« PreviousContinue »
2 Sam. is mention'd, as attending the Ark, and '"''35' exercising an equal Share of Power with Abiathar, under King David, in the Time of Absalom % Rebellion: But, whether one was more than a Chief of the second Order, or at best a Coadjutor to the other, as Phinebas was to Eieazar, may be a Question. Zadok, we find, was moreover a «~ 27. SV^r, or Prophet; and might, upon that Account, be honour'd equally with Abiathar; and in some Respects, upon Occasion, act jointly with him.
They are again mention'd together, afterward, when a short List is given us of King David's principal Servants, or his Ministry, as we now call it: Among ib. xix. which, it is said, Zadok and Abiathar were 25- the 'Priests. For tho' Abiathar alone might
be the High-Priest, Zadok, who was a Seer, may be easily conceiv'd to have had a greater Share of Court Favour j and therefore, upon all Occasions, to be nam'd before Abiathar.
But that Abiathar % was in Reality the higher Station, appears pretty plainly from this j That, when he was remov'd from the High-Priesthood, Zadok, (tho' he had
stuck fast by the King's Party, and help'd to set the Crown upon his Head) could yet attain no higher Advancement, than to be put in his Room. Add to this, i Kings that it is not probable that David, who 3S' had so great a Regard for the Law, would have infring'd it in so notorious a Manner, as to set up two High-Priests at the same Time.
But, if it were really so, that the Office of High-Priest was equally divided between them; we may account for Zadok's being nam'd before Abiathar, from his being of the elder House; in that he was descended from Eleazar; the other from Ithamar: as is recorded in the Chro- , Chron. nicies; where we find Abiathar. is called xxiv>»» Æimelech as Ahimelech is, in the Gospel Mark'ii called Abiathar whence we may conclude z6both these Names were common to both these High-Priests, Father and Son.
Thre is another Instance of this, in the Gospel; where John the Baptist is said to LukeiH. have enter'd upon his Ministry, the Year 2* that Annas and Caiaphas were High-Priests. But, as before, it was not likely that David, who was so well acquainted with,
and had such a Veneration for the Late, would have attempted to make such an Innovation in it; in this Cafe, it is as improbable, that the Roman Governours, who had, long since, taken the Liberty to create a new High-Priest, as often as they pleas'd, sometimes every Year, would suffer two to be in that Post, at once. Besides, Mat. others of the Evangelists mention Caiaphas TMu 3> only as High-Triest; and for that Year oh. xi. only: alluding to the annual Change or ib?'xviii. Confirmation. For this Caiapbas as we 13. M> find, was continu'd several Years: even to *4' the * Time of Vitellius.
Upon the whole, therefore, it ieems probable that Annas was one who had formerly been High-Trieji, and therefore might still be favour'd with the Title. He might, at the fame Time, be in so high Esteem for his great Abilities, as to be authorized by the Great Council, to examine into and take Cognizance of any special Affair, jointly with the High-Priest for the
Joh Time being* °r' else' that beinS Fatfierxviii.' in-Law to Caiaphas, he might at his Rc13. ,
* Joscphus Jntiq, Lib. 18. c. 1.
quest, concern himself in the Transaction referr'd to. At least, one Circumstance will help to corroborate the other. And possibly it was, upon both these Accounts, that our Lord was had first before An- J?h. nas, an experienc'd Judge, and Father-in- XVIH' I3" Law of the High-Priest j and afterwards led to Caiaphas himself, the High-Priest for the Time being: wh o having, before, given his Opinion, and, at the fame Time prophesied, (but in another Sense than he Intended) that it was expedient that Joh- xi« one man Jhould die for the people, soon sent him away, to the Judgment-Hall Xfy Pilate, the Roman Governor} they not having, the Power of Life and Death.
And therefore these two High-Priefts% the late and present, being the only two of that Rank, who acted jointly as it were, like the two Consuls of Rome, in civil Af> fairs, are mention'd together by St. Luke, among other Circumstances, to denote the Year in which the Baptist first began his ministerial Office. It is, I conceive, upon the fame Foundation that this Annas is again stil'd the High-Priest by St. Luke, Acts iv.e, in the A&sj where he is mention'd together
ther with Caiaphas: and is without Doubt Acts the fame with him, whom he aftewards speaks of under the Name of Ananias; as a very great * Critic informs us.
Two -f- Historians, of good Credit, have given us the several Names of all the Higb-Priefts, from the first Institution, to the Destruction of the Temple and City by 'Titus; making in all, Eighty Four. What Authorities they took their Accounts from, I know not; but not above one Fourth of the Number, are mentioned in Scripture; and, % at least another, did not succeed according to the legal Establishment, in the Line of Aaron j but were put in for a Time, by the Roman Procurators. We may therefore be the more readily excus'd, if we do not think it worth while to give any List of them here. We come, in the next Place, to speak of the Priejls.
* Hammond upon Luke iii. z.