Part III, Chapter XL, 2

When Aaron died, and Moses after him, the Kingdom, being a priestly Kingdom, descended by virtue of the Covenant to Aaron's son Eleazar, the High Priest. God declared Eleazar Sovereign next under himself at the same time that he appointed Joshua general of their army. For God says expressly of Joshua (Numb. 27.21.), “He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him.” The supreme power to make war and peace, therefore, rested with the Priest. The supreme judicial power also belonged to the High Priest, for the Book of the Law was in the priests' keeping, and only priests and Levites were subordinate judges in civil cases, as appears in Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. And no one ever doubted that the High Priest had supreme authority over the manner of God's worship until the time of Saul. Civil and ecclesiastical power were thus united in the same person, the High Priest, and ought to be so united in whoever governs by Divine Right, that is, by authority received directly from God.

Between Joshua's death and the time of Saul, the Book of Judges frequently observes “that in those days there was no King in Israel,” sometimes adding that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Where it says “there was no King,” we should understand “there was no Sovereign Power” in Israel. And this was true if we consider the action and exercise of such power. For after the deaths of Joshua and Eleazar, “another generation arose” (Judges 2.10.) “that did not know the Lord or the works he had done for Israel, but did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim.” The Jews had the trait St. Paul notes, “to seek a sign,” not only before submitting to Moses's government, but even after obliging themselves by that submission. Yet the purpose of signs and miracles was to secure faith, not to prevent people from breaking it once given: they are already bound to keep it by the Law of Nature. But if we consider the right to govern rather than its exercise, Sovereign Power still belonged to the High Priest. Therefore whatever obedience was paid to any of the Judges, men chosen extraordinarily by God to rescue his rebellious subjects from their enemies, it cannot be taken as evidence against the High Priest's right to Sovereign Power in all matters of government and religion. Neither the Judges nor even Samuel had an ordinary calling to govern: theirs was extraordinary. The Israelites obeyed them not from duty but from reverence for the favor they enjoyed with God, manifest in their wisdom, courage, or success. Thus far, then, the rights to regulate both government and religion remained inseparable.

Kings succeeded the Judges; and just as all authority in religion and government formerly belonged to the High Priest, so now it belonged to the King. For the people, with God's own consent, cast off the Sovereignty over them previously vested, both by divine power and by the Israelites' particular pact, in God and next under him in the High Priest as his representative on earth. When they said to Samuel (1 Sam. 8.5.), “Make us a King to judge us, like all the nations,” they signified that they would no longer be governed by commands laid upon them by the Priest in God's name, but by one who would command them as other nations were commanded. Thus in removing the High Priest from royal authority, they removed God's special government over them. Yet God consented, saying to Samuel (verse 7.), “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” Since they had rejected God, in whose right the priests governed, the priests retained only such authority as the King chose to allow them, more or less according as the Kings were good or evil. Civil government, plainly, was entirely in the King's hands. For in verse 20. of the same chapter, the people say that they will be like the other nations: their King shall judge them, go before them, and fight their battles; that is, he shall have full authority in both peace and war. This includes the ordering of religion, for at that time there was no Word of God to regulate religion other than the Law of Moses, which was also their civil law. Moreover, we read (1 Kings 2.27.) that Solomon “removed Abiathar from being Priest before the Lord.” He therefore had authority over the High Priest as over any other subject, a strong sign of supremacy in religion. We also read (1 Kings 8.) that he dedicated the Temple, blessed the people, and personally uttered that excellent prayer used in the consecration of all churches and houses of prayer: another strong sign of supremacy in religion. Again, we read (2 Kings 22.) that when a question arose about the Book of the Law found in the Temple, it was not decided by the High Priest. Josiah sent him and others to inquire of Hulda the prophetess about it: another sign of supremacy in religion. Lastly, we read (1 Chro. 26.30.) that David appointed Hashabiah and his brothers, Hebronites, as officers of Israel in the western territories, “in all the business of the Lord and in the service of the King.” Likewise (verse 32.), he appointed other Hebronites “rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh”—the rest of Israel living beyond the Jordan—“for every matter pertaining to God and affairs of the King.” Is this not full power, both temporal and spiritual, as those who would divide it call them? In conclusion, from the first institution of God's Kingdom until the Captivity, supremacy in religion rested in the same hands as civil Sovereignty; and after Saul was chosen, the priest's office was not magisterial but ministerial.

