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.

§ XLII. There were in those times two High-Priests at once; the chief, such as Zadok was, of the Fami∣ly of Eleazar, the lower, such as Abiathar, of the Family of Itha∣mar. (Book 42)

They had no Books to inform them in this matter more than we, no other coaeval Writings but the Scriptures, which no where assert any such matter in plain terms The only way remaining therefore how they might gather this Opinion thence, must be by their own Reasoning and Consequences. And it is not very difficult to guess what those might be. There is indeed no High Priest mentioned in the interval from Phineas to Abiathar, but Eli, Ahias and Ahimelech, all of the Race of Ithamar. Thence they conceived that all the stock of Phineas for that time, were private Persons; not-invested with the High-Priest hood. But the Name of High Priest is never given to any of those Predecessors of Abiathar, much less in the appropriated Sense of which I am now discoursing. How then do they come to know that they were High-Priests in the Sense here disputed? Is it because Ahias ministred before the Ark, and Ahimelech and Abiathar gave Di∣vine Answers to David? But how do they know that this Office of giving Responses by Urim, was so the prerogative of the first High-Priest, that it might not in his absence agree to the lower High Priest

of the Junior Family? Why might not the Two Families take their turns, for the mutual ease, in these Offices of attending the King, as the Ordinary Priests did afterwards in their 24 Courses in attending on the Temple? And why might not these times fall on the courses of Ithamar? The great occasion of their mistake is, that judging of the Customs of these more ancient times by more modern practices, they thought none capable of wearing the Ephod, by which the Oracle of Urim was given, but the High Priest, properly so called in the appro∣priated sense, in which there could be no more at one time, but one. And that which gave them this Occasion, was, that this Ephod is reckoned among the Garments peculiar to the High Priest, in con∣tradiction to the Priests of lower Orders. But upon a closer examina∣tion, they might have found that the High-Priesthood, as to the execu∣tion of it, was common to Aaron and all his Sons, and therefore that the Vestments were so too, only with dependence on him, while he lived, and on him who should afterwards succeed him in his Prerogatives, as first and chief of those who did yet all partake in the execution of the High-Priest-hood. This seems clear in all the places where the High-Priesthood is spoken of in the Pentaeuch. Aaron is hardly ever mentioned without his Sons, as joint sharers with him in it. The first Command was, that * 1.1 Aaron and his Sons should be taken from among the Children of Israel, that HE might minister in the Priest Office. They are * 1.2 consecrated toge∣ther, and by one common Form, which seems plain to imply, that the Power communicated by that Form, was common also, only reser∣ving the Rights of the Prerogative. Their † 1.3 Washings were the same, and their * 1.4 Unction also, which was the principal Rite of Consecration, which entitled them to all the Right they could pretend to as the Lord's Anointed. The † 1.5 Offerings were also common among them, both those which were to be shared by them, and those which were offered for them. The Form of * 1.6 Blessing the People prescribed to both, is exactly the same. And from this power of blessing, the † 1.7 Apostle reasons, in judging the greatness and excellency of Priest-hoods. The * 1.8 Levites also were given in common to Aaron and his Sons. And even in this very particular of the Vestments, Aaron is not mentioned alone, but his Sons also are joined with him. The Holy † 1.9 Garments were for Aaron and his Sons, that he might minister unto GOD in the Priest's Office. That HE alone is so often said to minister, even when THEY also are joyned with him, shews plainly their dependence on him, as a Principle of Unity. Accordingly all Aaron's Sons were joyned with him in this Affair. So the Text runs, * 1.10 That he may minister unto me in the Priest's Office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's Sons.

So that all the Four should have had High-Priests, if they had all of them left Posterity. This is expresly given as the Reason why the common Rights were only succeeded to in the Families of Eleazer and Ithamar, that the other Brethren left no Posterity. † 1.11 Nadab and Abihu died be∣fore their Father, and had no Children; THEREFORE Eleazar and Ithamar executed the Priest's Office. Wherein then consisted that Appropriation of those Vestments to the High Priest properly so called? That there was but one of those Vestments made, which could therefore, on no occasions, be worn by any more than one at once: That these were in the custody, or at least, at the disposal of the first High-Priest, and could therefore be worn by none of the rest, without his particular Favour and Indul∣gence: That they were therefore worn only by that High Priest, who was the principal in the particular respective Ministry: That therefore they were worn by the first High Priest as often as he ministred, be∣cause he never could be other than principal; but by the second, never but when, by the absence of the first, he thereby came to be principal. And hereby a clear account is given how the High-Priest's Office was performed, in case of the Sickness, or Uncleanness, or any other incapa∣citating Circumstance, of him whose particular duty it was. In this Case, the second High-Priest might perform it for him. This was a Case which might probably and frequently fall out, and therefore was particularly to be provided for in the Constitution. The rather, because in the day of Expiation it might have been of formidable Consequence to the whole Nation, if the Solemnity of that great day had been omitted, even on what account soever, and thereby the Annual Sins of the Peculium had not been attoned for. The Rabbinical Sagan, is not a Scriptural but Chaldee Term, and therefore wholly derived not from well-attested Traditions, but later Reasonings.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Exod. xxviii. 1. 1 Chr. xxiii. 13.
• * 1.2

  Exod. xxix. 4, &c. Lev. viii. 2. &c.
• † 1.3

  Exod. xxx. 19. xl. 12. 31.
• * 1.4

  Exod. xxx. 30.
• † 1.5

  Lev. ii. 3. vi. 20. vii. 34. xx iv. 9. 1 Chr. vi. 49.
• * 1.6

  Numb. vi. 23.
• † 1.7

  Heb. vii. 7▪
• * 1.8

  Numb. iii. 9. IV. 19. 27. VIII. 13. 19. 22.
• † 1.9

  Exod. 11. xxviii. 4. 43.
• * 1.10

  Exod. xx▪ viii. 1.
• † 1.11

  1 Chr. xxiv. 2. Numb. iii. 2, 3, 4.