Reviewing the high-priests of this second group, the following are some of the most remarkable incidents: (1.) The transfer of the seat of «-orship from Shiloh, in the tribe of Ephraim, to .Jerusalem, in the tribe of Ju- dah, effected by David, and consolidated by the building of the magnificent Temple of Solomon. (2.) The organ- ization of the Temple service under the high-priests, and the division of the priests and Levites into courses, who resided at the Temple diu-ing their term of service — all which necessarily put great power into the hands of an able high-priest. (3.) The revolt of the ten tribes from the djniasty of David, and from the worship at Je- rusalem, and the setting up of a schismatical priesthood at Dan and Beersheba (1 Kings xii, 31 ; 2 Chron. xiii, 9, etc.). (4.) The overthrow of the usurpation of Atha- liah, the daughter of Ahab, by Jehoiada the high-priest, whose near relationship to king Joash, added to his zeal against the idolatries of the house of Ahab, stimulated him to head the revolution with the force of priests and Levites at his command. (5.) The boldness and success with which the high-priest Azariah withstood the en- croachments of the king Uzziah upon the office and functions of the priesthood. (G.) The repair of the Tem-
jile by .Jehoiada, in the reign of Joash; the restoration of the Temple services by Azariah in the reign (,f Hez- ekiah ; and the discovery of the hook of the la-\\ , and the religioius reformation by Hilkiah in the reign of Jo- siah, See Hilkiah, (7,) In all these great religious movements, however, excepting the one headed by Je- hoiada, it is remarkable how the civil power took the lead. It was David who arranged all the Temi le ser- vice, Solomon who directed the building and dedication of the Temple, the high-priest being not so much as named ; Jehoshaphat who sent the priests about to teach the people, and assigned to the high-priest Amariah his share in the work ; Hezekiah who headed the reforma- tion, and urged on Azariah and the priests and Levites; Josiah who encouraged the priests in the service of the house of the Lord. On the other hand, we read of no opposition to the idolatries of IManasseh by the high- priest, and Ave know how shamefully subservient Urijah the high-priest was to king Ahaz, "actually building an altar according to the pattern of one at Damascus, to displace the brazen altar, and joining the king m his profane worship before it (2 Kings xvi, 10-16). The preponderance of the civil over the ecclesiastical power, as a historical fact, in the kingdom of Judah, although kept within bounds by the hereditary succession of the high-priests, seems to be proved from these circum- stances.
The high-priests of this series ended with Seraiah, who was taken prisoner by Nebuzar-adan, and slain at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar, together M'ith Zephaniah, the second priest or sagan, after the bimiing of the Tem- ple and the plunder of all the sacred vessels (2 Kings xxv, 18). His son Jehozadak or Joscdech was at the same time carried away captive (1 Chron. vi, 15).
The time occupied by these (say) eighte.en high- priests who ministered at Jerusalem between the times of David and the exile was about 424 years, which gives an average of something more than twenty-three years to each high-priest. It is remarkable that not a single instance is recorded after the time of David of an in- quiry by Urim and Thummim as a means of ascertaining the Lord's will. The ministry of the prophets seems to have superseded that of the high-priests (see e. g, 2 Chron, xv; xviii; xx, 14, 15; 2 Kings xix, 1,2; xxii, 12-14; Jer,xxi,l,2). Some think that Urim and Thum- mim ceased with the theocracy ; others with the divi- sion of Israel into two kingdoms. Nehemiah seems to have expected the restoration of it (Neh. vii, 65), and so perliaps did Judas IMaccabaus (1 Mace, iv, 46 ; comp. xiv, 41), while Josephus affirms that it had been exer- cised for the last time 200 years before he wrote, viz, by John Hyrcanus (Whiston, note on A nt. iii, 8 ; Prideaux, Connect, i, 150, 151), It seems, therefore, scarcely true to reckon Urim and Thummim as one of the marks of God's presence with Solomon's Temple which Avas wanting to the second Temple (Prid. i, 138, 144, sq.). This early cessation of answers by Urim and Thummim, though the high-priest's office and the Avearing of the breast- plate continued in force during so many centuries, seems to confirm the notion that such ansAvers Avere not the fundamental, but Only the accessory uses of the breast- plate of judgment.
(c.) An interval of about fifty -three years elapsed betAA'cen the high-priests of the second and third group, during Avhich there Avas neither temple, nor altar, nor arli, nor priest, Jehozadak, or Josedech, as it is Avrittcn in Haggai (i, 1, 14, etc), Avho should have succeeded Ser- aiah, lived and died a captive at Babylon. The ] ontif- ical office revived in his son Jeshua, of Avhom such fre- quent mention is made in Ezra and Nehemiah. Ilaggai and Zechariah, 1 Esdr. and Ecclus. ; and he therefore stands at the head of this third and last series, honora- bly (hstinguished for his zealous co-operation Avith Zcrub- babel in rebuilding the Temple and restoring the dilap- idated comraonAvealth of Israel. His successors, as far as the O, T. guides us, Avere Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan (or Jonathan), and Jaddua. Of these Ave find