1. Mankind, from conscience of its own weakness and admiration of natural events, hath this; that most men believe God to be the invisible maker of all invisible things; whom they also fear, conceiving that they have not a sufficient protection in themselves. But the imperfect use they had of their reason, the violence of their passions did so cloud them, that they could not rightly worship him. Now the fear of invisible things, when it is severed from right reason, is superstition. It was therefore almost impossible for men, without the special assistance of God, to avoid both rocks of atheism and superstition. For this proceeds from fear without right reason; that, from an opinion of right reason without fear. Idolatry therefore did easily fasten upon the greatest part of men; and almost all nations did worship God in images and resemblances of finite things; and they worshipped spirits or vain visions, perhaps out of fear calling them devils. But it pleased the Divine Majesty, as we read it written in the sacred history, out of all mankind to call forth Abraham, by whose means he might bring men to the true worship of him; and to reveal himself supernaturally to him, and to make that most famous covenant with him and his seed, which is called the old covenant or testament. He therefore is the head of true religion; he was the first that after the deluge taught, that there was one God, the Creator of the universe. And from him the kingdom of God by way of covenants, takes its beginning. Joseph. Antiq. Jews, lib. I.. cap. 7.

2. In the beginning of the world God reigned indeed, not only naturally, but also by way of covenant, over Adam and Eve; so as it seems he would have no obedience yielded to him, beside that which natural reason should dictate, but by the way of covenant, that is to say, by the consent of men themselves. Now because this covenant was presently made void, nor ever after renewed, the original of God’s kingdom (which we treat of in this place) is not to be taken thence. Yet this is to be noted by the way; that by that precept of not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (whether the judicature of good and evil, or the eating of the fruit of some tree were forbidden), God did require a most simple obedience to his commands, without dispute whether that were good or evil which was commanded. For the fruit of the tree, if the command be wanting, hath nothing in its own nature, whereby the eating of it could be morally evil, that is to say, a sin.

3. Now the covenant between God and Abraham was made in this manner, (Gen. xvii. 7, 8): I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Now it was necessary to institute some sign, whereby Abraham and his seed should retain the memory of this covenant; wherefore circumcision was added to the covenant, but yet as a sign only, (verse 10, 11): This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and thee, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. It is therefore covenanted, that Abraham shall acknowledge God to be his God and the God of his seed, that is to say, that he shall submit himself to be governed by him; and that God shall give unto Abraham the inheritance of that land wherein he then dwelt but as a pilgrim; and that Abraham, for a memorial sign of this covenant, should take care to see himself and his male seed circumcised.

4. But seeing that Abraham, even before the covenant, acknowledged God to be the Creator and King of the world; (for he never doubted either of the being or the providence of God); how comes it not to be superfluous, that God would purchase to himself with a price and by contract an obedience which was due to him by nature; namely, by promising Abraham the land of Canaan, upon condition that he would receive him for his God; when by the right of nature he was already so? By those words therefore, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee, we understand not that Abraham satisfied this covenant by a bare acknowledgment of the power and dominion which God had naturally over men, that is to say, by acknowledging God indefinitely, which belongs to natural reason; but he must definitely acknowledge him, who said unto him, (Gen. xii. 1, 2): Get thee out of thy country; &c. (Gen. xiii. 14): Lift up thine eyes, &c.: who appeared unto him, (Gen. xviii. 1, 2), in the shape of three celestial men; and (Gen. xv. 1), in a vision; and (verse 13), in a dream, which is matter of faith. In what shape God appeared unto Abraham, by what kind of sound he spake to him, is not expressed. Yet it is plain that Abraham believed that voice to be the voice of God and a true revelation, and would have all his to worship him, who had so spoken unto him, for God the Creator of the world; and that his faith was grounded on this, not that he believed God to have a being or that he was true in his promises, that which all men believe, but that he doubted not him to be God, whose voice and promises he had heard, and that the God of Abraham signified not simply God, but that God which appeared unto him; even as the worship, which Abraham owed unto God in that notion, was not the worship of reason, but of religion and faith, and that which not reason, but God had supernaturally revealed.

5. But we read of no laws given by God to Abraham, or by Abraham to his family, either then or after, secular or sacred; excepting the commandment of circumcision, which is contained in the covenant itself. Whence it is manifest, that there were no other laws or worship, which Abraham was obliged to, but the laws of nature, rational worship, and circumcision.

