Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

VIII.

Hist. Re

Abiathar not

of the Mosaic institution: but then the instances are foreign HENRY to the case. For example, Aaron is said to have submitted to Moses. To this it may be answered, that Moses acted by immediate direction from heaven, consecrated Aaron, and was a prophet no less than a civil magistrate. Farther, it is said, 'Samuel, though he had been judge, yet acknowledged Saul's authority.' But to this it may be easily returned, that Samuel Bp. Burnet, was no high-priest; and if he had been vested with that cha- form. part 1. racter, he ought to have been at the prince's command in all P. 140. temporal concerns. It is likewise urged, that Solomon turned out Abiathar, and that this high-priest acquiesced under the sentence. This instance seeming to carry some force, I shall consider it a little. First, therefore, it may be observed, that The case of Solomon had an extraordinary commission from God: he wrote serviceable to the regale. inspired books and consecrated the temple, and therefore the ordinary jurisdiction of the Jewish kings cannot be measured by his practice. Besides, Abiathar was not deprived by Solomon, properly speaking, as appears by the sentence. 'And 1 Kings ii. 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.' Here we see Solomon was giving judgment upon several traitors, who had been in a plot against him; and thus the sentence appears altogether civil, and not an ecclesiastical penalty. It was banishment from Jerusalem to Anathoth: it was a reprieve as to his life, which he had forfeited, but not a full pardon: 'I will not,' says he, 'at this time put thee to death;' so that it seems he kept him upon his good behaviour.

"However, it may be urged on the other side, this sentence affected his sacerdotal character, and amounted to a deprivation: for in the 27th verse of the chapter abovementioned, it is said, 'that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord.' To this it is replied, that the incapacity of officiating, was the necessary consequence of his banishment: that the functions of the priesthood were confined to the temple of Jerusalem: from whence it appears, that Abiathar's banishment from that city, must stop the execution of his office. But in case the king had thought fit to remit the sentence of banishment, the powers of the high-priesthood had revived, and

26.

81.

MER,

CRAN- Abiathar been no less qualified for his function than before. Abp. Cant. Thus we see, notwithstanding the sentence, he was still reckoned 1 Kings, iv. a priest.

4.

35.

1 Chron. xxiv.

to ver. 15,

to 54.

Ezra vii. to

6

"It may be urged farther, that Solomon did not only thrust out Abiathar, but substituted another in his place. For the 1 Kings ii. text tells us expressly, Zadoc the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar.' To this it is answered, that Abiathar was chief, or high-priest of the second sacerdotal order: and under this distinction the eight families of the house of Ithamar, second son to Aaron, were ranged. Now Abiathar was descended from this branch. On the other hand, Zadoc, of the line of Eleazar, was chief, or supreme metropolitan over the sixteen families within this division. The distribution of the courses is mentioned in the Chronicles. For this reason Zadoc is all along, even in David's time, set before Abiathar, wherever they are named together: and the succession of the high-priesthood, properly so called, was reckoned only in the 1 Chron. vi. sons of Eleazar, as we may learn from the Chronicles and and ver. 50 Ezra : in which places none of the family of Ithamar are mentioned. To this we may add, that where the chiefs of the twelve tribes are set down in David's reign, Zadoc, and not Abiathar, is reckoned prince or ruler of the Aaronites. And Zadoc only, and not Abiathar, was anointed with Solomon, when king David was living. He was anointed, I say, to be priest; that is, chief or supreme high-priest, or as Josephus Antiquit. expresses it, high-priest of all the people.' Thus when Abiathar was banished, and disabled from the execution of his office, the eight families of the house of Ithamar were all put under the jurisdiction of Zadoc. And thus the putting Zadoc in the room of Abiathar was not giving him any new superiority over Abiathar, for he was always above him: it was no more therefore than enlarging the extent of his jurisdiction, and giving him, as it were, a new province during the banishment of Abiathar. From whence it follows, that Abiathar suffered no farther than a civil incapacity: there was no destruction of his character: for he is still reckoned second high-priest after Zadoc, in the list of Solomon's court, notwithstanding the sen

ver. 6.

1 Chron. xxvii. 17. 1 Chron.

xxix. 22.

lib. vii. c. 11.

6

1 Kings iv. tence of banishment passed against him.

4.

"Farther, after the new establishment of the temple service, the succession of the high-priesthood was reckoned from Zadoc, as formerly it was from Aaron: and instead of the

VIII.

Ezek. xliii. 19. xliv. 15.

