« PreviousContinue »
to refift them; (2) for all fuch Refftance is forbid. den under the Penalty of Damnation: But if by Refiftance we understand not complying with or yielding Obedience to their juft Commands, then no humane Power can be Irrefiftible; for we may choose to obey God rather than Man; and fuffer Perfecution and all Temporal Penalties they will inflict with Patience and Refignation to the Will of God, and by Prayers and Tears commit our Caufe to him, as the Primitive Chriftians did. And by this Means they at laft, in God's good Time, which is always the best and most proper Time, overcame their Perfecutors, and brought the Powers of the World into the Church. But shameful Compliances against the Truth, which is what the Doctor pleads for, never proved to the Advantage of the Church, how likely foever in humane Reafon it might appear proper to produce fuch an Effect.
§ XLI. It is further objected by fome, that the Jewish Priests were of Divine Inftitution as well as the Chriftian, and therefore as to their Priesthood as much independent on the Civil Power, yet King Solomon depofed the High-Prieft Abiathar and put Zadok in his Room. But if we look into the Story as related in the Scripture, we fhall find that Solomon did not depofe Abiathar, as that fignifies, depriving him of his Priesthood, or even of the Station he held in the Jewish Church. For in the first place, it is certain Abiathar was not the High-Prieft, but Zadok. For in the Time of David, (a) Zadok was over the Aaronites, or whole Family of the Priefts. And when David fled from Abfalom, and the Priests followed him with the Ark, though Abiathar was there, yet the Charge of the Ark plainly belonged to Zadok,
(z) Rom, xiii. 2. (a) i Chron. xxviii. 17.
(b) for it was he, and not Abiathar, conducted those that bore it; and he, and not Abiathar, was required by the King to carry it back to Jerufalem. And when these two are named together, (c) as they are in several Places, Zadek is always named firft; and it cannot be thought it fhould always have been fo if Abiathar had been the Superior: Yet we never read that Abiathar and Zadok were the Priests, but always Zadok and Abiathar. A fure Argument that Zadok was the High-Prieft, and Abiathar but the Second Prieft. It is also evident that the Hereditary Right to the High-Priesthood was in Zadok, (d) who was defcended from Eleazar the eldest Son of Aaron, and not in Abiathar, (e) who was descended from Ibamar the youngest Son of Aaron. It is therefore a great Miftake to fay, that Abiathar was the HighPrieft, when it is fo evident that not he, but Zadok, was fo all along in the Days of David, and before this pretended Depofition by Solomon. However, was he the first or the fecond Priest, they fay it is plain that Solomon depofed him. Let us then examine that Matter, and fee whether he was properly depofed or not, that is, either deprived of his Priesthood or of his Station in the Jewish Church.
§ XLII. Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar, had entred into an open Rebellion against David and Solomon, for which Solomon thought fit to put the two former to Death; and if he had done the fame by Abiathar he had done no more than he had Right to do. For an Ecclefiaftical Function gives no one an Exemption from a due Obedience to the Civil Magiftrate, or puts him out of the Power of the Temporal Laws. And
(b) 2 Sam. xv. 24, 25.
(c) 2 Sam. xv. 29, 35, 36. xvii. 15. xix. 11. ■ Chr. XV. 11.
(d) Chron. yi. 53.
(e) 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6.
