in Gibeah. And Zadoc the Son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the r Sam. xiv. 3. Son of Abiathar were the Priests. Zadoc and Abiathar were 2 Sam. viij. the Priests: and the Son of Zadoc was Ahimaaz; and the Son 17. of Abiathar Jonathan. And as for that Abimelech who was 2 Sam. xv. flain at Nob, he is feveral times exprefly call'd the Son of A- 35. 1 Sam. xxij. 9. bitub. From all which Texts, compar'd with the times to which they belong refpectively, we have this plain and intire 11. 12. 20. Catalogue of the line of Ithamar.

High-Priests. Judges or Kings.

This Table contains the compleat Line of Ithamar; and that collateral branch which we meet with at Nob: which Line I have thus fet down intirely; altho' Phineas, (who dyed before his Father Eli,) and Jonathan, (before whofe Succeffion the office was taken from the Family,) were never actually High-Priefs, but the Heirs to the High Priest-hood only; that every one may fee the uninterrupted Succeffion of the feveral Generations of that Family from its firft coming to the High-Prieft-hood, untill after its rejection and utter exclufion in the beginning of the Reign of Solomon. From which Table, deriv'd from the exprefs words of the Sacred Hiftorian, 'tis Evident that Abiathar the first was the Jewish High-Prieft in the latter part of the Reign of Saul, when David eat the Shew-bread; according to the exprefs words of ourSaviour in the place before us. And withal that Ahimelech of Nob was Uncle to the faid Abiathar, as being the Son of that Abitub, whofe Grandfon Abiathar I. was. Which Pro

pofition

20. &c. & 30.

7.

pofition will be still farther past doubt if we confider in the laft place, that.

IV. There are fuch collateral arguments as are fufficient to overthrow the Vulgar Opinion, and to prove that Abimelech of Nob, or his Son after him never were the Jewish High-Pricfts which are thefe following; (1) 'Tis by no means probable that a King of Ifrael, on a fmall provocation, fhould refolve to extirpate the High-Priest of the Jews, and all the Heirs of the High-Preift-hood, on whom the Nation fo much depended not only in their Religious Concerns, but in the whole frame of their conftitution. Nay indeed it was hardly poffible that a King of Ifrael fhould attempt, and in a manner accomplish fo Prodigious a Villany without danger from his People: or at leaft without fome extraordinary remark upon it in the Sacred Hiftory: which yet has not a fyllable of that nature on this occafion. (2) the High-Prieft in the latter end of Sauls Reign was with Saul and not with David; and therefore that Abiathar the Son of Abimelech of 1 Sam. xxij. Nob who was then with David, could not be the High-Prieft at that time. When Saul, a little before his death, enquired of the Lord, fays the Hiftorian, The Lord answered him not Cap. xxviij.6. neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets. Which words furely imply that Saul had caufed enquiry to be made by Urim: which being peculiar to the High-Prieft, does fhew that the Jewish High-Prieft was then with Saul; which we know Abiathar the Son of Ahimelech was not. (3) That 1 Sam. ij. 31. divine threatning againft Eli's houfe that all the increase of it Should dy in the flower of their age, and that there should not be an old man in his house for ever, does prove that Abiathar, who was put out by Solomon, was different from Abiathar, the Son of Abimelech of Nob: on the contrary fuppofition whereto the common Opinion does principally depend. Let us fuppofe Abiathar of Nob, when he carryed away the Ephod and fled to David, to be but 30 years of age; the Numb. iv. 3. time when the Priests entred on their compleat office. After this there is a part of Sauls Reign, and, as is probable several years of it: there is the intire Reign of David 40 years compleat and there is part of the Reign of Solomon, and that,

32. 33.

as

as far as appears, may contains feveral years alfo; for we meet with him alive fome time after he was put from the High-Prieft-hood. All which together imply that he muft 1 Kings iv. 4. dy about 80 years old: contrary to the exprefs threatning of God to Eli before, mention'd. So that 'tis evident that this Abiathar, the laft of the High-Priefts of the Family of of Ithamar, who was put out by Solomon, was by no means the fame with Abiathar the Son of Ahimelech who fled from Nob; as has been hitherto univerfally fuppos'd by Interpreters. 'Tis indeed faid of this Abiathar the High-Prieft by Solomon, that he had been afflicted in all things wherein David his Father 1Kings ij. 26. was afflicted: which was true alfo of the other Abiathar while he liv'd. But then doubtless it was true of many more of David's followers befides Abiathar of Nob: and in particular