Although government in both public affairs and religion was united by right, first in the High Priests and later in the Kings, the same sacred history shows that the people did not understand this. A large proportion of them, probably the greater part, gave sufficient credit to Moses's reputation or the conversations between God and the priests only while they saw great miracles, or what amounts to a miracle: great ability or great success in their governors' undertakings. Whenever their governors displeased them, they seized upon objections to government at one time and to religion at another to change the government or abandon their obedience as they pleased. From this arose, time and again, the nation's civil troubles, divisions, and calamities. For example, after Eleazar and Joshua died, the next generation had not seen God's wonders and was left to its own weak reason. Unaware that the Covenant of a priestly Kingdom bound them, they paid no heed to the Priest's commands or any law of Moses; each did what was right in his own eyes. In civil affairs they obeyed whichever men they thought capable, from time to time, of delivering them from the neighboring nations that oppressed them. Instead of consulting God, as they ought to have done, they consulted men or women whom they guessed to be prophets because they predicted things to come; and though they kept an idol in their chapel, they thought that if they had a Levite for their chaplain, they were worshipping the God of Israel.

Later, when they demanded a King like those of other nations, they did not intend to abandon the worship of God their King. Rather, despairing of justice from Samuel's sons, they wanted a King to judge them in civil matters, but did not mean to allow their King to change the religion they believed Moses had commended to them. Thus they always kept a pretext of either justice or religion ready to release themselves from obedience whenever they hoped to prevail. Samuel was displeased that the people wanted a King, for God was already their King and Samuel held authority only under him. Yet when Saul did not follow his counsel to destroy Agag as God had commanded, Samuel anointed another King, David, to take the succession from Saul's heirs. Rehoboam was no idolater, but when the people thought him an oppressor, that civil pretext led ten tribes away from him to the idolater Jeroboam. Throughout the history of the Kings of Judah and Israel, prophets continually rebuked the Kings for breaches of religion, and sometimes for errors of state as well. Thus (2 Chro. 19. 2.) the prophet Jehu reproved Jehosaphat for aiding the King of Israel against the Syrians, and Isaiah reproved Hezekiah for showing his treasures to the ambassadors of Babylon. All this shows that, although power in both state and religion rested with the Kings, none of them exercised it without challenge except those who won favor through their natural abilities or good fortune. The practice of those times therefore provides no argument against the Kings' right to supremacy in religion, unless we place that right in the prophets. We would have to conclude that because Hezekiah, praying to the Lord before the cherubim, was not answered there and then, but later through the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah was supreme Head of the Church; or that because Josiah consulted the prophetess Hulda about the Book of the Law, neither he nor the High Priest but Hulda held supreme authority in matters of religion. I do not think any teacher holds that opinion.

During the Captivity the Jews had no Common-wealth at all. After their return, though they renewed their Covenant with God, they made no promise of obedience to Esdras or anyone else. Soon afterward they became subjects of the Greeks, whose customs and demonology, together with the doctrine of the Cabalists, greatly corrupted their religion. Nothing about supremacy in state or religion can therefore be inferred from their confusion in both. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, then, we may conclude that whoever held Sovereignty over the Jewish Common-wealth also held supreme authority over God's outward worship and represented God's person: that is, the person of God the Father, though he was not called Father until he sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to redeem humankind from sin and bring them into his everlasting Kingdom, to be saved forever. Of this we shall speak in the following chapter.

