both King and Prieft: of whom it was prophefied, as St. Paul applies it, That Heb. vii, he fhould be an High-Prieft, for ever, 21, after the order of Melchifedec: Who, we read, was King of Salem, and Priest of the most high God. Which was a Practice not unusual even among the Gentiles.

*

xxii. 16,

The High-Prieft held his Office during his natural Life; unless in fome extraordinary Cafe. As in that of Abimelech the Great-Grandfon of Eli; who, with above fourscore other Priests, was put to Death Sam. at the Command of Saul, because he had reliev'd David in his Diftrefs. Again, Abiathar the Son of Abimelech, who was the laft of the Houfe of Eli, was depriv'd by Solomon, because he had been 1 Kings an Adherent of Adonijab, who afpir'd to the Throne. In the latter Times, under the Herods and the Roman Governors, they were created and depos'd at Pleafure.

There are few Inftances, if any, of there ever having been more than one HighPrieft, at the fame Time. Zadok, indeed,

* Rex Anius, Rex idem Hominum, Phoebiq; Sacerdos,

Virg.

ii. 27.

XV. 35.

2 Sam. is mention'd, as attending the Ark, and exercifing an equal Share of Power with Abiathar, under King David, in the Time of Abfalom's Rebellion: But, whether one was more than a Chief of the fecond Order, or at best a Coadjutor to the other, as Phinehas was to Eleazar, may be a Question. Zadok, we find, was moreover a Seer, or Prophet; and might, upon that Account, be honour'd equally with Abiathar; and in fome Refpects, upon Occafion, act jointly with him.

27.

They are again mention'd together, afterward, when a fhort Lift is given us of King David's principal Servants, or his Ministry, as we now call it: Among ib. xix. which, it is faid, Zadok and Abiathar were the Priests. For tho' Abiathar alone might be the High-Prieft, Zadok, who was a Seer, may be easily conceiv'd to have had a greater Share of Court Favour; and therefore, upon all Occasions, to be nam'd before Abiathar.

25.

But that Abiathar's was in Reality the higher Station, appears pretty plainly from this; That, when he was remov'd from the High-Priesthood, Zadok, (tho' he had

ftuck

་

ii. 35.

ftuck faft by the King's Party, and help'd to fet the Crown upon his Head) could yet attain no higher Advancement, than to be put in his Room. Add to this, Kings that it is not probable that David, who had fo great a Regard for the Law, would have infring'd it in fo notorious a Manner, as to fet up two High-Priefts at the fame Time.

But, if it were really fo, 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 defcended from Eleazar; the other from Ithamar: as is recorded in the Chro-, Chron. nicles; where we find Abiathar is called xxiv. 1, &c. 31. Abimelech; as Abimelech is, in the Gospel Mark ii. called Abiathar; whence we may conclude 26. both these Names were common to both thefe High-Priefts, Father and Son.

2.

Thre is another Inftance of this, in the Gofpel; where John the Baptift is faid to Luke iii. have enter'd upon his Miniftry, the Year that Annas and Caiaphas were High-Priefs. But, as before, it was not likely that David, who was fo well acquainted with,

and

and had fuch a Veneration for the Law, would have attempted to make fuch an Innovation in it; in this Cafe, it is as improbable, that the Roman Governours, who had, long fince, taken the Liberty to create a new High-Prieft, as often as they pleas'd, fometimes every Year, would suffer two to be in that Poft, at once. Besides, others of the Evangelifts mention Caiaphas xxvi. 3, only as High-Priest; and for that Year Joh. xi. only; alluding to the annual Change or Confirmation. For this Caiaphas as we 13, 14, find, was continu'd feveral Years: even to Time of Vitellius.

57.

49.

Mat.

ib. xviii.

24,

Joh.

xviii. 13.

the

Upon the whole, therefore, it seems probable that Annas was one who had formerly been High-Prieft, and therefore might still be favour'd with the Title. He might, at the fame Time, be in fo high Efteem 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 Time being. Or, elfe, that being Fatherin-Law to Caiaphas, he might at his Re

*

Jofephus Antiq. Lib, 18. c. 1.

queft,

xviii. 13.

queft, concern himself in the Transaction referr❜d to. At leaft, one Circumstance will help to corroborate the other. And poffibly it was, upon both these Accounts, that our LORD was had firft before An- Joh. nas, an experienc'd Judge, and Father-inLaw of the High-Prieft; and afterwards led to Caiaphas himself, the High-Prieft for the Time being: who having, before, given his Opinion, and, at the fame Time prophefied, (but in another Sense than he intended) that it was expedient that Joh. xi, one man should die for the people, foon sent him away, to the Judgment-Hall to Pilate, the Roman Governor; they not having the Power of Life and Death.

50.

And therefore these two High-Priefts, the late and prefent, being the only two of that Rank, who acted jointly as it were, like the two Confuls of Rome, in civil Affairs, are mention'd together by St. Luke, among other Circumstances, to denote the Year in which the Baptift first began his minifterial Office. It is, I conceive, upon the fame Foundation that this Annas is again stil'd the High-Prieft by St. Luke, Acts iv.6. in the Acts; where he is mention'd toge

ther