6. Now Abraham was the interpreter of all laws, as well sacred as secular, among those that belonged to him; not merely naturally, as using the laws of nature only, but even by the form of the covenant itself; in which obedience is promised by Abraham, not for himself only, but for his seed also; which had been in vain, except his children had been tied to obey his commands. And how can that be understood, which God says (Gen. xviii. 18, 19): All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him; for I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment: unless his children and his household were supposed to be obliged to yield obedience unto his commands?

7. Hence it follows, that Abraham’s subjects could not sin in obeying him, provided that Abraham commanded them not to deny God’s existence or providence, or to do somewhat expressly contrary to the honour of God. In all other things, the word of God was to be fetched from his lips only, as being the interpreter of all the laws and words of God. For Abraham alone could teach them who was the God of Abraham, and in what manner he was to be worshipped. And they who after Abraham’s death were subject to the sovereignty of Isaac or Jacob, did by the same reason obey them in all things without sin, as long as they acknowledged and professed the God of Abraham to be their God. For they had submitted themselves to God simply, before they did it to Abraham, and to Abraham before they did it to the God of Abraham: again, to the God of Abraham, before they did it to Isaac. In Abraham’s subjects therefore, to deny God was the only treason against the divine Majesty; but in their posterity, it was also treason to deny the God of Abraham, that is to say, to worship God otherwise than was instituted by Abraham, to wit, in images made with hands,^[20] as other nations did; which for that reason were called idolaters. And hitherto, subjects might easily enough discern what was to be observed, what avoided in the commands of their princes.

8. To go on now, following the guidance of the holy Scripture; the same covenant was renewed (Gen. xxvi. 3, 4) with Isaac; and (Gen. xxviii. 13, 14) with Jacob; where God styles himself not simply God, whom nature doth dictate him to be, but distinctly the God of Abraham and Isaac. Afterward being about to renew the same covenant by Moses with the whole people of Israel, (Exod. iii. 6): I am, saith he, the God of thy Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Afterward, when that people, not only the freest, but also the greatest enemy to human subjection, by reason of the fresh memory of their Egyptian bondage, abode in the wilderness near mount Sinai, that ancient covenant was propounded to them all to be renewed in this manner (Exod. xix. 5, 6): Therefore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, (to wit, that covenant which was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob); then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all people; for all the earth is mine, and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. And all the people answered together, and said, (verse 8) All that the Lord hath spoken, will we do.

9. In this covenant, among other things, we must consider well the appellation of kingdom, not used before. For although God, both by nature and by covenant made with Abraham, was their king, yet owed they him an obedience and worship only natural, as being his subjects; and religious, such as Abraham instituted, as being the subjects of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their natural princes. For they had received no word of God beside the natural word of right reason; neither had any covenant passed between God and them, otherwise than as their wills were included in the will of Abraham, as their prince. But now by the covenant made at Mount Sinai, the consent of each man being had, there becomes an institutive kingdom of God over them. That kingdom of God, so renowned in Scriptures and writings of divines, took its beginning from this time; and hither tends that which God said to Samuel, when the Israelites asked a king (1 Sam. viii. 7): They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them; and that which Samuel told the Israelites (1 Sam. xii. 12): Ye said unto me, nay, but a king shall reign over us, when the Lord your God was your king; and that which is said, Jer. xxxi. 31: I will make a new covenant, &c. although I was an husband unto them; and the doctrine also of Judas Galilæus, where mention is made in Josephus’ Antiq. of the Jews, (Book xviii. chap. 2), in these words: But Judas Galilæus was the first author of this fourth way of those who followed the study of wisdom. These agree in all the rest with the Pharisees, excepting that they burn with a most constant desire of liberty; believing God alone to be held for their Lord and prince; and will sooner endure even the most exquisite kinds of torments, together with their kinsfolks and dearest friends, than call any mortal man their Lord.