CHAPTER XLI. ON THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOR

After Aaron and then Moses died, the Kingdom passed by the Covenant to Aaron's son Eleazar, the high priest, because it was a priestly Kingdom. God declared Eleazar Sovereign under himself when he appointed Joshua commander of the army. God says expressly about Joshua (Numb. 27.21.), “He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask the Lord for guidance on his behalf. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in: Joshua and all the children of Israel with him.” The supreme power to make war and peace therefore belonged to the priest. The high priest also held supreme judicial power. The priests kept the Book of the Law, and priests and Levites alone served as lower judges in civil cases, as Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. shows. Nobody questioned the high priest's supreme authority over how God was worshiped until Saul's time. Thus civil and religious power were joined in the same person, the high priest. They ought likewise to be joined in anyone who rules by divine right, meaning authority received directly from God.

The Book of Judges often says that between Joshua's death and Saul's time “there was no king in Israel.” Sometimes it adds that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” “There was no king” means there was no Sovereign power in Israel. That was true if we consider how such power was actually used. After Joshua and Eleazar died, “another generation arose” (Judges 2.10.) “who did not know the Lord or the works he had done for Israel. They did evil in the Lord's sight and served Baalim.” The Jews also had the trait St. Paul points out: they looked for a sign. They demanded signs not only before submitting to Moses' government but even after they had bound themselves by submitting. Yet signs and miracles are meant to create faith, not to keep people from breaking the faith they have pledged. Once they have pledged it, the law of Nature binds them. But if we look at the right to rule rather than how it was exercised, Sovereign power remained with the high priest. The people sometimes obeyed judges, men God selected in an unusual way to rescue his rebellious subjects from their enemies. Such obedience does not count against the high priest's right to Sovereign power over both civil affairs and religion. Neither the judges nor Samuel himself received an ordinary appointment to rule. Their appointment was extraordinary. The Israelites obeyed them not because duty required it, but out of respect for their favor with God, shown in their wisdom, courage, or success. So up to this point the right to regulate government and religion was inseparable.

Kings succeeded the judges. All authority in religion and government had previously belonged to the high priest; now it belonged to the king. Previously, by God's power and by a special agreement between the Israelites and God, Sovereignty over the people belonged to God and, under him, to the high priest as his deputy on Earth. The people cast off that arrangement with God's own consent. When they said to Samuel (1 Sam. 8.5.), “Appoint a king to judge us like all the nations,” they meant they no longer wanted to be ruled by commands issued by the priest in God's name. They wanted a ruler who would command them as other nations were commanded. By removing the high priest's royal authority, they also removed that particular form of God's government. Yet God agreed. He told Samuel (verse 7.), “Listen to everything the people say to you. They have not rejected you; they have rejected me as their king.” Since they had rejected God, whose authority the priests exercised, the priests had no authority left except what the king chose to grant. Good or bad kings granted more or less of it. Clearly, the king controlled civil government entirely. In verse 20. of the same chapter, the people say they want to be like the other nations. Their king will judge them, go before them, and fight their battles. In other words, he will hold all authority in peace and war. This includes control of religion. At that time the only word of God by which religion could be regulated was the law of Moses, which was also their civil law. Further, 1 Kings 2.27. says Solomon “removed Abiathar from being a priest before the Lord.” Solomon therefore had authority over the high priest as over any other subject, a strong sign of supremacy in religion. We also read in 1 Kings 8. that he dedicated the Temple, blessed the people, and personally spoke the excellent prayer used at the dedication of all churches and houses of prayer. This too is a strong sign of supremacy in religion. Again, 2 Kings 22. tells how a question arose about the Book of the Law found in the Temple. The high priest did not settle it. Josiah sent him and others to ask Hulda the prophetess about it. This is another sign of supremacy in religion. Finally, 1 Chro. 26.30. says David appointed Hashabiah and his brothers, who were Hebronites, as officers over Israel in the west “in all the Lord's business and in the king's service.” Verse 32. likewise says he appointed other Hebronites as “rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh”—the remaining Israelites living beyond the Jordan—“for every matter concerning God and for the king's business.” Is that not complete temporal and spiritual power, as those who would divide it call it? In short, from the first establishment of God's Kingdom to the Captivity, supreme power in religion was held by whoever held civil Sovereignty. Once Saul was chosen, the priests' role was not to command but to serve.