2 Chron.

xxxi. 10.

sons of Aaron, the priests were afterwards called the sons of HENRY Zadoc; and instead of the house of Aaron, the style ran, the house of Zadoc. "It is likewise observable, the temple economy was wholly xlviii. 11. divine, expressly ordered by God himself, and not left to the discretion of any human authority. From whence it follows, that though the sentence of Solomon against Abiathar had been of an ecclesiastical nature; though it had amounted not only to deprivation, but degradation, it could not however ave been urged as a precedent for the prerogative of succeeding princes. For this ought to be looked on as an exempt and privileged case: it ought to have been reckoned a principal part of the new regulation of the courses of the priests; which distribution was particularly commanded by God to David: and accordingly the Scripture informs us that Solomon put this order in execution. The words run thus: 'And he appointed, according to the order of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service: for so had David the man of God commanded.'

2 Chron.viii.

14.

"Lastly, If Abiathar, or Eli before him, of the house of Ithamar, had usurped the supreme high-priesthood from Zadoc, and his predecessors, of the house of Eleazar, as Josephus seems to suppose; if the case stood thus, Solomon's Antiquit. lib. 8. cap. 1. removing Abiathar, and putting Zadoc in his place, was no more than restoring the right line. Now this being only a civil controversy, the case was to be determined by examining records, and inspecting genealogies: all which belongs to a court of justice, and lies within the ordinary jurisdiction of princes.

New Testa

ment and the

"To proceed: there are several texts in the New Testament The authori alleged in proof of the regale. For instance, Christ himself ties from the was obedient to civil government, paid taxes, declared he pre-massem tended to no earthly kingdom, charged the people to render inconclusive. to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's,' and forbad his disciples the affecting temporal dominion. Thus the apostles wrote to the Churches to obey magistrates: and though the government was then Pagan, they call the king supreme, pronounce him God's minister, and charge every soul to be subject to the higher powers. And to this purpose several of the Fathers are cited."

But these texts and authorities prove no farther than the

CRAN- king's supremacy over all persons: now this, as has been Abp. Cant. already observed, the English clergy did not deny. Besides,

MER,

those who argue in this manner, seem to consider the Church only as a sect, and not as a society. They suppose it a member of the State, and as it were absorbed in it. Whereas by divine appointment, the Church and State are two bodies perfectly distinct. They are raised upon different charters: they have powers independent of each other: the government is conveyed through different channels, and the views in the inMatt. xvi. stitution are not the same.

19.

John xx. 22, 23.

17.

King Henry seemed to be apprehensive of the hierarchy's Acts xx. 28. being independent in matters purely spiritual. He was someHeb. xiii. 7. what sensible the twentieth of the Acts, and the thirteenth to the Hebrews, lay heavy upon the regale; and therefore he desired, if it were possible, to be disentangled from those texts. But what satisfaction he met with, I could not discover.

Libr. Cotton.

Hist. Re

As to the precedents taken from the Roman emperors, and particularly from the Justinian code, I shall speak to that Dr. Burnet, point afterwards. To conclude: the articles of Clarendon, the form. pt. 1. contests between king Henry II. and archbishop Becket, the royal exemptions of abbeys from episcopal jurisdiction, and the laws of the Saxon princes, fall short of the purpose for which they are brought '.

P. 141

See my Eccles. Hist. pt. 1.

' In reference to the ecclesiastical power of our monarchs, I would again recommend the eighth book of Hooker's "Polity" as an invaluable guide.

AN

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

PART II.-BOOK II.

VIII.

82.

THE discharging the papal supremacy carried a new face, and HENRY was something of an ecclesiastical revolution. However, many of the bishops, who had consulted the records, and examined the practice of the earliest ages, were not disinclined to this change. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, seemed the most averse to these measures. Now this prelate being a person of character both for learning and regularity, it was thought advisable to omit nothing towards his satisfaction. To bring this Endeavours about, the archbishop of Canterbury made a proposal. The used to satisfy Fisher, terms were these: the bishop of London, Stokesly, was to bishop of choose five doctors, and Fisher as many: these twelve were to meet; and at this conference the question was to be discussed, and the authorities examined; that by this means they Jan. 6. might be brought to an uniformity of opinion, and prevent the 1533. scandal which might be taken at their disagreement. Fisher accepting this expedient, Stokesly wrote to him that he was ready; desired him to name time and place: and in case they should not be successful enough to settle the matter, he proposed the referring it to two learned men chosen by themselves. How far this offer went is not certain; it is possible Fisher's

sickness might make it miscarry.

Rochester.

Biblioth.
Cotton.

On the fifteenth of January the parliament sat: and here Otho, c. 10. of the lords spiritual none but the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London, Winchester, Lincoln, Bath and Wells, Landaff, Carlisle, and twelve mitred abbots, were present. Procer.

Journal

« AnteriorContinuar »