10. The right of the kingdom being thus constituted by way of covenant, let us see in the next place, what laws God propounded to them. Now those are known to all, to wit, the decalogue, and those other, as well judicial as ceremonial laws, which we find from the twentieth chapter of Exodus to the end of Deuteronomy and the death of Moses. Now of those laws, delivered in general by the hand of Moses, some there are which oblige naturally, being made by God, as the God of nature, and had their force even before Abraham’s time. Others there are which oblige by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, being made by God as the God of Abraham, which had their force even before Moses’s time, by reason of the former covenant. But there are others which oblige by virtue of that covenant only, which was made last with the people themselves; being made by God, as being the peculiar king of the Israelites. Of the first sort are all the precepts of the decalogue which pertain unto manners; such as, honour thy parents, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet; for they are the laws of nature. Also the precept of not taking God’s name in vain; for it is a part of natural worship, as hath been declared in the foregoing chapter (art. 15). In like manner the second commandment, of not worshipping by way of any image made by themselves; for this also is a part of natural religion, as hath been showed in the same article. Of the second sort is the first commandment of the decalogue, of not having any other Gods; for in that consists the essence of the covenant made with Abraham, by which God requires nothing else, but that he should be his God, and the God of his seed. Also the precept of keeping holy the Sabbath; for the sanctification of the seventh day is instituted in memorial of the six days’ creation, as appears out of these words (Exod. xxxi. 16-17): It is a perpetual covenant, (meaning the Sabbath), and a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Of the third kind are the politic, judicial, and ceremonial laws; which only belonged to the Jews. The laws of the first and second sort written in tables of stone, to wit, the decalogue, was kept in the ark itself. The rest written in the volume of the whole law, were laid up in the side of the ark, (Deut. xxxi. 26). For these, retaining the faith of Abraham, might be changed; those could not.

11. All God’s laws are God’s word; but all God’s word is not his law. I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, is the word of God; it is no law. Neither is all that, which for the better declaring of God’s word is pronounced or written together with it, instantly to be taken for God’s word. For, Thus saith the Lord, is not the voice of God, but of the preacher or prophet. All that, and only that, is the word of God, which a true prophet hath declared God to have spoken. Now the writings of the prophets, comprehending as well those things which God, as which the prophet himself speaks, are therefore called the word of God, because they contain the word of God. Now because all that, and that alone, is the word of God, which is recommended to us for such by a true prophet, it cannot be known what God’s word is, before we know who is the true prophet; nor can we believe God’s word, before we believe the prophet. Moses was believed by the people of Israel for two things; his miracles and his faith. For how great and most evident miracles soever he had wrought, yet would they not have trusted him, at least he was not to have been trusted, if he had called them out of Egypt to any other worship than the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob their fathers. For it had been contrary to the covenant made by themselves with God. In like manner two things there are; to wit, supernatural prediction of things to come, which is a mighty miracle; and faith in the God of Abraham, their deliverer out of Egypt; which God proposed to all the Jews to be kept for marks of a true prophet. He that wants either of these, is no prophet; nor is it to be received for God’s word, which he obtrudes for such. If faith be wanting, he is rejected in these words, (Deut. xiii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5): If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign, or a wonder; and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, &c. that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death. If prediction of events be wanting, he is condemned by these, (Deut. xviii. 21, 22): And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken; but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Now, that that is the word of God which is published for such by a true prophet; and that he was held to be a true prophet among the Jews, whose faith was true, and to whose predictions the events answered; is without controversy. But what it is, to follow other gods, and whether the events which are affirmed to answer their predictions, do truly answer them or not, may admit many controversies; especially in predictions which obscurely and enigmatically foretel the event; such as the predictions of almost all the prophets are; as who saw not God apparently, like unto Moses, but in dark speeches, and in figures. (Numb. xii. 8). But of these we cannot judge, otherwise than by the way of natural reason; because that judgment depends on the prophet’s interpretation, and on its proportion with the event.

12. The Jews did hold the book of the whole law, which was called Deuteronomy, for the written word of God; and that only (forasmuch as can be collected out of sacred history) until the captivity. For this book was delivered by Moses himself to the priests, to be kept and laid up in the side of the ark of the covenant, and to be copied out by the kings; and the same a long time after, by the authority of king Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 2), acknowledged again for the word of God. But it is not manifest, when the rest of the books of the Old Testament were first received into canon. But what concerns the prophets, Isaiah and the rest, since they foretold no other things than what were to come to pass, either in or after the captivity, their writings could not at that time be held for prophetic; by reason of the law cited above (Deut. xviii. 21, 22), whereby the Israelites were commanded not to account any man for a true prophet, but him whose prophecies were answered by the events. And hence peradventure it is, that the Jews esteemed the writings of those whom they slew when they prophesied, for prophetic afterward; that is to say, for the word of God.