Yet even though the right to govern both civil affairs and religion belonged first to the high priests and then to the kings, the sacred history shows that the people did not understand this. A large part of them, probably most, trusted reports about Moses or accounts of conversations between God and the priests only while they saw great miracles, or something equivalent: great ability in their rulers or great success in their undertakings. Whenever their rulers displeased them, they used complaints about civil government or religion as an excuse to change the government or abandon their obedience whenever they pleased. This caused the nation's recurring civil unrest, divisions, and disasters. For example, the generation after Eleazar and Joshua died had not seen God's wonders and was left to its own weak reasoning. They did not understand that the Covenant bound them to a priestly Kingdom. They disregarded the priest's commands and Moses' laws, and each did what seemed right to him. In civil matters they obeyed whoever they thought could rescue them from neighboring nations that oppressed them. Instead of consulting God, as they should have done, they consulted men or women they guessed were prophets because they predicted future events. Even if they kept an idol in their chapel, they thought they worshiped the God of Israel as long as their chaplain was a Levite.

Later, when they asked for a king like the other nations, they did not intend to abandon worship of God as their King. They had lost faith in the justice of Samuel's sons and wanted a king to judge their civil disputes. But they did not intend to let that king change the religion they believed Moses had taught them. They therefore always kept an excuse based on justice or religion ready to release themselves from obedience whenever they hoped to succeed. Samuel was displeased when the people wanted a king, since God was already their King and Samuel held authority only under him. Yet when Saul did not follow Samuel's advice to destroy Agag as God had commanded, Samuel anointed David as another king, removing Saul's heirs from the succession. Rehoboam was not an idol worshiper. But when the people thought he was an oppressor, that civil grievance led ten tribes to leave him for Jeroboam, who did worship idols. Throughout the history of the kings of Judah and Israel, prophets regularly criticized kings for violating religion and sometimes also for errors of state policy. For example (2 Chro. 19. 2.), the prophet Jehu reproved Jehosaphat for helping the king of Israel against the Syrians, and Isaiah reproved Hezekiah for showing his treasures to the ambassadors of Babylon. All this shows that although the kings held power over state and religion, none of them was free from challenges in using it except those who enjoyed favor because of their own natural abilities or successes. We cannot therefore argue from the practices of those times that supreme authority in religion did not belong to the kings, unless we give it to the prophets. That would mean concluding that Isaiah was supreme head of the church because Hezekiah's prayer before the cherubim did not receive an answer there and then, but received one later through Isaiah. Or we would have to conclude that neither Josiah nor the high priest but Hulda the prophetess held supreme religious authority, because Josiah consulted her about the Book of the Law. I do not think any teacher holds that view.

During the Captivity the Jews had no Common-wealth at all. After they returned, they renewed their Covenant with God, but made no promise to obey Esdras or anyone else. Soon afterward they became subjects of the Greeks. Greek customs and beliefs about spirits, along with the teachings of the Cabalists, badly corrupted their religion. Their resulting confusion in government and religion tells us nothing about who held supreme authority in either. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, then, we can conclude that whoever held Sovereignty over the Jewish Common-wealth also had supreme authority over the outward worship of God and represented God's person: the person of God the Father. God was not called Father until he sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to redeem humanity from sin and bring people into his everlasting Kingdom, where they would be saved forever. We must speak of this in the next chapter.

Chapter XLI. The Office of Our Blessed Savior