therefore Solomon had an undoubted Right to inflict what Temporal Punishment on Abiathar for his Treafon that he pleased. But he thought fit to spare his Life, and only confine him to a gentle Imprifonment within his own Lands. (f) And unto Abiathar the Priest faid the King, Get thee unto Anathoth thine own Fields; for thou art worthy of Death: But I will not at this time put thee to Death. This was Solomon's Sentence which he paffed upon this Prieft; and was plainly no other than a Civil Sentence: For Confinement or Imprisonment, whether clofe or large, is undoubtedly the Right of the Civil Magiftrate to inflict, and of no other; and this was all that Solomon did: He did not fo much as take away his Lands from him which belonged to him as a Prieft, but commanded him to go and live upon them. But if he had deprived him of his Priesthood, he must have deprived him of thofe Lands which were given by God to the Priests, and which therefore none but a Priest could enjoy. But then fay, the Adverfaries, it follows in the next Place; So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Prieft unto the Lord. Very right, by confining him to Anathoth he difabled him from executing his Office of a Prieft in the Temple at Jerufalem: But Solomon paffed no Sentence of Depofition or Deprivation upon him, which is the Ecclefiaftical Sentence; he only paffed the Sentence of Confinement. It is true, that Sentence of Confinement, whilst he lay under it, hindred him from officiating in the Temple, but fo would a fit of Sickness or a broken Leg have done, yet furely no one will fay that a broken Leg or a fit of Sickness depofes or deprives a Prieft or Bishop, that it puts him out of the Station he held in the Church, and yet it will disable him from officiating for the Time, and effectually
keep him from executing his Office fo long as it lafts. And therefore, notwithstanding this pretended Depofition, Abiathar was ftill reputed to be the fecond Prieft in the Days of Solomon, even as he was in the Reign of David, for after this Confinement to Anathoth, we read (g) that Zadok and Abiathar were the Priefts; which would not have been if he had been deprived of his Priesthood, or of his Station in the Church, as well as hindred from executing his Office by Confinement. But they tell us, that he must have been deprived, because another was put into his Room: For fo fays the Text, (h) And Zadok the Priest did the King put in the Room of Abiathar. But the Original is, And Zadok the Priest did the King give for Abiathar. Which cannot here mean, that he put Zadok into Abiathar's Place, for that would have been to have degraded him from the Office of High-Priest to that of Second Pricft. But as Zadok was High-Prieft, it belonged to him to fee that all Offices in the Temple were duly performed; confequently if any Prieft was, upon any Account, difabled from officiating, he was obliged to fee that Charge performed by himself, or fome other Priest whom he fhould appoint. Therefore the King having, by confining Abiathar to Anathoth, difabled him from performing the Office of Second Prieft in the Temple, directed Zadok, the High-Prieft, to take care that the Office of the Second Prieft might not be omitted by Reafon of the Disability of Abiathar. Thus he gave Zadok for Abiathar, by requiring him to fee Abiathar's Duty performed. As if our King fhould, for fome Temporal Crime, imprifon the Bishop of London, and then bid the Archbifhop of Canterbury (to whom it belongs of Course during the Disability of the proper Bishop) to take care of that Diocefe. This would be giving the Peo
(g) 1 King. iv. 4.
(b) 1 King. ii 35.
pile of London the Archbishop of Canterbury for their own Bishop, but would neither be depofing the Bifhop of London, nor putting another in his Room. And yet this is plainly all that Solomon did with Relation to Abiathar.
§ XLIII. The Adverfaries to the Independency of the Church finding their Affertions to fail, and not to be maintainable, have fince come to putting of Queries. And we are asked, I Chrift appointed, or his Apoftles left, any Rule in the facred Writings for depofing of Bishops? To which it may be anfwer'd, That it having been proved, that Chrift himfelf ordain'd his Apostles, and fent them as he was fent by the Father, he thereby gave them Authority to ordain others to that Office as he had ordain'd them: And that it appears from the Sacred Writings, that they actually did inveft others with the fame Office whom we now call Bishops: Therefore if neither he nor his Apoftles have left any Rule for depofing Bifhops, or given Authority to any to depofe them, there cannot a Bishop be depofed; for being made by an Authority derived from Chrift, they must be depofed by an Authority derived from him, or not at all, otherwife we muft fet up an Authority in the Church above Chrift: For if any Power on Earth can deprive a Man of a Power derived from Chrift, without deriving that Power of Deprivation from him alfo, then has not Chrift a Supreme Power over his Church, for there is another above him that can undo what he has done; which it would be both abford and blafphemous for any Man to fay. But the Sacred Writings have taught us, that a Bifhop may fall from his Bishoprick by Tranfgreffion, (1) for fo they declare that Judas fell from his Apoftleship; and that when a Bishop fo falls by Tranfgreflion, then an
(i) A&t. i. 25. 20.