13. It being known what laws there were under the old covenant, and what word of God received from the beginning; we must furthermore consider, with whom the authority of judging, whether the writings of the prophets arising afterward were to be received for the word of God; that is tois to say, whether the events did answer their predictions or not; and with whom also the authority of interpreting the laws already received, and the written word of God, did reside: which thing is to be traced through all the times and several changes of the commonwealth of Israel. But it is manifest that this power, during the life of Moses, was entirely in himself. For if he had not been the interpreter of the laws and word, that office must have belonged either to every private person, or to a congregation or synagogue of many, or to the high-priest or to other prophets. First, that that office belonged not to private men, or any congregation made of them, appears hence; that they were not admitted, nay, they were prohibited with most heavy threats, to hear God speak, otherwise than by the means of Moses. For it is written, (Exod. xix. 24, 25): Let not the priests and the people break through, to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them. So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them. It is further manifestly and expressly declared, upon occasion given by the rebellion of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, that neither private men nor the congregation should pretend that God had spoken by them, and by consequence that they had the right of interpreting God’s word. For they contending, that God spake no less by them than by Moses, argue thus, (Numbers xvi. 3): Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? But how God determined this controversy, is easily understood by verses 33 and 35 of the same chapter, where Corah, Dathan, and Abiram went down alive into the pit, &c. And there came out fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. Secondly, that Aaron the high-priest had not this authority, is manifest by the like controversy between him (together with his sister Miriam) and Moses. For the question was, whether God spake by Moses only, or by them also; that is to say, whether Moses alone, or whether they also were interpreters of the word of God. For thus they said, (Numb. xii. 2): Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not also spoken by us? But God reproved them; and made a distinction between Moses and other prophets, saying, (verse 6, 7, 8): If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream: my servant Moses is not so, &c. For with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? Lastly, that the interpretation of the word of God as long as Moses lived, belonged not to any other prophets whatsoever, is collected out of that place which we now cited, concerning his eminency above all others; and out of natural reason, for as much as it belongs to the same prophet, who brings the commands of God, to unfold them too; but there was then no other word of God, beside that which was declared by Moses. And out of this also, that there was no other prophet extant at that time, who prophesied to the people, excepting the seventy elders who prophesied by the spirit of Moses. And even that Joshua, who was then Moses’ servant, his successor afterward, believed to be injuriously done, till he knew it was by Moses’ consent; which thing is manifest by text of Scripture, (Numb. xi. 25): And the Lord came down in a cloud, &c. and took of the spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it unto the seventy elders. Now after it was told that they prophesied, Joshua said unto Moses, Forbid them, my lord. But Moses answered: Why enviest thou for my sake? Seeing therefore Moses alone was the messenger of God’s word, and that the authority of interpreting it pertained neither to private men, nor to the synagogue, nor to the high-priest, nor to other prophets; it remains that Moses alone was the interpreter of Gods word, who also had the supreme power in civil matters; and that the conventions of Corah with the rest of his complices against Moses and Aaron, and of Aaron with his sister against Moses, were raised, not for the salvation of their souls, but by reason of their ambition and desire of dominion over the people.

14. In Joshua’s time the interpretation of the laws, and of the word of God, belonged to Eleazar the high-priest; who was also, under God, their absolute king. Which is collected, first of all, out of the covenant itself; in which the commonwealth of Israel is called a priestly kingdom, or, as it is recited in 1 Peter ii. 9, a royal priesthood. Which could in no wise be said, unless by the institution and covenant of the people, the regal power were understood to belong to the high-priest. Neither doth this repugn what hath been said before, where Moses, and not Aaron, had the kingdom under God. Since it is necessary, when one man institutes the form of a future commonwealth, that one should govern the kingdom which he institutes during his life, (whether it be monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy); and have all that power for the present, which he is bestowing on others for the future. Now, that Eleazar the priest had not only the priesthood, but also the sovereignty, is expressly set down in Joshua’s call to the administration. For thus it is written (Numb, xxvii. 18, 19, 20, 21): Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hand upon him, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation, and give him a charge in their sight; and thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient; and he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim, before the Lord; at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation. Where to ask counsel of God for whatsoever is to be done, that is, to interpret God’s word, and in the name of God to command in all matters, belongs to Eleazar; and to go out and to come in at his word, that is to say, to obey, belongs both to Joshua and to all the people. It is to be observed also, that that speech, part of thy glory, clearly denotes that Joshua had not a power equal with that which Moses had. In the meantime it is manifest, that even in Joshua’s time the supreme power and authority of interpreting the word of God, were both in one person.

