A defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops wherein the case of Abiathar is particularly considered, and the invalidity of lay-deprivations is further proved, from the doctrine received under the Old Testament, continued in the first ages of christianity, and from our own fundamental laws, in a reply to Dr. Hody and another author : to which is annexed, the doctrine of the church of England, concerning the independency of the clergy on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely spiritual, reconciled with our oath of supremancy, and the lay-deprivations of the popish bishops in the beginning of the reformation / by the author of the Vindication of the deprived bishops.

§ XLI. Abiathar was not then the High-Priest▪ properly so called, but Zadok. (Book 41)

But whatever Solomon's concernment was in the Deprivation of Abiathar, I add farther, 6ly that it was not an Example, so far it was from being a Precedent, of a Deprivation of a High Priest proper∣ly so called. I deny not but Abiathar was a High Priest, but not in the appropriated Sense. The N. T. History and Josephus, mention whole Bodie of High-Priests, who with the Bodies of the Scribes, made up the Jewish Judicatories relating to Religion. These might consist, partly of those who had been High-Priests, partly of the Heads of the Several Sacerdotal Families, partly of the Heads of the Sacerdotal courses. But the High Priest concerned in our present despute, is he only who answered our Christian Bishops, as a Principle of the Unity of the Jewish Communion, as the Bishops are in the Christian. This could have been only one, the chief of all who were called by the common name of High Priests, who could be the Principle of Unity. And I deny Abiathar to have been High Priest simply in this appropriated Sense. * 1.1 For Zadoc is frequently mentioned with him, yet so, as that he is always preferred before him. And this, in Davids time as well as Solomon's, which plainly shews that this Superiority did not begin from the Expulsion of Abiathar. From that time he was alone, and there∣fore had so little reason to be reckoned in the first place, that he had no reason to be joined with him at all. Indeed he was every way Superiour to Abiathar, as well in order of time, as in the Dignity of his Office. In order of time. For he is joined not with Abiathar only, but with † 1.2 Ahimelech also, and so joyned with him as still to have the precedency of him also. If Ahimelech be the true Person designed to be joined▪ with Zadok in these places, he cannot be the Son of our Abiathar, * 1.3 as the Doctor fancies, because both places

refer him to the time of David If he were his Father, then as it is certain that Ahimelech was put to Death by Saul, so it must be certain that Za∣dok who was coaeval with him, must have been in the time of Saul also, and before Abiathar. But perhaps there may have been an easie trans∣position of Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, instead of Abiathar the Son of Ahimelech, in both Places. So they will be parallel to those other places now mentioned, where they are so joyned, and the time of both will agree with the time assigned them in the Text, that of David, whose Reign will hardly admit of any Collegue for Zadok, besides our Abiathar. Besides, as the time of David is inconsistent with either a Son or a Father of our Abiathar, so neither was the Father of our Abiathar, the Son of another Abiathar, but of Ahitub. Unless possibly both Father and Son of had both Names, that of Ahimelech and of Abiathar also. It is certain that Ahi∣melech the Father, under whom David did eat the Shew bread, is in the Gospel called * 1.4 Abiathar. But whether I may securely reason from these Readings or not, it is certain from the Unanimous Consent of so many other places, that Zadok was High Priest, and Superiour to Abiathar in that Office, even in the time of David. This is at once sufficient to overthrow the Doctor's Fancy, that Zadok's High-Priest hood commenced from the Expulsion of Abiathar, and those of Josephus also, and of the Rabbins, who made the High-Priest hood, for many Generations, translated from the Family of Eleazar, to that of Ithamar, and not restored to its true oncient course, till this dishonour of Abiathar.

Notes

• * 1.1

  2 Sam: XV. 29. 35. XVII. 15, XIX. 11. XX. 25. 1 Kings IV. 4. 1 Chr. XV. 11.
• † 1.2

  2 Sam. VIII. 17. 1 Chr. XVIII. 16
• * 1.3

  Chap. II. S. 3. P. 17.
• * 1.4

  St. Mark. II. 26.