such Opinion that on the contrary he speaks throughout his whole History of the High-priests properly so called as of Persons of great Power and Autority in Civil Affairs What he says of Ananus the younger is very express Having said that the King had deprived Iosephus Cabei of the High-priesthood and substituted in his place Ananus the Son of Ananus he immediately adds The younger Ananus who was constituted as we said High-priest was a man of a rigid and severe Temper by Sect a Sadducee which sort of men is the most severe of all Jews in Judicial Matters Being of that disposition he took an opportunity after Festus the Governour 's death before his Successour Albinus was arrived in Judea to call a Council of the Iudges and commanding James the Brother of Iesus to be brought before him he condemned him together with some others and delivered 'em to the People to be stoned to death This thing extremely displeased all those of the City that were well disposed and zealous for the Laws and they privately sent Messengers to the King to entreat him to lay his Commands upon Ananus not to do the like for the future it being a thing that he ought not to have done Some moreover went to meet Albinus as he came from Alexandria and suggested to him That it was not lawfull for Ananus without his Consent to call a Council That it was not lawfull for the Iews without the particular Consent of the Governour to sit Judges in a Capital Cause Hereupon Albinus wrote angrily to the High-priest and threatned him for what he had done And after three months King Agrippa deprived him for that Fact of the High-priesthood and bestowed the Dignity on Jesus the Son of Damnaeus Here seems to be a plain Intimation that the High-priest as such had autority in Civil Affairs tho' neither he nor any other of the Iews might without the Consent of the Roman Governour sit Judge in a Capital Cause Thirdly It is likewise confirmed by that frequent and continual Changing of the High-priest under the Romans For if the High-priests properly so call'd were as such concerned about the Sacrifices onely not at all in Matters of Government how could they so frequently come under the Displeasure of the supreme Civil Governour Why so frequently turn'd out of their Places Fourthly When S. Paul was told that the Person whom he had revil'd was God's High-priest that is High-priest properly so call'd he strait inferrs That then he was the Ruler of the People Fifthly Those difficult places of Scripture on which Mr. Selden's Conjecture is bottom'd may well admit of another Explication I am so far from denying that the two chief Rulers the Prince and the Father of the Sanedrin might commonly be honour'd with the Title of High-priests that I almost perswade my self that in those later Times that Title was common to all those of the Sacerdotal Order who were Members of the Sanedrin But on this I do not rely I have one thing more to offer to account for those many High-priests which are mentioned as flourishing at the same time Which is this That the 24 Chief Men or Heads of the 24 Sorts or Families of the Priests into which it is said in the first of Chronicles that King David distributed the Priests were wont to be peculiarly honour'd with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-priests As all in general were call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priests so 't was natural to distinguish the Heads of the several Classes from the inferiour Priests whom they govern'd by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 High or Chief Priests That this Division of the Priests was continued to our Saviour's time appears from the first Chapter of S. Luke where 't is said That Zacharias the Father of S. Iohn Baptist was a Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Course of â—bia and 't is added And it came to pass that while he executed the Priest's Office in the Order of his Course according to the Custom of the Priest's Office his Lot was to burn incense when he went into the Temple of the Lord. This is plainly according to the Order and Division made by King David in the 24th of 1 Chron. where the Houshold of Abia is mentioned as the 8th principal Houshold of the Priests Neither ought it to be objected that in that place of S. Luke Zacharias is call'd onely Priest not High or Chief priest For even the High-priest himself properly so call'd is oftentimes call'd by the bare Title of Priest That in those days there were many at the same time entitled High-priests is apparent from a great many Places both of the New Testament and likewise of Iosephus That those learned Men are mistaken who think that those many High-priests who are mentioned by Iosephus and in the New Testament as flourishing at the same time were