15. After Joshua’s death follow the times of the Judges until king Saul; in which it is manifest that the right of the kingdom instituted by God, remained with the high-priest. For the kingdom was by covenant priestly, that is to say, God’s government by priests. And such ought it to have been, until that form, with God’s consent, were changed by the people themselves; which was not done before that requiring a king God consented unto them, and said unto Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 7): Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. The supreme civil power was therefore rightly due by God’s own institution to the high-priest; but actually that power was in the prophets, to whom (being raised by God in an extraordinary manner) the Israelites, a people greedy of prophets, submitted themselves to be protected and judged, by reason of the great esteem they had of prophecies. The reason of this thing was, because that though penalties were set and judges appointed in the institution of God’s priestly kingdom; yet, the right of inflicting punishment depended wholly on private judgment; and it belonged to a dissolute multitude and each single person to punish or not to punish, according as their private zeal should stir them up. And therefore Moses by his own command punished no man with death; but when any man was to be put to death, one or many stirred up the multitude against him or them, by divine authority, and saying, Thus saith the Lord. Now this was conformable to the nature of God’s peculiar kingdom. For there God reigns indeed, where his laws are obeyed not for fear of men, but for fear of himself. And truly, if men were such as they should be, this were an excellent state of civil government; but as men are, there is a coercive power (in which I comprehend both right and might) necessary to rule them. And therefore also God, from the beginning, prescribed laws by Moses for the future kings (Deut. xvii. 14-20). And Moses foretold this in his last words to the people, saying (Deut. xxxi. 29): I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you, &c. When therefore according to this prediction there arose another generation (Judges ii. 10-11) who knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel, the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Balaam; to wit, they cast off God’s government, that is to say, that of the priest, by whom God ruled; and afterward, when they were overcome by their enemies and oppressed with bondage, they looked for God’s will, not at the hands of the priest any more, but of the prophets. These therefore actually judged Israel; but their obedience was rightly due to the high-priest. Although therefore the priestly kingdom, after the death of Moses and Joshua, was without power; yet was it not without right. Now that the interpretation of God’s word did belong to the same high-priest, is manifest by this; that God, after the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant was consecrated, spake no more in Mount Sinai, but in the tabernacle of the covenant, from the propitiatory which was between the cherubims, whither it was not lawful for any to approach except the high-priest. If therefore regard be had to the right of the kingdom, the supreme civil power and the authority of interpreting God’s word were joined in the high-priest. If we consider the fact, they were united in the prophets who judged Israel. For as judges, they had the civil authority; as prophets, they interpreted God’s word. And thus every way hitherto these two powers continued inseparable.