it was true of the High-Priest Abiathar, with Relation 2 Sam. xv. 24. to the Rebellion of Abfolem; when, as it appears by the &c. Hiftory, He with Zadoc and their two Sons ran that Eminent Peril of their lives by continuing with Abfolom as fpies to inform David of every thing that happen'd: which, by the circumftance of bearing the Ark before his father join'd to the other in the place before mentioned, and in thisHiftory, feems directly to refer to it. And truly I fhould think these probable reasons abundantly fufficient to answer fo fmall a probability as is alledg'd here on the other fide. But indeed, fince the foregoing Arguments feem to me certain, fuch little conjectures do not deferve to be nam'd, much less particularly anfwer'd in comparison with them. To me therefore it seems abundantly evident that, according to our Saviour's words, David eat the fbew-bread in the days of Abiathar the High-Prieft.

Corollary. We may here obferve the exact performance of the Divine threatning against Eli's houfe, in the quick Succeffion of all the High-Priests of that Family, till its exclufion by Solomon. For by the Table above it appears that, exactly according as it was threatned, there was not an old man in Eli's houfe for ever: but all the Succeffive Branches of his Family, all the increase of his house do ftill appear to have dy'd in the flower of their age.

0.0

PRO

PROPOSTTI O N. II.

The XXIV Chapter of St. Matthew, and the Parallel Chapters in St. Mark, and St. Luke contain two diftin&t Prophecies: The One belonging to the Destruction of Jerusalem : The Other to the Day of Judgment.

In Order to the establishing of this Propofition, and the explication of the difficulties of thefe Chapters, I propofe the following Obfervations.

1. Obferve, that the Queftion propos'd to our Saviour, which gave the Occafion to this Difcourfe, was double, or was really two diftinct Queftions: the One when all thofe brave Buildings of the Temple, which were there in view, fhould be deftroy'd? as he had juft before affur'd them they were to be the Other what fhould be the Signs and Tokens of his coming to Judgment, and of the end of the World? This we learn from St. Matthew, who was the only Earwitness we have of this Difcourfe; and who, according to his ufual method, is fomewhat more large and particular in this account than either St. Mark or St. Luke. For Our Saviour having told them juft before that there fhould not be left one stone upon another, of thofe curious Buildings of the Temple which they there faw, which should not be thrown down; as he fat, foon after, upon the mount of Olives, and had a profpect of the fame Temple before him, fome of his Difciples came unto him privately faying Tell us when shall these things be? or, when fhall thefe Buildings be destroyed? There is the firft queftion: And what shall be the fign of thy coming,. and of the end of the world? There is the fecond question. According to which more large and diftinct account the briefer

Narrations

Narrations of the two other Evangelists are certainly to be understood; as indeed 'tis reasonable to do on all fuch occafions.

II. I Obferve, that tho' the Difciples did really ask two diftinct Questions, yet they confounded them fo in their own. Thoughts, that they look'd upon them as belonging to the fame time; and imagin'd that our Saviour would not destroy Jerufalem and its Temple, till he came to put an end to the prefent State of the World at the Day of Judgment. And this Obfervation is plain not only by the whole occafion of both their Queftions, which was our Saviour's fpeaking of the Deftruction of the Temple alone, without any mention of the laft Day; and by the words of the queftions fet down in St, Mark and St. Luke; which evidently fhew that they did not diftinguish them in their own Thoughts, but look'd upon them as coinciden t; but alfo by the conftant notion the Jews then had of the perpetuity of the Law of Mofes, and of that Temple to which it was fo much confin'd; which they never dream'd fhould be deftroy'd till the end of the See Matt.xxvj. World; as is every were plain in the History of the New. 61. Mar. xiv. 58. Act. vj. Teftament, and needs not here to be particularly demonstra ted. But it does not follow that becaufe the Difciples thought the two branches of their queftion coincident, that therefore they really were fo; or that our Saviour, who well knew their diftinction, would not give a diftin&t answer to each of them; as we shall anon fee that he really did. It ought here only to be remark'd, that fince we have no account of the questions and answers to them from any but from thofe who thought them coincident, we are not to admire if the order and expreffions of every fentence be not fo fully clear and distinct, and diftinctly apply'd to the feveral branches as we might otherwife juftly have expected them to have been.

III. I Obferve, that the Ta and Tava Havla these things, and all these things, in this difcourfe of our Saviour, do ftill directly refer to the Buildings of the Temple. Thus when in St. Matthew the Difciples had fhewed him the buildings of the Temple, Jefus faid unto them, See ye not all these things? and in St. Luke. These things which je behold: But moft exprefly

13. 14.