OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD UNDER THE OLD COVENANT.
1. Superstition possessing foreign nations, God instituted true
religion by the means of Abraham. 2. By the covenant between God
and Adam, all dispute is forbidden concerning the commands of
superiors. 3. The manner of the covenant between God and
Abraham. 4. In that covenant is contained an acknowledgment of
God, not simply, but of him who appeared unto Abraham. 5. The
laws unto which Abraham was tied, were no other beside those of
nature, and the law of circumcision. 6. Abraham was the
interpreter of the word of God, and of all laws among those that
belonged to him. 7. Abraham’s subjects could not sin by obeying
him. 8. God’s covenant with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai. 9. From
thence God’s government took the name of a kingdom. 10. What
laws were by God given to the Jews. 11. What the word of God is,
and how to be known. 12. What was held the written word of God
among the Jews. 13. The power of interpreting the word of God,
and the supreme civil power, were united in Moses while he
lived. 14. They were also united in the high-priest, during the
life of Joshua. 15. They were united too in the high-priest
until king Saul’s time. 16. They were also united in the kings
until the captivity. 17. They were so in the high-priests after
the captivity. 18. Denial of the Divine Providence, and
idolatry, were the only treasons against the Divine Majesty
among the Jews; in all things else they ought to obey their
princes.
[Sidenote: Superstition possessing foreign nations, God instituted
the true religion by the means of Abraham.]
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.
[Sidenote: By the covenant between God and Adam, all dispute is
forbidden concerning the commands of superiors.]
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_.
[Sidenote: The manner of the covenant between God and Abraham.]
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_.
[Sidenote: In that covenant is contained an acknowledgment of God,
not simply, but of him who appeared unto Abraham.]
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.
[Sidenote: The laws to which Abraham was tied were no other, but
those of nature and that of circumcision.]
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.
[Sidenote: Abraham among his own was the interpreter of the word of
God and of all laws.]
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?
[Sidenote: Abraham’s subjects could not sin in obeying him.]
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.
Footnote 20:
_In images made with hands._ In chap. XV. art. 14, there we have
showed such a kind of worship to be irrational. But if it be done
by the command of a city, to whom the written word of God is not
known nor received, we have then showed this worship (in article
18) to be rational. But where God reigns by way of covenant, in
which it is expressly warned not to worship thus, as in the
covenant made with Abraham; there, whether it be with or without
the command of the city, it is ill done.
[Sidenote: God’s covenant with the Hebrews at Mount Sinai.]
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._
[Sidenote: From thence God’s government was called a kingdom.]
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._
[Sidenote: What laws were by God given to the Jews.]
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.
[Sidenote: What the word of God is, and how to be known.]
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.
[Sidenote: What was held for the written word of God among the
Jews.]
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.
[Sidenote: The power of interpreting the word of God, and the
supreme civil power, were united in Moses while he
lived.]
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 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.
[Sidenote: They were also united in the high-priest, during the life
of Joshua.]
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.
[Sidenote: They were also united in the high-priest, until king
Saul’s time.]
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.
[Sidenote: They were united in the kings, until the captivity.]
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.
[Sidenote: The same were united in the priests, after the
captivity.]
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.
[Sidenote: Among the Jews, the denial of the Divine providence and
idolatry, were the only treasons against the Divine
Majesty: in all other things they ought to obey their
princes.]
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.
-------