16. Kings being once constituted, it is no doubt but the civil authority belonged to them. For the kingdom of God by the way of priesthood (God consenting to the request of the Israelites) was ended; which Hierom also marks, speaking of the books of Samuel. Samuel, says he, Eli being dead and Saul slain, declares the old law abolished. Furthermore, the oaths of the new priesthood and new sovereignty in Zadok and David, do testify that the right, whereby the kings did rule, was founded in the very concession of the people. The priest could rightly do whatsoever every man could rightly do himself; for the Israelites granted him a right to judge of all things, and to wage war for all men; in which two are contained all right whatsoever can be conceived from man to man. Our king say they (1 Sam. viii. 20) shall judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Judicature therefore belonged to the kings. But to judge is nothing else, than by interpreting to apply the laws to the facts. To them therefore belonged the interpretation of laws too. And because there was no other written word of God acknowledged beside the law of Moses, until the captivity; the authority of interpreting God’s word did also belong to the kings. Nay, forasmuch as the word of God must be taken for a law, if there had been another written word beside the Mosaical law, seeing the interpretation of laws belonged to the kings, the interpretation of it must also have belonged to them. When the book of Deuteronomy, in which the whole Mosaical law was contained, being a long time lost was found again; the priests indeed asked counsel of God concerning that book, but not by their own authority, but by the commandment of Josiah; and not immediately neither, but by the means of Holda the prophetess. Whence it appears that the authority of admitting books for the word of God, belonged not to the priest. Neither yet follows it, that that authority belonged to the prophetess; because others did judge of the prophets, whether they were to be held for true or not. For to what end did God give signs and tokens to all the people, whereby the true prophets might be discerned from the false; namely, the event of predictions, and conformity with the religion established by Moses; if they might not use those marks? The authority therefore of admitting books for the word of God, belonged to the king; and thus that book of the law was approved, and received again by the authority of king Josiah; as appears by the second book of the Kings, chap, xxii. xxiii.: where it is reported that he gathered together all the several degrees of his kingdom, the elders, priests, prophets, and all the people; and he read in their ears all the words of the covenant; that is to say, he caused that covenant to be acknowledged for the Mosaical covenant; that is to say, for the word of God; and to be again received and confirmed by the Israelites. The civil power therefore, and the power of discerning God’s word from the words of men, and of interpreting God’s word even in the days of the kings, was wholly belonging to themselves. Prophets were sent not with authority, but in the form and by the right of proclaimers and preachers, of whom the hearers did judge. And if perhaps these were punished who did not listen to them plainly, teaching easy things; it doth not thence follow, that the kings were obliged to follow all things which they, in God’s name, did declare were to be followed. For though Josiah, the good king of Judah, were slain because he obeyed not the word of the Lord from the mouth of Necho king of Egypt; that is to say, because he rejected good counsel though it seemed to come from an enemy; yet no man I hope will say that Josiah was, by any bond either of divine or human laws, obliged to believe Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt, because he said that God had spoken to him. But what some man may object against kings, that for want of learning they are seldom able enough to interpret those books of antiquity, in the which God’s word is contained; and that for this cause, it is not reasonable that this office should depend on their authority; he may object as much against the priests and all mortal men; for they may err. And although priests were better instructed in nature and arts than other men, yet kings are able enough to appoint such interpreters under them; and so, though kings did not themselves interpret the word of God, yet the office of interpreting them might depend on their authority. And they who therefore refuse to yield up this authority to kings, because they cannot practice the office itself, do as much as if they should say, that the authority of teaching geometry must not depend upon kings, except they themselves were geometricians. We read that kings have prayed for the people; that they have blessed the people; that they have consecrated the temple; that they have commanded the priests; that they have removed priests from their office; that they have constituted others. Sacrifices indeed they have not offered; for that was hereditary to Aaron and his sons. But it is manifest, as in Moses’ lifetime, so throughout all ages, from king Saul to the captivity of Babylon, that the priesthood was not a maistry, but a ministry.

17. After their return from Babylonian bondage, the covenant being renewed and signed, the priestly kingdom was restored to the same manner it was in from the death of Joshua to the beginning of the kings; excepting that it is not expressly set down, that the returned Jews did give up the right of sovereignty either to Esdras, by whose direction they ordered their state, or to any other beside God himself. That reformation seems rather to be nothing else, than the bare promises and vows of every man, to observe those things which were written in the book of the law. Notwithstanding, (perhaps not by the people’s intention), by virtue of the covenant which they then renewed, (for the covenant was the same with that which was made at Mount Sinai), that same state was a priestly kingdom; that is to say, the supreme civil authority and the sacred were united in the priests. Now, howsoever through the ambition of those who strove for the priesthood, and by the interposition of foreign princes, it was so troubled till our Saviour Jesus Christ’s time, that it cannot be understood out of the histories of those times, where that authority resided; yet it is plain, that in those times the power of interpreting God’s word was not severed from the supreme civil power.

18. Out of all this, we may easily know how the Jews, in all times from Abraham unto Christ, were to behave themselves in the commands of their princes. For as in kingdoms merely human, men must obey a subordinate magistrate in all things, excepting when his commands contain in them some treason; so in the kingdom of God, the Jews were bound to obey their princes, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the priest, the king, every one during their time in all things, except when their commands did contain some treason against the Divine Majesty. Now treason against the Divine Majesty was, first, the denial of divine providence; for this was to deny God to be a king by nature: next, idolatry, or the worship not of other, (for there is but one God), but of strange Gods; that is to say, a worship though of one God, yet under other titles, attributes, and rites, than what were established by Abraham and Moses; for this was to deny the God of Abraham to be their king by covenant made with Abraham and themselves. In all other things they were to obey. And if a king or priest, having the sovereign authority, had commanded somewhat else to be done which was against the laws, that had been his sin, and not his subject’s; whose duty it is, not to dispute, but to obey the commands of his superiors.